Cargando…

Analysis of risk factors for intraoperative hemorrhage of cesarean scar pregnancy

The current commonly used treatments for cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) include multiple treatments such as medication, uterine artery embolization, curettage and surgery, and their combinations. However, every treatment option has risks of excessive hemorrhage from uterus. In this study, we retrospe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ma, Yan, Shao, Minfang, Shao, Xiaonan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5484259/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28640149
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000007327
_version_ 1783245849657081856
author Ma, Yan
Shao, Minfang
Shao, Xiaonan
author_facet Ma, Yan
Shao, Minfang
Shao, Xiaonan
author_sort Ma, Yan
collection PubMed
description The current commonly used treatments for cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) include multiple treatments such as medication, uterine artery embolization, curettage and surgery, and their combinations. However, every treatment option has risks of excessive hemorrhage from uterus. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the risk factors for intraoperative hemorrhage of different treatments for CSP patients, with the hope to provide the guidance for CSP treatment. Fifty-eight cases of CSP patients who were treated with curettage after medication, curettage after uterine artery embolization, or surgery were retrospectively analyzed and compared for the clinical efficacy, length of hospital stay, and hemorrhage rate. Further, they were divided into the bleeding group (≥200 mL, 15 cases) and the control group (<200 mL, 43 cases). The hemorrhage-related risk factors were subjected to univariate analysis, including age, pregnant times, delivery times, abortion times or curettage times, the time from last cesarean section, menolipsis time, serum human chorionic gonadotropin level, ultrasound typing, maximum diameter of gestational sac or mass under ultrasound, peritrophoblastic blood flow around the mass, and the distance of gestational sac or mass from the uterine serosa layer. The significant indexes in univariate analysis were further analyzed using both receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis. The success rate, length of hospital stay, and hemorrhage rate were not significantly different among the 3 treatment groups (P > .05). Univariate analysis found that patients in the bleeding group had significantly longer menolipsis time and greater maximum diameter than patients in the control group (P < .05). ROC analysis showed that the optimal cutoff for menolipsis time and maximum diameter were 51 days and 27 mm, respectively, and the areas under their corresponding ROC were 0.680 and 0.787, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that only the maximum diameter in the retrospective equation was of significance (P < .05, odds ratio: 1.067, 95% confidence interval: 1.014∼1.123]. All treatments have high success rates and no significant effects on intraoperative bleeding. Both menolipsis time and maximum diameter can be used to predict the risk of intraoperative bleeding, and the latter have a greater predictive value.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5484259
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54842592017-07-06 Analysis of risk factors for intraoperative hemorrhage of cesarean scar pregnancy Ma, Yan Shao, Minfang Shao, Xiaonan Medicine (Baltimore) 5600 The current commonly used treatments for cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) include multiple treatments such as medication, uterine artery embolization, curettage and surgery, and their combinations. However, every treatment option has risks of excessive hemorrhage from uterus. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the risk factors for intraoperative hemorrhage of different treatments for CSP patients, with the hope to provide the guidance for CSP treatment. Fifty-eight cases of CSP patients who were treated with curettage after medication, curettage after uterine artery embolization, or surgery were retrospectively analyzed and compared for the clinical efficacy, length of hospital stay, and hemorrhage rate. Further, they were divided into the bleeding group (≥200 mL, 15 cases) and the control group (<200 mL, 43 cases). The hemorrhage-related risk factors were subjected to univariate analysis, including age, pregnant times, delivery times, abortion times or curettage times, the time from last cesarean section, menolipsis time, serum human chorionic gonadotropin level, ultrasound typing, maximum diameter of gestational sac or mass under ultrasound, peritrophoblastic blood flow around the mass, and the distance of gestational sac or mass from the uterine serosa layer. The significant indexes in univariate analysis were further analyzed using both receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis. The success rate, length of hospital stay, and hemorrhage rate were not significantly different among the 3 treatment groups (P > .05). Univariate analysis found that patients in the bleeding group had significantly longer menolipsis time and greater maximum diameter than patients in the control group (P < .05). ROC analysis showed that the optimal cutoff for menolipsis time and maximum diameter were 51 days and 27 mm, respectively, and the areas under their corresponding ROC were 0.680 and 0.787, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that only the maximum diameter in the retrospective equation was of significance (P < .05, odds ratio: 1.067, 95% confidence interval: 1.014∼1.123]. All treatments have high success rates and no significant effects on intraoperative bleeding. Both menolipsis time and maximum diameter can be used to predict the risk of intraoperative bleeding, and the latter have a greater predictive value. Wolters Kluwer Health 2017-06-23 /pmc/articles/PMC5484259/ /pubmed/28640149 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000007327 Text en Copyright © 2017 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
spellingShingle 5600
Ma, Yan
Shao, Minfang
Shao, Xiaonan
Analysis of risk factors for intraoperative hemorrhage of cesarean scar pregnancy
title Analysis of risk factors for intraoperative hemorrhage of cesarean scar pregnancy
title_full Analysis of risk factors for intraoperative hemorrhage of cesarean scar pregnancy
title_fullStr Analysis of risk factors for intraoperative hemorrhage of cesarean scar pregnancy
title_full_unstemmed Analysis of risk factors for intraoperative hemorrhage of cesarean scar pregnancy
title_short Analysis of risk factors for intraoperative hemorrhage of cesarean scar pregnancy
title_sort analysis of risk factors for intraoperative hemorrhage of cesarean scar pregnancy
topic 5600
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5484259/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28640149
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000007327
work_keys_str_mv AT mayan analysisofriskfactorsforintraoperativehemorrhageofcesareanscarpregnancy
AT shaominfang analysisofriskfactorsforintraoperativehemorrhageofcesareanscarpregnancy
AT shaoxiaonan analysisofriskfactorsforintraoperativehemorrhageofcesareanscarpregnancy