Treatment of ectopic pregnancies in 2014: new answers to some old

Treatment of ectopic pregnancies
in 2014: new answers to some
old questions
Fernandez, M.D., Ph.D.a,b,c
Perrine Capmas, M.D.,a,b,c Jean Bouyer, Ph.D.,b and Herve
a
cologie Obste
trique, Ho
^ pital Bice
^tre, GHU Sud (AP-HP), b Inserm, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and
Service de Gyne
^ tre, France
Population Health (CESP), and c Faculty of Medicine, University of Paris Sud, Le Kremlin Bice
Over the past 20 years, a substantial body of research has accumulated about ectopic pregnancy, especially about its epidemiology, risk
factors, and diagnosis. Nonetheless, the care of women with these pregnancies remains a topic of debate, and no consensus or guidelines
exist to clarify the optimal treatment choices. This review revisits the four primary treatments for ectopic pregnancy and defines and
details the concept of ‘‘activity,’’ which guides the indications for each treatment. Recent findings of no difference in fertility during the
2 years after an ectopic pregnancy have answered some old questions and raised new ones for
determining the optimal management of ectopic pregnancies. Most especially, they allow the
Use your smartphone
consideration and weighing of a wider range of factors, including the woman's own preferences
to scan this QR code
as well as efficacy and the monitoring time until recovery. (Fertil SterilÒ 2014;101:615–20.
and connect to the
Ó2014 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)
Discuss: You can discuss this article with its authors and with other ASRM members at http://
fertstertforum.com/capmasp-ectopic-pregnancy-methotrexate/
T
he past 20 years have seen the
accumulation of a substantial
body of information about ectopic
pregnancies, especially about their
epidemiology (1–7), risk factors (8–18),
and diagnosis (19–23). Nonetheless, the
care of women with these pregnancies
remains a topic of debate, and no
consensus or guidelines exist to clarify
the choice between different treatments
(1). Moreover, medical treatment is
subject to substantial variation,
including differing protocols and
varying routes of administration. In developing countries, ectopic pregnancy is a
potentially life-threatening condition,
and in developed countries, it is still a
leading cause of maternal mortality.
However, earlier diagnosis and better access to care have shifted concern to the is-
sues of preserving subsequent fertility,
the woman's own preferences, and cost
considerations. In particular, the recent
reports about subsequent fertility (24,
25) must be integrated into any
guidelines for the management of
ectopic pregnancy.
This review first defines and details
the concept of activity, which guides the
indication for each treatment. We then
describe the four primary treatments,
and discuss the factors that aid in
choosing which treatment is appropriate.
ACTIVITY OF AN ECTOPIC
PREGNANCY
An ectopic pregnancy's level of activity is
the major factor in deciding the most
appropriate treatment. This concept is
Received November 26, 2013; revised and accepted January 16, 2014.
P.C. has nothing to disclose. J.B. has nothing to disclose. H.F. has nothing to disclose.
cologie Obste
trique, Ho
^ pital Bice
^tre, 78
Reprint requests: Perrine Capmas, M.D., Service de Gyne
ne
ral Leclerc, 94275 Le Kremlin Bice
^tre, France (E-mail: perrine.capmas@bct.
avenue du Ge
aphp.fr).
Fertility and Sterility® Vol. 101, No. 3, March 2014 0015-0282/$36.00
Copyright ©2014 American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Published by Elsevier Inc.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.01.029
VOL. 101 NO. 3 / MARCH 2014
discussion forum for
this article now.*
* Download a free QR code scanner by searching for “QR
scanner” in your smartphone’s app store or app marketplace.
well recognized and generally applied as
a guideline for determining which ectopic
pregnancies may benefit from medical
treatment. Nonetheless, the definition of
activity remains a subject of debate.
The most active ectopic pregnancies have a high risk of tubal rupture
or have already ruptured. In such cases,
medical treatment cannot be attempted
because of the high risk of failure. These
ectopic pregnancies include those with
hemodynamic failure, with abundant
hemoperitoneum, with symptoms of
rupture (such as pain and syncope), or
with a high human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) level (for which the
threshold level is the subject of further
debate). The consensus about the management of these ectopic pregnancies is
that they require a surgical approach.
