Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy Clinical Classification System With Recommended Surgical Strategy

A new cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy clinical classification system based on anterior myometrial thickness and gestational sac diameter with recommended surgical strategy for each classification type resulted in high treatment success rates. OBJECTIVE: To establish a new cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy clinical classification system with recommended individual surgical strategy and to evaluate its clinical efficacy in treatment of cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy in Qilu Hospital in Shandong, China. From 2008 to 2015, patients with cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy were included to determine risk factors for intraoperative hemorrhage during cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy treatment. Univariable analysis and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to explore the independent risk factors for hemorrhage (300 mL or greater) during a cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy surgical procedure. The model was internally validated with a separate cohort. Receiver operating characteristic curve methodology was used to identify optimal thresholds for the identified risk factors to further classify cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy risk, and the recommended operative treatment was established for each classification group by expert consensus. A final cohort of patients from 2014 to 2022 were classified according to the new classification system, and the recommended surgical procedure and clinical outcomes were abstracted from the medical record. RESULTS: Overall, 955 patients with first-trimester cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy were included; 273 were used to develop a model to predict intraoperative hemorrhage with cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy, and 118 served as an internal validation group for the model. Anterior myometrium thickness at the scar (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.51, 95% CI 0.36–0.73) and average diameter of the gestational sac or mass (aOR 1.10, 95% CI 1.07–1.14) were independent risk factors for intraoperative hemorrhage of cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy. Five clinical classifications of cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy were established on the basis of the thickness and gestational sac diameter, and the optimal surgical option for each type was recommended by clinical experts. When the classification system was applied to a separate cohort of 564 patients with cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy, the overall success rate of recommended first-line treatment with the new classification grouping was 97.5% (550/564). No patients needed to undergo hysterectomy. Eighty-five percent of patients had a negative serum β-hCG level within 3 weeks after the surgical procedure; 95.2% of patients resumed their menstrual cycles within 8 weeks. CONCLUSION: Anterior myometrium thickness at the scar and the diameter of the gestational sac were confirmed to be independent risk factors for intraoperative hemorrhage during cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy treatment. A new clinical classification system based on these factors with recommended surgical strategy resulted in high treatment success rates with minimal complications.

[1]  Wei Liu,et al.  Comparison of different treatment strategies in the management of endogenic caesarean scar pregnancy: a multicentre retrospective study , 2022, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.

[2]  H. Chueh,et al.  Hysteroscopic removal, with or without laparoscopic assistance, of first-trimester cesarean scar pregnancy. , 2022, Fertility and sterility.

[3]  Y. Zhang,et al.  Risk factors for massive hemorrhage during the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2020, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

[4]  Russell S. Miller,et al.  Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) Consult Series #49: Cesarean scar pregnancy. , 2020, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[5]  I. Timor-Tritsch,et al.  Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: Diagnosis and Pathogenesis. , 2019, Obstetrics and gynecology clinics of North America.

[6]  I. Timor-Tritsch,et al.  Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: Patient Counseling and Management. , 2019, Obstetrics and gynecology clinics of North America.

[7]  M. Li,et al.  Risk factors and consequences of undiagnosed cesarean scar pregnancy: a cohort study in China , 2019, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.

[8]  Qing-qing Wu,et al.  Application of ultrasonography in the diagnosis and treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy. , 2018, Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry.

[9]  C. Hsieh,et al.  New ultrasound grading system for cesarean scar pregnancy and its implications for management strategies: An observational cohort study , 2018, PloS one.

[10]  T. Tulandi,et al.  Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Systematic Review. , 2017, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[11]  Jingrui Huang,et al.  Clinical classification and treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy , 2017, The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research.

[12]  I. Timor-Tritsch,et al.  Ultrasound diagnosis and management of acquired uterine enhanced myometrial vascularity/arteriovenous malformations. , 2016, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[13]  E. Hoffmann,et al.  Cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review of treatment studies. , 2016, Fertility and sterility.

[14]  C. Bian,et al.  Risk factors for intra-operative haemorrhage and bleeding risk scoring system for caesarean scar pregnancy: a case-control study. , 2015, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[15]  Yunyan Sun,et al.  Management of type II unruptured cesarean scar pregnancy: Comparison of gestational mass excision and uterine artery embolization combined with methotrexate. , 2015, Taiwanese journal of obstetrics & gynecology.

[16]  I. Timor-Tritsch,et al.  The diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of cesarean scar pregnancy. , 2012, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[17]  Jae Kwan Lee,et al.  Classification and management of cervical ectopic pregnancies: experience at a single institution. , 2010, The Journal of reproductive medicine.

[18]  S. Haberman,et al.  Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancies: Etiology, Diagnosis, and Management , 2006, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[19]  K. Seow,et al.  Cesarean scar pregnancy: issues in management , 2004, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[20]  K. Hillaby,et al.  First‐trimester diagnosis and management of pregnancies implanted into the lower uterine segment Cesarean section scar , 2003, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[21]  D. Fylstra Ectopic Pregnancy Within a Cesarean Scar: A Review , 2002, Obstetrical & gynecological survey.

[22]  P. Hohlfeld,et al.  Pregnancy in a Cesarean scar , 2000, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.