Cargando…

Risk factors and clinical characteristics of recurrent ectopic pregnancy: A case–control study

OBJECTIVE: To compare signs and symptoms between patients with recurrent ectopic pregnancies (REP) and primary ectopic pregnancies (PEP) and to identify potential risk factors of REP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 2014 to 2016 were analyzed. The study included 81 women each diagnosed with REP and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Xinyan, Huang, Lu, Yu, Yan, Xu, Sheng, Lai, Yucheng, Zeng, Wenjie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7384140/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32281241
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jog.14253
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To compare signs and symptoms between patients with recurrent ectopic pregnancies (REP) and primary ectopic pregnancies (PEP) and to identify potential risk factors of REP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 2014 to 2016 were analyzed. The study included 81 women each diagnosed with REP and PEP with no recurrence of ectopic pregnancy (EP) before January 2019. Information, including historical factors and findings at presentation of both group were collected. Data were compared between the two groups. Associations between REP and the risk factors were analyzed by logistic regression. RESULTS: The findings revealed that compared to the patients in the PEP group, REP patients had significantly lower education (P = 0.001), higher proportion of previous infertility (P < 0.001) and different methods of PEP treatment (P = 0.001). Clinical data of the last operation revealed significantly higher occurrences of pelvic and peritubal adhesions (P < 0.05). Further multiple regression analysis showed that lower educational background (odds ratio [OR] = 4.183 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.311–13.344 P = 0.016), nulliparity (OR = 12.312 95% CI 3.382–44.824 P < 0.001), history of salpingotomy (OR = 7.129 95% CI 1.022–49.748 P < 0.05) and abortion (OR for one abortion = 21.576, P = 0.001; OR for two abortions =36.794, P < 0.001; OR for three abortions or more = 119.013, P < 0.001) were significant risk factors for REP. CONCLUSION: Active education on contraception is required for patients with lower educational level and history of abortion. Different plans should be formulated for patients with EP. For EP patients wanting fertility, the risk between fertility preservation and REP needs to be evaluated as reproductive function cannot be pursued blindly while ignoring the risk of recurrence.