For other situations, the criteria for
defining active and less active ectopic
pregnancies and the cut-off line between
them are controversial. Some studies
have used scores, such as those of Fernandez et al. (25), who measured
including pain, time of amenorrhea,
hCG and progesterone level, size of
hematosalpinx, and importance of
615
VIEWS AND REVIEWS
hemoperitoneum; and Elito et al. (26), who measured the hCG
level and the size of the mass, and emphasized the sonographic
aspects (live embryo, tubal ring, or hematosalpinx) and the
importance of color Doppler. Others have reported on sonographic findings: the size of the hematosalpinx, or the presence
of a yolk sac, an embryo, or cardiac activity (28–35). Most
studies have recommended measuring the pretreatment serum
hCG level (36). The cut-off for defining a less active—that is,
medically treatable—pregnancy varies from 1,500 to 5,000 IU/
L (29, 32–35), although the latter (higher) threshold appears to
be the more frequently used by recent studies.
The progesterone level is also included in the scoring of
Fernandez et al. (27). However, no studies have reported their
results using this concentration as a marker of the activity of
ectopic pregnancies, and no cut-off value has been demonstrated. A threshold of 10 ng/mL is the most commonly
used (27, 37, 38). Because progesterone levels are still not
sufficiently evaluated or used to define activity, the use of a
single parameter such as hCG level is probably easier for
current practice and for comparing studies.
In conclusion, we propose to define a less active ectopic
pregnancy, that is, one that can be treated medically, with a
pretreatment serum hCG level <5,000 IU/L, with no cardiac
activity in the embryo, in a woman with no symptoms who
is hemodynamically stable. It might also be useful to define
a very inactive ectopic pregnancy or pregnancies of unknown
location (PUL) as those with low (<1,500 IU/L) and plateauing
serum hCG concentrations.
THE FOUR TREATMENTS FOR ECTOPIC
PREGNANCY
Expectant Management
Monitoring until recovery is a good option for some ectopic
pregnancies as for PUL. Like intrauterine pregnancies, ectopic
pregnancies can resolve spontaneously. Expectant management consists of monitoring the woman until recovery (i.e.,
until the hCG level drops below 2 IU/L). The follow-up evaluation must be intensive: every other day at the beginning and
then weekly until the hCG level returns to normal.
Medical Treatment with Methotrexate
Tanaka et al. (39) reported the first use of methotrexate as
medical treatment for ectopic pregnancy in 1982. Methotrexate is an antimetabolite that acts on actively proliferating
cells, including trophoblastic tissue. The dose of methotrexate
used in ectopic pregnancy is 1 mg/kg or 50 mg/m2. There are
different protocols for methotrexate injections.
Intramuscular injections. The single-dose methotrexate
regimen allows for reinjection at the same dose if needed—
that is, should the hCG level not decrease sufficiently (day 7
hCG > initial hCG rate, or subsequent decreases <15% each
week) (40). For the two-dose methotrexate regimen, the first
injection is administered on day 0, and a second injection
of the same dose is administered on day 4 (41). The fixed multidose methotrexate regimen consists of four injections of the
same dose on days 1, 3, 5, and 7, with administration of folinic
acid (0.1 mg/kg) on days 2, 4, 6, and 8.
616
In situ injection. In situ injection of methotrexate with sonographic guidance is often used for extratubal ectopic pregnancies (42–45) but may also be used for tubal pregnancies.
The addition of folinic acid to methotrexate therapy has not
been found to provide any advantages: the half-life of methotrexate is very short, and even with the four-injection protocol the methotrexate dose is very low compared with the
levels used in rheumatology or oncology (46).
Hyperosmolar glucose has also been injected into the fallopian tube under sonographic guidance to resolve ectopic
pregnancies. Although it has been replaced by methotrexate
as a general rule, it is often still used in heterotopic pregnancies when the use of methotrexate is contraindicated (47–50).
Conservative Surgery (Salpingotomy)
Currently, salpingotomy is performed by laparoscopy whenever
possible. The procedure calls for the introduction of a 10-mm (or
less) laparoscope through the umbilicus, and the insertion of two
5-mm (or less) ports in the left and right hypochondriac regions.
