Skip Navigation



Hum. Reprod. Advance Access published online on January 21, 2005
Human Reproduction, doi:10.1093/humrep/deh746
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
20/5/1398    most recent
deh746v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
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 arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Condous, G.
Right arrow Articles by Bourne, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Condous, G.
Right arrow Articles by Bourne, T.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction © European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology 2005; all rights reserved
Received November 2, 2004
Accepted December 7, 2004

Article

A prospective evaluation of a single-visit strategy to manage pregnancies of unknown location

G. Condous 1*, E. Okaro 1, A. Khalid 1, C. Lu 2, S. Van Huffel 2, D. Timmerman 3, and T. Bourne 1

1 Early Pregnancy, Gynaecological Ultrasound and MAS Unit, St George's Hospital Medical School, Cranmere Terrace, London SW17 0RE, UK
2 Department of Electrical Engineering (ESAT), Leuven, Belgium
3 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, K.U. Leuven, Belgium

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
G. Condous, E-mail: gcondous{at}hotmail.com


  Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim was to assess whether women with a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) can be safely excluded from potentially unnecessary multiple clinic visits. METHODS: A single-visit protocol was developed based upon data from 200 consecutive PULs. PULs were divided into groups according to the probable risk of ectopic pregnancy. Those PULs with an initial serum progesterone ≤10 nmol/l or a serum HCG of ≤25 U/l were deemed to be at low risk and classified as resolving or failing PULs. Those PULs with an initial serum progesterone of >50 nmol/l, regardless of serum HCG, were thought to be a probable intra-uterine pregnancy (IUP) and were also classified as being low risk. Those PULs with an initial serum progesterone of 10-50 nmol/l and a serum HCG of >25 U/l were classified as being at high risk. This protocol was then tested prospectively on 318 consecutive PULs. Management was based solely on the basis of an initial transvaginal ultrasound scan (TVS) and a single measurement of HCG and progesterone taken at the time of initial consultation. RESULTS: A total of 5544 consecutive women were scanned, of which 560 (10.1%) women were classified as PULs. Forty-two were lost to follow-up and therefore 518 (9.34%) were analysed. In the training set of 200 PULs, there were 111 (55.5%) failing PULs, 67 (33.5%) IUPs and 22 (11%) ectopic pregnancies. In the test set of 318, there were 189 (59.4%) failing PULs, 114 (35.8%) IUPs and 15 (4.7%) ectopic pregnancies. For the training group, the sensitivity and specificity of a single visit to detect low-risk PULs were 77 and 82%, respectively. The positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were 97 and 31%, respectively. For the test group of 318 PULs, the sensitivity and specificity were 84 and 33%, respectively. The PPV and NPV were 96 and 9.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A single-visit strategy based on commonly used criteria eliminates 84% of non-ectopic pregnancies correctly from the system. However, as 67% of ectopic pregnancies are discharged without adequate follow-up, a single-visit strategy should not be used as an alternative to the current multi-visit strategy used in most units.

Keywords: ectopic pregnancy; HCG; pregnancies of unknown location; progesterone; single visit.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 The Obstetrician and GynaecologistHome page
H. Sagili and K. Mohamed
Pregnancy of unknown location: an evidence-based approach to management
Obstet Gynaecol (Lond), October 1, 2008; 10(4): 224 - 230.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
E. Kirk, G. Condous, B. Van Calster, S. Van Huffel, D. Timmerman, and T. Bourne
Rationalizing the follow-up of pregnancies of unknown location
Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2007; 22(6): 1744 - 1750.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
G. Condous, E. Kirk, and T. Bourne
Reply: Ultrasound diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy
Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2007; 22(5): 1494 - 1494.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
G. Condous, B. Van Calster, E. Kirk, D. Timmerman, S. Van Huffel, and T. Bourne
Prospective cross-validation of three methods of predicting failing pregnancies of unknown location
Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2007; 22(4): 1156 - 1160.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
G. Condous, E. Kirk, C. Lu, B. Van Calster, S. Van Huffel, D. Timmerman, and T. Bourne
There is no role for uterine curettage in the contemporary diagnostic workup of women with a pregnancy of unknown location
Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2006; 21(10): 2706 - 2710.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
O. Gevaert, F. De Smet, E. Kirk, B. Van Calster, T. Bourne, S. Van Huffel, Y. Moreau, D. Timmerman, B. De Moor, and G. Condous
Predicting the outcome of pregnancies of unknown location: Bayesian networks with expert prior information compared to logistic regression
Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2006; 21(7): 1824 - 1831.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
G. Condous, E. Kirk, A. Syed, B. Van Calster, S. Van Huffel, D. Timmerman, and T. Bourne
Do levels of serum cancer antigen 125 and creatine kinase predict the outcome in pregnancies of unknown location?
Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2005; 20(12): 3348 - 3354.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


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.