Accurate prediction of pregnancy viability by means of a simple scoring system.

STUDY QUESTION What is the performance of a simple scoring system to predict whether women will have an ongoing viable intrauterine pregnancy beyond the first trimester? SUMMARY ANSWER A simple scoring system using demographic and initial ultrasound variables accurately predicts pregnancy viability beyond the first trimester with an area under the curve (AUC) in a receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.924 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.900-0.947] on an independent test set. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Individual demographic and ultrasound factors, such as maternal age, vaginal bleeding and gestational sac size, are strong predictors of miscarriage. Previous mathematical models have combined individual risk factors with reasonable performance. A simple scoring system derived from a mathematical model that can be easily implemented in clinical practice has not previously been described for the prediction of ongoing viability. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION This was a prospective observational study in a single early pregnancy assessment centre during a 9-month period. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING AND METHODS A cohort of 1881 consecutive women undergoing transvaginal ultrasound scan at a gestational age <84 days were included. Women were excluded if the first trimester outcome was not known. Demographic features, symptoms and ultrasound variables were tested for their influence on ongoing viability. Logistic regression was used to determine the influence on first trimester viability from demographics and symptoms alone, ultrasound findings alone and then from all the variables combined. Each model was developed on a training data set, and a simple scoring system was derived from this. This scoring system was tested on an independent test data set. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The final outcome based on a total of 1435 participants was an ongoing viable pregnancy in 885 (61.7%) and early pregnancy loss in 550 (38.3%) women. The scoring system using significant demographic variables alone (maternal age and amount of bleeding) to predict ongoing viability gave an AUC of 0.724 (95% CI = 0.692-0.756) in the training set and 0.729 (95% CI = 0.684-0.774) in the test set. The scoring system using significant ultrasound variables alone (mean gestation sac diameter, mean yolk sac diameter and the presence of fetal heart beat) gave an AUC of 0.873 (95% CI = 0.850-0.897) and 0.900 (95% CI = 0.871-0.928) in the training and the test sets, respectively. The final scoring system using demographic and ultrasound variables together gave an AUC of 0.901 (95% CI = 0.881-0.920) and 0.924 (CI = 0.900-0.947) in the training and the test sets, respectively. After defining the cut-off at which the sensitivity is 0.90 on the training set, this model performed with a sensitivity of 0.92, specificity of 0.73, positive predictive value of 84.7% and negative predictive value of 85.4% in the test set. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION BMI and smoking variables were a potential omission in the data collection and might further improve the model performance if included. A further limitation is the absence of information on either bleeding or pain in 18% of women. Caution should be exercised before implementation of this scoring system prior to further external validation studies WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This simple scoring system incorporates readily available data that are routinely collected in clinical practice and does not rely on complex data entry. As such it could, unlike most mathematical models, be easily incorporated into normal early pregnancy care, where women may appreciate an individualized calculation of the likelihood of ongoing pregnancy viability. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) Research by V.V.B. supported by Research Council KUL: GOA MaNet, PFV/10/002 (OPTEC), several PhD/postdoc & fellow grants; IWT: TBM070706-IOTA3, PhD Grants; IBBT; Belgian Federal Science Policy Office: IUAP P7/(DYSCO, `Dynamical systems, control and optimization', 2012-2017). T.B. is supported by the Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Not applicable.

[1]  T. Bourne,et al.  Functional linear discriminant analysis: a new longitudinal approach to the assessment of embryonic growth. , 2009, Human reproduction.

[2]  F. Mimouni,et al.  Rate of Spontaneous Abortion After First Trimester Sonographic Demonstration of Fetal Cardiac Activity , 1988, American journal of perinatology.

[3]  K. Nicolaides,et al.  Normal Ranges of Embryonic Length, Embryonic Heart Rate, Gestational Sac Diameter and Yolk Sac Diameter at 6–10 Weeks , 2010, Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy.

[4]  R. Dickey,et al.  Relationship of Small Gestational Sac-Crown- Rump Length Differences to Abortion and Abortus Karyotypes , 1992, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[5]  Ralph B D'Agostino,et al.  Presentation of multivariate data for clinical use: The Framingham Study risk score functions. , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[6]  Dirk Timmerman,et al.  Assessing first trimester growth: the influence of ethnic background and maternal age. , 2009, Human reproduction.