A 10-mm (but not less) suprapubic trocar is then inserted, and a
monopolar linear incision is made over the bulging antimesenteric portion of the tube. A 10-mm irrigation probe for hydrodissection is then used to remove the ectopic mass. The irrigation
probe must be 10 mm to be able to remove completely the
ectopic pregnancy; the only reported cohort with a <7% failure
rate with conservative surgery used a 10-mm irrigation probe
(51). Hemostasis must be obtained without extended coagulation to preserve a functional tube. The tubal incision is left
open to allow secondary healing, and the pelvis is irrigated (51).
Methotrexate as an adjuvant to salpingotomy. The major
disadvantage of conservative surgery is the risk of persistent
trophoblast cells. One well-designed randomized trial suggested that routine prophylactic postoperative injection of
methotrexate reduces this risk (52).
Radical Surgery (Salpingectomy)
Salpingectomy is generally performed by laparoscopy. The
standard protocol calls for a 10-mm (or less) laparoscope to
be introduced through the umbilicus and three 5-mm (or
less) ports inserted in the left and the right hypochondriac
and suprapubic regions. Salpingectomy involves the removal
of the fallopian tube with the products of pregnancy inside it,
either from the horn to the fimbrial portion (anterograde) or
from the fimbrial portion to the horn (retrograde). It is performed by stepwise dissection of the mesosalpinx and fallopian tube with bipolar electrocautery forceps and scissors.
The salpinx is then removed from the abdominal cavity in a
specimen bag to avoid dissemination of trophoblasts.
INDICATIONS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF
TREATMENTS
Very Less Active Ectopic Pregnancies
Methotrexate should not be used as the first-line therapy for
very inactive ectopic pregnancies (or PULs); expectant management should be preferred. The earliest data about expectant management come from a retrospective study
VOL. 101 NO. 3 / MARCH 2014
Fertility and Sterility®
published in 1955, but many studies have been conducted
since then (53–55). A favorable outcome can be anticipated
with expectant management in 20% of ectopic pregnancies,
regardless of their activity level.
A recent randomized trial (the METEX trial) compared
methotrexate with expectant management in women with an
ectopic pregnancy or PUL who had low and plateauing serum
hCG concentrations. This multicenter trial, which included 73
women over a 5-year period (41 with single-dose methotrexate,
and 32 with expectant management), found no difference in
the uneventful decline of serum hCG to undetectable levels:
76% after methotrexate treatment, and 59% after expectant
management, relative risk 1.3 (95% confidence interval [CI],
0.9–1.8) (56). A nonsignificant trend was found, which could
have been improved by more power. The METEX trial results
showed that methotrexate should be used only as a secondline therapy in very less active ectopic pregnancies. Although
measurement of progesterone levels may contribute to confirming a very less active ectopic pregnancy, it cannot be recommended because the METEX study did not measure
progesterone levels, and there are no published data for progesterone in very less active ectopic pregnancies.
Less Active Ectopic Pregnancy
(60–63), has a failure rate that ranges from 6.6% (51) to 17.5%
(64). The surgeon's skill and experience may play a major role,
but there are no published data to confirm this. The choice
between medical management versus conservative surgical
treatment depends on the woman's preference and her
commitment to follow-up observation until recovery—a longer
period after medical management than after surgical treatment
(65). It also depends on her desire to preserve her subsequent
fertility and on the failure rates of each type of treatment. The
failure rate of conservative surgery also differs according to
whether a postoperative dose of methotrexate is injected.
Whether to routinely use a methotrexate injection is still
debated. The risk of side effects after a methotrexate injection
led the authors of the Cochrane review (63) to recommend
against its systematic use; the adverse effects reported for
methotrexate treatment of ectopic pregnancies are mainly
asymptomatic elevation of liver enzymes, with rare cases of
drug-induced hepatitis (1%). Both a randomized trial and a
prospective study found that the cost effectiveness of methotrexate treatment for women of was quite substantial (52, 64).
The randomized trial in 129 women showed a statistically
significant decrease in persistent trophoblasts: 14.5% in the
group with no injection versus 1.9% in the group with a
postoperative intramuscular methotrexate injection (P>.05)
(52). The prospective study, which used in situ methotrexate
injections in 81 women, also observed a statistically
significant decrease in persistent trophoblasts: 17.5% versus
0 (P>.05) (64). The DEMETER multicenter trial confirmed
the low failure rate with postoperative systematic injection
of methotrexate: 0.6% in 198 women (25).
