Cargando…

Recurrent ectopic pregnancy as a unique clinical sub group: a case control study

BACKGROUND: Women with recurrent ectopic pregnancy (EP) represent a unique cohort of patients in whom diagnostic expertise is paramount. We determined whether recurrent EP is associated with significant differences in patient demographics, clinical presentation, risk factors and surgical findings wh...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hurrell, Alice, Reeba, Oliver, Funlayo, Odejinmi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4775712/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27006874
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-1798-0
_version_ 1782419044480057344
author Hurrell, Alice
Reeba, Oliver
Funlayo, Odejinmi
author_facet Hurrell, Alice
Reeba, Oliver
Funlayo, Odejinmi
author_sort Hurrell, Alice
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Women with recurrent ectopic pregnancy (EP) represent a unique cohort of patients in whom diagnostic expertise is paramount. We determined whether recurrent EP is associated with significant differences in patient demographics, clinical presentation, risk factors and surgical findings when compared with primary EP. METHODS: A retrospective case–control study of all EPs diagnosed from 2003 to 2014, at Whipps Cross University Hospital, London. RESULTS: In the above period 849 EPs were surgically managed (758 primary EPs and 91 recurrent EPs). Recurrent EPs were significantly older than primary EPs (32.2 ± 5.08 vs. 30.5 ± 5.83 years, p < 0.05). They presented at a significantly earlier gestation (5.99 ± 1.08 vs. 6.52 ± 1.81 weeks, p < 0.05) and with a significantly lower primary βHCG (3176 ± 7350 vs. 6243 ± 12,282, p < 0.05). Recurrent EPs were significantly more likely to have a positive history of tubal or pelvic surgery (61.5 % vs. 3.5 %, p < 0.05 and 53.8 vs. 14 %, p < 0.05). At surgery, primary EPs had a significantly greater volume of hemoperitoneum (592 ± 850 vs. 249 ± 391 ml, p < 0.05), whereas recurrent EPs were significantly more likely to have contralateral pathology (31.1 vs. 9.8 %, p < 0.05). Regression analysis showed that the parameters of age, gestational age at presentation, first βHCG level, positive history of previous tubal surgery and previous ectopic pregnancy differ in women at risk of a recurrent EP when compared to women not at risk of a recurrent ectopic (AUC, 0.844). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that recurrent EPs may represent a unique sub-group of patients with EP.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4775712
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47757122016-03-22 Recurrent ectopic pregnancy as a unique clinical sub group: a case control study Hurrell, Alice Reeba, Oliver Funlayo, Odejinmi Springerplus Research BACKGROUND: Women with recurrent ectopic pregnancy (EP) represent a unique cohort of patients in whom diagnostic expertise is paramount. We determined whether recurrent EP is associated with significant differences in patient demographics, clinical presentation, risk factors and surgical findings when compared with primary EP. METHODS: A retrospective case–control study of all EPs diagnosed from 2003 to 2014, at Whipps Cross University Hospital, London. RESULTS: In the above period 849 EPs were surgically managed (758 primary EPs and 91 recurrent EPs). Recurrent EPs were significantly older than primary EPs (32.2 ± 5.08 vs. 30.5 ± 5.83 years, p < 0.05). They presented at a significantly earlier gestation (5.99 ± 1.08 vs. 6.52 ± 1.81 weeks, p < 0.05) and with a significantly lower primary βHCG (3176 ± 7350 vs. 6243 ± 12,282, p < 0.05). Recurrent EPs were significantly more likely to have a positive history of tubal or pelvic surgery (61.5 % vs. 3.5 %, p < 0.05 and 53.8 vs. 14 %, p < 0.05). At surgery, primary EPs had a significantly greater volume of hemoperitoneum (592 ± 850 vs. 249 ± 391 ml, p < 0.05), whereas recurrent EPs were significantly more likely to have contralateral pathology (31.1 vs. 9.8 %, p < 0.05). Regression analysis showed that the parameters of age, gestational age at presentation, first βHCG level, positive history of previous tubal surgery and previous ectopic pregnancy differ in women at risk of a recurrent EP when compared to women not at risk of a recurrent ectopic (AUC, 0.844). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that recurrent EPs may represent a unique sub-group of patients with EP. Springer International Publishing 2016-03-03 /pmc/articles/PMC4775712/ /pubmed/27006874 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-1798-0 Text en © Hurrell et al. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Research
Hurrell, Alice
Reeba, Oliver
Funlayo, Odejinmi
Recurrent ectopic pregnancy as a unique clinical sub group: a case control study
title Recurrent ectopic pregnancy as a unique clinical sub group: a case control study
title_full Recurrent ectopic pregnancy as a unique clinical sub group: a case control study
title_fullStr Recurrent ectopic pregnancy as a unique clinical sub group: a case control study
title_full_unstemmed Recurrent ectopic pregnancy as a unique clinical sub group: a case control study
title_short Recurrent ectopic pregnancy as a unique clinical sub group: a case control study
title_sort recurrent ectopic pregnancy as a unique clinical sub group: a case control study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4775712/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27006874
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-1798-0
work_keys_str_mv AT hurrellalice recurrentectopicpregnancyasauniqueclinicalsubgroupacasecontrolstudy
AT reebaoliver recurrentectopicpregnancyasauniqueclinicalsubgroupacasecontrolstudy
AT funlayoodejinmi recurrentectopicpregnancyasauniqueclinicalsubgroupacasecontrolstudy