Evaluating cut-off levels for progesterone, β human chorionic gonadotropin and β human chorionic gonadotropin ratio to exclude pregnancy viability in women with a pregnancy of unknown location: A prospective multicenter cohort study.
early pregnancy complications
ectopic pregnancy
pregnancy
pregnancy of unknown location
reproductive endocrinology
ultrasound
Journal
Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica
ISSN: 1600-0412
Titre abrégé: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370343
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Jan 2022
Historique:
revised:
13
09
2021
received:
11
06
2021
accepted:
07
11
2021
pubmed:
25
11
2021
medline:
4
2
2022
entrez:
24
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is no global agreement on how to best determine pregnancy of unknown location viability and location using biomarkers. Measurements of progesterone and β human chorionic gonadotropin (βhCG) are still used in clinical practice to exclude the possibility of a viable intrauterine pregnancy (VIUP). We evaluate the predictive value of progesterone, βhCG, and βhCG ratio cut-off levels to exclude a VIUP in women with a pregnancy of unknown location. This was a secondary analysis of prospective multicenter study data of consecutive women with a pregnancy of unknown location between January 2015 and 2017 collected from dedicated early pregnancy assessment units of eight hospitals. Single progesterone and serial βhCG measurements were taken. Women were followed up until final pregnancy outcome between 11 and 14 weeks of gestation was confirmed using transvaginal ultrasonography: (1) VIUP, (2) non-viable intrauterine pregnancy or failed pregnancy of unknown location, and (3) ectopic pregnancy or persisting pregnancy of unknown location. The predictive value of cut-off levels for ruling out VIUP were evaluated across a range of values likely to be encountered clinically for progesterone, βhCG, and βhCG ratio. Data from 2507 of 3272 (76.6%) women were suitable for analysis. All had data for βhCG levels, 2248 (89.7%) had progesterone levels, and 1809 (72.2%) had βhCG ratio. The likelihood of viability falls with the progesterone level. Although the median progesterone level associated with viability was 59 nmol/L, VIUP were identified with levels as low as 5 nmol/L. No single βhCG cut-off reliably ruled out the presence of viability with certainty, even when the level was more than 3000 IU/L, there were 39/358 (11%) women who had a VIUP. The probability of viability decreases with the βhCG ratio. Although the median βhCG ratio associated with viability was 2.26, VIUP were identified with ratios as low as 1.02. A progesterone level below 2 nmol/L and βhCG ratio below 0.87 were unlikely to be associated with viability but were not definitive when considering multiple imputation. Cut-off levels for βhCG, βhCG ratio, and progesterone are not safe to be used clinically to exclude viability in early pregnancy. Although βhCG ratio and progesterone have slightly better performance in comparison, single βhCG used in this manner is highly unreliable.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34817062
doi: 10.1111/aogs.14295
pmc: PMC9564682
doi:
Substances chimiques
Chorionic Gonadotropin
0
Chorionic Gonadotropin, beta Subunit, Human
0
Progesterone
4G7DS2Q64Y
Types de publication
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
46-55Subventions
Organisme : Internal funds KU Leuven
ID : C24/15/037
Organisme : Imperial Health Charity
ID : RFPrD1920/116
Organisme : NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre
ID : IS-BRC-1215-20013
Organisme : NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North West London South London
ID : RDIP033
Organisme : Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
ID : G0B4716N
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).
Références
Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2019 Oct 14;74:e1111
pubmed: 31618321
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Nov;48(5):642-649
pubmed: 26776599
BMJ. 2012 Sep 27;345:e6077
pubmed: 23045257
Acad Emerg Med. 1997 Oct;4(10):967-71
pubmed: 9332628
Hum Reprod. 2008 Sep;23(9):1964-7
pubmed: 18544580
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014 Aug;179:175-80
pubmed: 24956362
Fertil Steril. 1998 Nov;70(5):972-81
pubmed: 9806587
Early Pregnancy. 1995 Dec;1(4):258-62
pubmed: 9363257
BJOG. 2019 Jan;126(2):190-198
pubmed: 30129999
Can Fam Physician. 2007 May;53(5):831-2
pubmed: 17872745
BMJ. 2015 Oct 28;351:h5527
pubmed: 26511519
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan;55(1):105-114
pubmed: 31385381
Womens Health (Lond). 2017 Aug;13(2):27-33
pubmed: 28660799
Hum Reprod. 2016 Jul;31(7):1425-35
pubmed: 27165655
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022 Jan;101(1):46-55
pubmed: 34817062
BJOG. 2006 May;113(5):521-7
pubmed: 16637896
Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Mar;131(3):e91-e103
pubmed: 29470343
BJOG. 2021 Feb;128(3):552-562
pubmed: 32931087
BJOG. 2011 May;118(6):693-7
pubmed: 21332634
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jun;33(6):704-10
pubmed: 19444818
Hum Reprod Update. 2014 Mar-Apr;20(2):250-61
pubmed: 24101604
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016 Jun;201:18-26
pubmed: 27039249
Hum Reprod Update. 2012 Nov-Dec;18(6):603-17
pubmed: 22956411
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Dec;26(7):770-5
pubmed: 16308901
BMJ. 2009 Jun 29;338:b2393
pubmed: 19564179
Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Mar;107(3):605-10
pubmed: 16507931
J Reprod Med. 2012 Mar-Apr;57(3-4):171-4
pubmed: 22523880
BMJ. 2019 Nov 13;367:l6283
pubmed: 31722871
Hum Reprod. 2014 May;29(5):938-45
pubmed: 24634251
Fertil Steril. 2013 Sep;100(3):638-44
pubmed: 23849842
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004 Sep;86(3):351-7
pubmed: 15325852
Hum Reprod. 2013 Mar;28(3):609-16
pubmed: 23293216