The question of whether a systematic postoperative methotrexate injection is safe and cost effective needs a definitive
answer, especially given that the injection could simplify the
monitoring required. In view of its very low failure rate, only
one blood sample for hCG at 1 month would be required rather
than weekly monitoring.
Medical therapy. Medical treatment by methotrexate should
be used only in less active pregnancies; otherwise, the risk of
failure is high. In the absence of contraindications, which
include abnormal baseline liver and renal function test results, medical management can be chosen after the woman
has been informed about the method of treatment, the risk
of failure, and the necessity of follow-up observation. All
three previously described injection protocols can be used.
The reported success rates of methotrexate therapy range
from 63% to 96.7%. The heterogeneity of these results is due
to variations in patient characteristics, in study inclusion
criteria, in pretreatment hCG levels (see the definition of
less active ectopic pregnancy), and in methotrexate treatment
protocols (see the definition of treatment) as well as the
different definitions of treatment failure. Some studies, for
example, considered treatment failures to be only cases that
finally required surgery (25, 57, 58); other studies defined
failure as the need for a supplementary methotrexate
injection (59). In the DEMETER multicentre trial, 207
women were included in the arm comparing medical
management with conservative surgery, and the reported
success rate for methotrexate in 110 women was 75% (25).
Very few studies have reported on the use of in situ injection of methotrexate for tubal ectopic pregnancies, although
it is often used for nontubal ectopic pregnancies (such as
interstitial, cervical, or cesarean scar) (42–45). A
retrospective study by Nazac et al. (31) reported a success
rate of 90% with tubal ectopic pregnancies, which is
significantly better than the results with intramuscular
injections. This route of administration should be explored
further in a randomized trial.
Recovery time. Time until recovery after an ectopic pregnancy is defined as the time until the hCG level drops below
2 IU/L. After conservative management, the hCG level must
be monitored to be able to diagnose a persistent trophoblast,
especially if no postoperative injection of methotrexate was
performed. The recovery time varies from 20 to 31 days. After
medical treatment, this time is reported to be around 30 days
(range: 27 to 33 days) (65, 66). Two randomized studies have
reached different conclusions about the comparative time to
recovery for surgery and medical treatment: Saraj et al. (65)
reported that this period is shorter after surgery (20.2 versus
27.2 days, in a study of 38 women), while Colacurci et al.
(66) found no significant difference (33.6 days after surgery
versus 31.5 after methotrexate, 30 women). In the DEMETER
trial, the recovery time after conservative surgery with a
postoperative injection of methotrexate was statistically
significantly shorter than after methotrexate alone: 16
versus 30 days (P< .01) (25). The time until a woman
recovers from the effects of surgery can also vary, but
recovery times from laparoscopic surgery are typically short.
Conservative surgery. Conservative surgery, generally considered the standard treatment in less active ectopic pregnancies
Cost. A comparison between conservative surgery and medical therapy found a significant reduction in direct costs with
VOL. 101 NO. 3 / MARCH 2014
617
VIEWS AND REVIEWS
a single-dose systemic methotrexate injection. The indirect
costs were reduced only in the subgroup of women who had
a pretreatment hCG level below 1,500 IU/L (59). The results
from the Auvergne ectopic pregnancy registry also found
that a protocol with a single dose of methotrexate was more
cost effective than laparoscopic surgery (67).
Women's preferences. Few published articles have examined
women's preferences among the available treatments for
ectopic pregnancy. One study comparing preference for methotrexate versus conservative surgery found that most women
preferred the methotrexate treatment, at least initially (68).
Opinions changed among some women when the hypothetical tubal patency rate decreased. In contrast, one group of
women never preferred systemic methotrexate, even when
they were told that tubal patency after methotrexate was
100%: those who disliked taking medications or found the
idea of a prolonged treatment duration to be distressing
(68). Women's preferences also depend the way the alternative treatment options are presented by the physician, a factor
that is difficult to take into account but cannot be ignored.
Active Ectopic Pregnancy
An active ectopic pregnancy requires surgical treatment. The
choice between conservative or radical surgery in these cases
depends on the woman's history (a homolateral recurrence
indicates the need for radical surgery), the appearance and
condition of the contralateral tube, and bleeding. Tubal
rupture does not systematically necessitate radical treatment,
except when hemostasis proves difficult to achieve. Salpingectomy might well be a better choice than leaving an
unhealthy tube in place.
