Skip Navigation


Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on May 23, 2006
Human Reproduction 2006 21(9):2440-2442; doi:10.1093/humrep/del166
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
21/9/2440    most recent
del166v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kirk, E.
Right arrow Articles by Bourne, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kirk, E.
Right arrow Articles by Bourne, T.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Hyperemesis gravidarum: is an ultrasound scan necessary?

Emma Kirk1,3, Aris T. Papageorghiou2, George Condous1, Cecilia Bottomley1 and Tom Bourne1

1 Early Pregnancy, Gynaecological Ultrasound and MAS Unit and 2 Fetal Medicine Unit, St George’s, University of London, London, UK

3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Early Pregnancy, Gynaecological Ultrasound and MAS Unit, St George’s, University of London, London, UK. E-mail: ejkirk{at}hotmail.co.uk

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, in cases of hyperemesis gravidarum (HG), an ultrasound evaluation is recommended to confirm viability and to exclude multiple pregnancies and gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD). Our aim was to perform a case–control study to evaluate the incidence of these findings. METHODS: Each case of HG was matched for gestational age with the next ultrasound examination performed in an asymptomatic pregnancy. The findings were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty-six cases of HG were matched with 286 asymptomatic women. The total number of viable pregnancies was higher in the HG group (280/286, 97.9%) than that in the control group (265/286, 92.6%; P = 0.006). The incidence of twins was 3.1% in each group (P > 0.999). The incidence of early pregnancy failure was 0.7% in women with HG compared to 7.0% in asymptomatic women (odds ratio 0.09, 95% CI 0.01–0.04, P < 0.0001). The one case of GTD was in the HG group; however, this case also presented with vaginal bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnancies complicated by HG had a similar risk of twin pregnancy, and a lower risk of early pregnancy failure compared to controls. In the absence of vaginal bleeding, there was no increase in GTD in women with HG. We conclude that an ultrasound scan is not clinically necessary in women presenting with HG, other than for maternal reassurance.

Key words: gestational trophoblastic disease/hyperemesis gravidarum/pregnancy failure/twin pregnancy/ultrasound


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.