Outcome of cesarean scar pregnancy treated with local methotrexate injection

ABSTRACT Local injection of methotrexate (MTX) has been widely used for caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP), but the optimal candidate remains undetermined. The aim of this study is to determine the risk factors associated with treatment failure among patients who received a single dose of local MTX. This is a retrospective cohort study. Clinical information was compared between treatment success vs. failure groups. Risk factors related to treatment failure were also investigated with multivariate analysis. Of 47 patients diagnosed with CSP, 30 received local MTX injection. The initial serum ß- human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) level in the failure group was significantly higher than in the success group (p = 0.048), and the cut-off value was 47,000 mIU/ml. The rate of type 2 position of the gestational sac in the failure group was significantly higher than in the treatment success group (p = 0.031). A high initial serum ß-hCG level (≥ 47,000 mIU/ml) was identified as the independent risk factor for treatment failure (adjusted odds ratio = 21.9; 95% confidence interval = 1.3–383.1). Type 2 gestational sac position and a higher level of ß-hCG at diagnosis appear to be associated with poor outcomes after local injection of a single dose of MTX.

[1]  E. Meyer,et al.  Management of uterine ectopic pregnancy – local vs. systemic methotrexate , 2018, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[2]  P. Gagneux,et al.  Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy: Current Management Strategies. , 2018, Obstetrical & gynecological survey.

[3]  Young Ran Kim,et al.  Ultrasound-guided local injection of methotrexate and systemic intramuscular methotrexate in the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy , 2017, Obstetrics & gynecology science.

[4]  S. Uludağ,et al.  Comparison of systemic and local methotrexate treatments in cesarean scar pregnancies: time to change conventional treatment and follow-up protocols. , 2016, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

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

[6]  S. Bodur,et al.  Systematic review: What is the best first-line approach for cesarean section ectopic pregnancy? , 2016, Taiwanese journal of obstetrics & gynecology.

[7]  Yu Wang,et al.  Conservative management of cesarean scar pregnancies: a prospective randomized controlled trial at a single center. , 2015, International journal of clinical and experimental medicine.

[8]  H. Shenassa,et al.  Caesarean scar pregnancy. , 2015, Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada : JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC.

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

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

[11]  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.

[12]  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.

[13]  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.

[14]  N. Zosmer,et al.  The effectiveness of non‐surgical management of early interstitial pregnancy: a report of ten cases and review of the literature , 1999, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.