The choice between radical and conservative surgery is
often made during the procedure. Radical surgery has a
100% efficacy rate. The failure rate for conservative surgery,
on the other hand, ranges from 6.6% to 17.5%, and with the
addition of a postoperative methotrexate injection, the failure
rate ranges from 0 to 2%.
Van Mello et al. (69) studied women's preferences for
radical or conservative surgery and found that most women
preferred avoiding a repeat ectopic pregnancy—thus,
choosing radical treatment—to having a higher chance of a
future spontaneous intrauterine pregnancy. However, Van
Mello et al. (69) showed that the risk of additional treatment
by methotrexate in cases of conservative surgery for persistent trophoblasts was acceptable if compensated for by a
small rise in the intrauterine pregnancy rate. Finally, women
preferred radical to conservative surgery after the risks of
recurrence and persistent trophoblasts were explained along
with information about the spontaneous intrauterine pregnancy rate. This preference was not related to the risk of
persistent trophoblasts or the potential need for a methotrexate injection; women were primarily concerned about
the risk of recurrence.
SUBSEQUENT FERTILITY
As previously mentioned, in developed countries, preservation of future fertility is now an important objective in the
618
treatment of ectopic pregnancies. Until recently, the results
for fertility after treatment came only from observational
studies. For example, the results of the Auvergne ectopic
pregnancy registry suggested that fertility is better after conservative treatment, either medical or surgical (24). As will be
discussed, some trials have reported results, but until very
recently they lacked adequate statistical power for definitive
conclusions.
Comparison between Conservative Surgery and
Medical Treatment
The most recent and thorough results from the Auvergne registry conclude that there is no significant difference in terms
of subsequent fertility between the two conservative treatments (24, 70–72). Three randomized trials also concluded
that no significant difference exists between them, but these
studies were not powerful enough to reach definitive
conclusions (57, 73, 74). Similarly, the Cochrane review
found insufficient data are available to reach a conclusion
about future fertility (63). Recently, however, the DEMETER
randomized trial confirmed with sufficient power that there
was no significant difference in subsequent 2-year fertility
when comparing medical management and conservative surgery: 67% versus 71% intrauterine pregnancies, hazard ratio
0.85 (0.59–1.22; P¼ .37) (25). It should be noted, moreover,
that when an ectopic pregnancy is treated with methotrexate
there is no need for a waiting period before attempting
another pregnancy; although methotrexate is a teratogenic
agent, its half-life is very short (46).
Comparison between Conservative and Radical
Surgery
Until the DEMETER trial, there were no prospective data for
comparing conservative and radical surgery. The DEMETER
trial showed no difference in subsequent 2-year fertility:
70% versus 64% for intrauterine pregnancy, respectively,
hazard ratio 1.06 (0.69–1.63; P¼ .78) (25). Nevertheless, it is
important to mention that the rate of recurrence for ectopic
pregnancies ranges from 6% to 10%, regardless of the treatment option chosen.
NEW STRATEGIES
Using a selective progesterone receptor modulator (i.e., mifepristone) as an adjuvant for medical therapy has been suggested. A randomized trial showed no benefit from the
systematic addition of mifepristone, except perhaps in women
with a progesterone level of 10 ng/L or more (37).
Use of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor should
be an interesting treatment to combine with methotrexate in
the medical therapy of ectopic pregnancy. Results in vitro on
placental cells show an inhibition in placental cell growth.
These results were confirmed in vivo in mouse models (two
cases), revealing doubled rates of fetal resorption when
combining the two drugs (75). In a phase I nonrandomized
open study, 12 women with ectopic pregnancy were treated
with methotrexate and oral gefitinib (epidermal growth factor
receptor blocker) compared with 71 controls treated with
VOL. 101 NO. 3 / MARCH 2014
Fertility and Sterility®
methotrexate alone. Both median serum hCG levels by day 7
and time to resolution were significantly shorter after combination therapy, although the latter also was commonly associated with minor side effects such as transient diarrhea and
rash (76). These new therapeutics are promising but need to
be evaluated further. Superselective uterine artery embolization combined with intra-arterial injection of methotrexate
(leading to an in situ injection of methotrexate) also has suggested good results (77).
11.
12.
13.
14.
