Ma Yan, Shao Minfang, Shao Xiaonan
Gynecological Department, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou Gynecological Department, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou Department of Nuclear Medicine, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, China.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Jun;96(25):e7327. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000007327.
The current commonly used treatments for cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) include multiple treatments such as medication, uterine artery embolization, curettage and surgery, and their combinations. However, every treatment option has risks of excessive hemorrhage from uterus. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the risk factors for intraoperative hemorrhage of different treatments for CSP patients, with the hope to provide the guidance for CSP treatment.Fifty-eight cases of CSP patients who were treated with curettage after medication, curettage after uterine artery embolization, or surgery were retrospectively analyzed and compared for the clinical efficacy, length of hospital stay, and hemorrhage rate. Further, they were divided into the bleeding group (≥200 mL, 15 cases) and the control group (<200 mL, 43 cases). The hemorrhage-related risk factors were subjected to univariate analysis, including age, pregnant times, delivery times, abortion times or curettage times, the time from last cesarean section, menolipsis time, serum human chorionic gonadotropin level, ultrasound typing, maximum diameter of gestational sac or mass under ultrasound, peritrophoblastic blood flow around the mass, and the distance of gestational sac or mass from the uterine serosa layer. The significant indexes in univariate analysis were further analyzed using both receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis.The success rate, length of hospital stay, and hemorrhage rate were not significantly different among the 3 treatment groups (P > .05). Univariate analysis found that patients in the bleeding group had significantly longer menolipsis time and greater maximum diameter than patients in the control group (P < .05). ROC analysis showed that the optimal cutoff for menolipsis time and maximum diameter were 51 days and 27 mm, respectively, and the areas under their corresponding ROC were 0.680 and 0.787, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that only the maximum diameter in the retrospective equation was of significance (P < .05, odds ratio: 1.067, 95% confidence interval: 1.014∼1.123].All treatments have high success rates and no significant effects on intraoperative bleeding. Both menolipsis time and maximum diameter can be used to predict the risk of intraoperative bleeding, and the latter have a greater predictive value.
目前剖宫产瘢痕妊娠(CSP)常用的治疗方法包括药物治疗、子宫动脉栓塞术、刮宫术及手术等多种治疗方式及其联合应用。然而,每种治疗方案均存在子宫大出血的风险。本研究回顾性分析了CSP患者不同治疗方式术中出血的危险因素,以期为CSP治疗提供指导。对58例接受药物治疗后刮宫术、子宫动脉栓塞术后刮宫术或手术治疗的CSP患者进行回顾性分析,比较其临床疗效、住院时间及出血率。进一步将患者分为出血组(≥200 mL,15例)和对照组(<200 mL,43例)。对出血相关危险因素进行单因素分析,包括年龄、妊娠次数、分娩次数、流产次数或刮宫次数、末次剖宫产时间、月经停止时间、血清人绒毛膜促性腺激素水平、超声分型、超声下妊娠囊或包块最大直径、包块周围滋养细胞血流情况以及妊娠囊或包块距子宫浆膜层的距离。对单因素分析中有意义的指标进一步采用受试者工作特征(ROC)分析及多因素logistic回归分析。3种治疗组的成功率、住院时间及出血率差异均无统计学意义(P > .05)。单因素分析发现,出血组患者的月经停止时间明显长于对照组,最大直径大于对照组(P < .05)。ROC分析显示,月经停止时间和最大直径的最佳截断值分别为51天和27 mm,其相应ROC曲线下面积分别为0.680和0.787。多因素分析显示,回顾性方程中只有最大直径具有统计学意义(P < .05,比值比:1.067,95%置信区间:1.014~1.123)。所有治疗方法成功率高,对术中出血无显著影响。月经停止时间和最大直径均可用于预测术中出血风险,后者具有更大的预测价值。