Ultrasound characteristics, serum biochemistry and outcome of ectopic pregnancies presenting during COVID-19 pandemic.
COVID-19
SARS-CoV-2
early pregnancy
ectopic pregnancy
gynecology
ultrasound
Journal
Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
ISSN: 1469-0705
Titre abrégé: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9108340
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2021
12 2021
Historique:
revised:
14
09
2021
received:
10
05
2021
accepted:
28
09
2021
pubmed:
5
10
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
4
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To describe and compare the characteristics of ectopic pregnancies (EPs) in the year prior to vs during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This was a retrospective analysis of women diagnosed with an EP on transvaginal sonography conducted at a center in London, UK, providing early-pregnancy assessment, between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2020. Women were identified via the Astraia ultrasound reporting system using coded and non-coded outcomes of EP or pregnancy outside the uterine cavity. Data related to predefined outcomes were collected using Astraia and Cerner electronic reporting systems. Main outcome measures included clinical, ultrasound and biochemical features of EP, in addition to reported complications and management. There were 22 683 consultations over the 2-year period. Following consultation, a similar number and proportion of EPs were diagnosed in 2019 (141/12 657 (1%)) and 2020 (134/10 026 (1%)). Both cohorts were comparable in age, ethnicity, weight and method of conception. Gestational age at the first transvaginal sonography scan and at diagnosis were similar, and no difference in location, size or morphology of EP was found between the two cohorts. Serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) levels at the time of EP diagnosis were higher in 2020 than in 2019 (1005 IU/L vs 665 IU/L; P = 0.03). The proportions of women according to type of final EP management were similar, but the rate of failed first-line management was higher during vs before the pandemic (16% vs 6%; P = 0.01). The rates of blood detected in the pelvis (hemoperitoneum) on ultrasound (23% vs 26%; P = 0.58) and of ruptured EP confirmed surgically (9% vs 3%; P = 0.07) were similar in 2019 vs 2020. No difference was observed in the location, size, morphology or gestational age at the first ultrasound examination or at diagnosis of EP between women diagnosed before vs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Complication rates and final management strategy were also unchanged. However, hCG levels and the failure rate of first-line conservative management measures were higher during the pandemic. Our findings suggest that women continued to access appropriate care for EP during the COVID-19 pandemic, with no evidence of diagnostic delay or an increase in adverse outcome in our population. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34605083
doi: 10.1002/uog.24793
pmc: PMC8661840
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
909-915Subventions
Organisme : Imperial Health Charity
ID : RFPrD1920/116
Organisme : NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre
ID : IS-BRC-1215-20013
Informations de copyright
© 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Références
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jun;57(6):1013-1014
pubmed: 33880806
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Mar 14;(3):CD003518
pubmed: 22419288
BMJ. 2020 Apr 6;369:m1401
pubmed: 32253175
BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 2;6(11):e011864
pubmed: 27807081
BJOG. 2019 Jan;126(2):190-198
pubmed: 30129999
Hum Reprod. 2007 Nov;22(11):2824-8
pubmed: 17855406
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan;55(1):105-114
pubmed: 31385381
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jun;55(6):871-878
pubmed: 32267981
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020 Nov 16;:1-7
pubmed: 33198540
Int J Clin Pract. 2021 May;75(5):e13925
pubmed: 33368867
BJOG. 2021 Feb;128(3):552-562
pubmed: 32931087
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Aug;56(2):289
pubmed: 32573042
Hum Reprod Update. 2018 Nov 1;24(6):731-749
pubmed: 30204882
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Apr;222(4):367.e1-367.e22
pubmed: 31953115
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2021 Jun;153(3):457-461
pubmed: 33599285
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Dec;26(7):770-5
pubmed: 16308901
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jan;57(1):141-148
pubmed: 33032364
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jun;55(6):879-885
pubmed: 32267984
BJOG. 2020 Oct;127(11):1318-1323
pubmed: 32716588
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021 Apr;259:95-99
pubmed: 33636621