CONCLUSION
Recent findings of no difference in fertility during the 2 years
after an ectopic pregnancy when comparing medical treatment versus conservative surgery and conservative surgery
versus radical surgery have answered some longstanding
questions and raised new ones for determining the optimal
management of ectopic pregnancies. These findings in particular have allowed consideration and weighing of a wider
range of factors, including women's preferences, efficacy,
and the period of monitoring until recovery.
In choosing conservative or radical surgery, it is important to bear in mind that the newer randomized trial results
pertain only to 2-year subsequent spontaneous fertility rates;
thus, these results should not lead to a broad extension of
radical treatment. Radical treatment might have a harmful effect on long-term spontaneous fertility in cases of contralateral recurrence. The good results for expectant management
in very inactive ectopic pregnancies, another major finding,
should encourage a less interventionist approach to PUL.
Finally, the characteristics of the women most likely to
benefit from medical treatment remain to be clarified as do
the best protocols for medical treatment. A consensus about
the indications for medical treatment would make it easier
to compare future studies and thus to advance our knowledge
of these points.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Farquhar CM. Ectopic pregnancy. Lancet 2005;366:583–91.
Skjeldestad FE, Hadgu A, Eriksson N. Epidemiology of repeat ectopic
pregnancy: a population-based prospective cohort study. Obstet Gynecol
1998;91:129–35.
Ankum WM. Is the rising incidence of ectopic pregnancy unexplained? Human Reprod 1996;11:238–9.
Bakken IJ, Skjeldestad FE. Time trends in ectopic pregnancies in a Norwegian
county 1970–2004—a population-based study. Hum Reprod 2006;21:
3132–6.
Van Den Eeden SK, Shan J, Bruce C, Glasser M. Ectopic pregnancy rate and
treatment utilization in a large managed care organization. Obstet Gynecol
2005;105:1052–7.
Ectopic pregnancy—United States, 1970–1992. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly
Rep 1995;44:46–8.
Butts S, Sammel M, Hummel A, Chittams J, Barnhart K. Risk factors and clinical features of recurrent ectopic pregnancy: a case control study. Fertil Steril
2003;80:1340–4.
Tay JI, Moore J, Walker JJ. Ectopic pregnancy. BMJ 2000;320:916–9.
Coste J, Bouyer J, Job-Spira N. Maternal life events and adverse pregnancy
outcomes: lessons from the Auvergne ectopic pregnancy registry. Fertil Steril
2004;81:137–48.
Bouyer J, Coste J, Shojaei T, Pouly JL, Fernandez H, Gerbaud L, et al. Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy: a comprehensive analysis based on a large case
VOL. 101 NO. 3 / MARCH 2014
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
control population-based study in France. Am J Epidemiol 2003;157:185–
94.
Coste J, Fernandez H, Joye N, Benifla J, Girard S, Marpeau L, et al. Role of
chromosome abnormalities in ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril 2000;74:
1259–60.
Bouyer J, Rachou E, Germain E, Fernandez H, Coste J, Pouly JL, et al. Risk factors for extrauterine pregnancy in women using an intrauterine device. Fertil
Steril 2000;74:899–908.
Saraiya M, Berg DJ, Kendrick JS, Strauss LT, Atrash HK, Ahn YW. Cigarette
smoking as a risk factor for ectopic pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol
1998;178:493–8.
Zhang J, Thomas G, Leybovich E. Vaginal douching and adverse health
effects: a meta-analysis. Am J Public Health 1997;87:1207–11.
Parazzini F. Oestrogens and progesterone concentrations and risk of
ectopic pregnancy: an epidemiological point of view. Human Reprod
1996;11:236–8.
Ankum WM, Mol BW, Van der Veen F. Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy: a
meta analysis. Fertil Steril 1996;65:1093–9.
Parazzini F, Ferraroni M, Tozzi L, Benzi G, Rossi G, La Vecchia C. Past contraceptive method use and risk of ectopic pregnancy. Contraception 1995;52:
93–8.
Mol BW, Ankum WM, Bossuyt PM, Van der Veen F. Contraception and the
risk of ectopic pregnancy: a meta-analysis. Contraception 1995;52:337–41.
Butts S, Sammel M, Hummel A, Chittams J, Barnhart K. Risk factors and clinical features of recurrent ectopic pregnancy: a case control study. Fertil Steril
2003;80:1340–4.
Pisarska MD, Carson SA, Buster JE. Ectopic pregnancy. Lancet 1998;351:
1115–20.