[7]  T. Bourne,et al.  A model and scoring system to predict outcome of intrauterine pregnancies of uncertain viability , 2011, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[8]  P. Thonneau,et al.  Paternal age and maternal age are risk factors for miscarriage; results of a multicentre European study. , 2002, Human reproduction.

[9]  E. Jauniaux,et al.  Updated and revised nomenclature for description of early pregnancy events. , 2005, Human reproduction.

[10]  B. Harlow,et al.  Small sac size in the first trimester: a predictor of poor fetal outcome. , 1991, Radiology.

[11]  P. Nasca,et al.  A prospective study of early pregnancy loss. , 1996, Human reproduction.

[12]  Lucy K Smith,et al.  Management of miscarriage: expectant, medical, or surgical? Results of randomised controlled trial (miscarriage treatment (MIST) trial) , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  G. Bedogni,et al.  Clinical Prediction Models—a Practical Approach to Development, Validation and Updating , 2009 .

[14]  L. Rombauts,et al.  Ultrasound prediction of risk of spontaneous miscarriage in live embryos from assisted conceptions , 2003, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[15]  G. Pilu,et al.  Sonography of pregnancies with first‐trimester bleeding and a viable embryo: a study of prognostic indicators by logistic regression analysis , 1996, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[16]  M. Read,et al.  Management of women referred to early pregnancy assessment unit: care and cost effectiveness. , 1991, BMJ.

[17]  M. Kenward,et al.  Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[18]  C. Schauberger,et al.  Ultrasound Assessment of First-Trimester Bleeding , 2005, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[19]  P. Ewings,et al.  Probability of early pregnancy loss in women with vaginal bleeding and a singleton live fetus at ultrasound scan , 2006, Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology : the journal of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

[20]  A. Andersen,et al.  Maternal age and fetal loss: population based register linkage study , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[21]  K. Nicolaides,et al.  Psychological outcomes following missed abortions and provision of follow‐up care , 1998, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[22]  David A Savitz,et al.  Epidemiologic measures of the course and outcome of pregnancy. , 2002, Epidemiologic reviews.

[23]  M. Reljić,et al.  The significance of crown–rump length measurement for predicting adverse pregnancy outcome of threatened abortion , 2001, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[24]  T. Bourne,et al.  The accuracy of transvaginal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy prior to surgery. , 2005, Human reproduction.

[25]  E. Jauniaux,et al.  Obstetric Outcome After Threatened Miscarriage With and Without a Hematoma on Ultrasound , 2003, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[26]  T. Bourne,et al.  Evidence of early first‐trimester growth restriction in pregnancies that subsequently end in miscarriage , 2008, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[27]  B. Mol,et al.  Management of early pregnancy loss , 2004, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[28]  KATHRYN A. CASHNER,et al.  Spontaneous Fetal Loss after Demonstration of a Live Fetus in the First Trimester , 1987, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[29]  K. Nicolaides,et al.  Fetal loss following ultrasound diagnosis of a live fetus at 6–10 weeks of gestation , 2003, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[30]  K. Nicolaides,et al.  Ultrasonographic prediction of early miscarriage. , 2011, Human reproduction.

[31]  Cashner Ka,et al.  Spontaneous fetal loss after demonstration of a live fetus in the first trimester. , 1987 .

[32]  E. Jauniaux,et al.  The role of ultrasound imaging in diagnosing and investigating early pregnancy failure , 2005, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[33]  D. Guzick,et al.  Fetal loss rate after ultrasonically documented cardiac activity between 6 and 14 weeks, menstrual age , 1991, Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU.

[34]  E. Clegg,et al.  Estimates of human fertility and pregnancy loss. , 1996, Fertility and sterility.

[35]  R. Neugebauer,et al.  Psychological morbidity following miscarriage. , 2007, Best practice & research. Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology.

[36]  J. Pedersen,et al.  Fetal growth delay in threatened abortion: an ultrasound study , 1982, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[37]  Ofer Harel,et al.  MIDAS: A SAS Macro for Multiple Imputation Using Distance-Aided Selection of Donors , 2009 .

[38]  J. Shillito,et al.  Early pregnancy assessment units. , 1997, British journal of hospital medicine.

[39]  C. Everett,et al.  Incidence and outcome of bleeding before the 20th week of pregnancy: prospective study from general practice , 1997, BMJ.