Coste J, Bouyer J, Job-Spira N. Construction of composite scales for risk
assessment in epidemiology: an application to ectopic pregnancy. Am J Epidemiol 1997;145:278–89.
Mol BW, Hajenius PJ, Engelsbel S, Ankum WM, van der Veen F, Hemrika DJ,
et al. Are gestational age and endometrial thickness alternatives for serum
human chorionic gonadotropin as criteria for the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy? Fertil Steril 1999;72:643–5.
van Mello NM, Mol F, Ankum WM, Mol BW, van der Veen F, Hajenius PJ.
Ectopic pregnancy: how the diagnostic and therapeutic management has
changed. Fertil Steril 2012;98:1066–73.
de Bennetot M, Rabischong B, Aublet-Cuvelier B, Belard F, Fernandez H,
Bouyer J, et al. Fertility after tubal ectopic pregnancy: results of a
population-based study. Fertil Steril 2012;98:1271–1276.e1–3.
Fernandez H, Capmas P, Lucot JP, Resch B, Panel P, Bouyer J. Fertility after
ectopic pregnancy: the DEMETER randomized trial. Hum Reprod 2013;28:
1247–53.
Elito J, Reichmann AP, Uchiyama MN, Camano L. Predictive score for the systemic treatment of unruptured ectopic pregnancy with a single dose of
methotrexate. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1999;67:75–9.
Fernandez H, Lelaidier C, Thouvenez V, Frydman R. The use of a pretherapeutic, predictive score to determine inclusion criteria for the non-surgical
treatment of ectopic pregnancy. Hum Reprod 1991;6:995–8.
Bixby S, Tello R, Kuligowska E. Presence of a yolk sac on transvaginal sonography is the most reliable predictor of single-dose methotrexate treatment
failure in ectopic pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med 2005;24:591–8.
da Costa Soares R, Elito J, Camano L. Increment in beta-hCG in the 48-h
period prior to treatment: a new variable predictive of therapeutic success
in the treatment of ectopic pregnancy with methotrexate. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2008;278:319–24.
Dilbaz S, Caliskan E, Dilbaz B, Degirmenci O, Haberal A. Predictors of methotrexate treatment failure in ectopic pregnancy. J Reprod Med 2006;51:87–93.
Nazac A, Gervaise A, Bouyer J, de Tayrac R, Capella-Allouc S,
Fernandez H. Predictors of success in methotrexate treatment of women
with unruptured tubal pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003;21:
181–5.
Nowak-Markwitz E, Michalak M, Olejnik M, Spaczynski M. Cutoff value of
human chorionic gonadotropin in relation to the number of methotrexate
cycles in the successful treatment of ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril 2009;
92:1203–7.
619
VIEWS AND REVIEWS
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
620
Tawfiq A, Agameya AF, Claman P. Predictors of treatment failure for
ectopic pregnancy treated with single-dose methotrexate. Fertil Steril
2000;74:877–80.
Moon MH, Lee YH, Lim KT, Yang JH, Park SH. Outcome prediction for treatment of tubal pregnancy using an intramuscular methotrexate protocol.
J Ultrasound Med 2008;27:1461–7.
Menon S, Colins J, Barnhart KT. Establishing a human chorionic gonadotropin cutoff to guide methotrexate treatment of ectopic pregnancy: a systematic review. Fertil Steril 2007;87:481–4.
Lipscomb GH, Puckett KJ, Bran D, Ling FW. Management of separation pain
after single-dose methotrexate therapy for ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:590–3.
Rozenberg P, Chevret S, Camus E, de Tayrac R, Garbin O, de Poncheville L,
et al. Medical treatment of ectopic pregnancies: a randomized clinical trial
comparing methotrexate-mifepristone and methotrexate-placebo. Hum
Reprod 2003;18:1802–8.
Carson SA, Buster JE. Ectopic pregnancy. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1174–81.
Tanaka T, Hayashi H, Kutsuzawa T, Fujimoto S, Ichinoe K. Treatment of interstitial ectopic pregnancy with methotrexate: report of a successful case.
Fertil Steril 1982;37:851–2.
Stovall TG, Ling FW. Ectopic pregnancy: diagnostic and therapeutic
algorithms minimizing surgical intervention. J Reprod Med 1993;38:807–12.
Barnhart K, Hummel AC, Sammel MD, Menon S, Jain J, Chakhtoura N. Use
of ‘‘2- dose’’ regimen of methotrexate to treat ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril
2007;87:250–6.
Jermy K, Thomas J, Doo A, Bourne T. The conservative management of
interstitial pregnancy. BJOG 2004;111:1283–8.
Fernandez H, Benifla JL, Madelenat P. Medical treatment of cornual pregnancy? Fertil Steril 1996;66:862.
Lau S, Tulandi T. Conservative medical and surgical management of interstitial ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril 1999;72:207–15.
Kirk E, Bourne T. The nonsurgical management of ectopic pregnancy. Curr
Opin Obstet Gynecol 2006;18:587–93.
Bourget P, Fernandez H, Quinquis-Desmaris V. Pharmacological treatment
of ectopic pregnancy [article in French]. Therapie 1993;48:215–23.
Timor-Tritsch IE. Hyperosmolar glucose injection for the treatment of heterotopic ovarian pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:1212–3.
Allison JL, Aubuchon M, Leasure JD, Schust DJ. Hyperosmolar glucose injection for the treatment of heterotopic ovarian pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol
2012;120:449–52.
Raughley MJ, Frishman GN. Local treatment of ectopic pregnancy. Semin
Reprod Med 2007;25:99–115.
Lang PF, Weiss PA, Mayer HO, Haas JG, Honigl W. Conservative treatment of
ectopic pregnancy with local injection of hyperosmolar glucose solution or
prostaglandin-F2 alpha: a prospective randomised study. Lancet 1990;
336:78–81.
Rabischong B. Predicting success of laparoscopic salpingostomy for ectopic
pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:701–7.
Graczykowski JW, Mishell DR. Methotrexate prophylaxis for persistent
ectopic pregnancy after conservative treatment by salpingostomy. Obstet
Gynecol 1997;89:118–22.
Banerjee S, Aslam N, Woelfer B, Lawrence A, Elson J, Jurkovic D. Expectant
management of early pregnancies of unknown location: a prospective evaluation of methods to predict spontaneous resolution of pregnancy. BJOG
2001;108:158–63.
Elson J, Tailor A, Banerjee S, Salim R, Hillaby K, Jukovic D. Expectant management of tubal ectopic pregnancy: prediction of successful outcome using
decision tree analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004;23:552–6.
Kirk E, Van Calster B, Condous G, Papageorghiou AT, Gevaert O, Van Huffel S,
et al. Ectopic pregnancy: using the hCG ratio to select women for expectant or
medical management. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011;90:264–72.
van Mello NM, Mol F, Verhoeve HR, van Wely M, Adriaansa AH, Boss EA, et al.
Methotrexate or expectant management in women with an ectopic pregnancy or pregnancy of unknown location and low serum hCG concentrations? A randomized comparison. Hum Reprod 2013;28:60–7.
Fernandez H, Yves Vincent SC, Pauthier S, Audibert F, Frydman R. Randomized trial of conservative laparoscopic treatment and methotrexate adminis-
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
tration in ectopic pregnancy and subsequent fertility. Hum Reprod 1998;13:
3239–43.
Hajenius PJ, Engelsbal S, Mol BW, Van der Veen F, Ankul WM, Bossuyt PM,
et al. Randomised trial of systemic methotrexate versus laparoscopic salpingostomy in tubal pregnancy. Lancet 1997;350:774–9.
Sowter MC, Farquhar CM, Petrie KJ, Gudex G. A randomised trial comparing
single dose systemic methotrexate and laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of unruptured tubal pregnancy. BJOG 2001;108:192–203.
Vermesh M. Conservative management of ectopic gestation. Fertil Steril
1989;51:559–67.
Vermesh M, Silva PD, Rosen GF, Stein AL, Fossum GT, Sauer MV. Management of unruptured ectopic gestation by linear salpingostomy: a prospective, randomized clinical trial of laparoscopy versus laparotomy. Obstet
Gynecol 1989;73:400–4.
Mol F, Mol BW, Ankum WM, van der Veen F, Hajenius PJ. Current evidence
on surgery, systemic methotrexate and expectant management in the treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Hum Reprod Update 2008;14:309–19.
Hajenius PJ, Mol F, Mol BW, Bossuyt PM, Ankum WM, van der Veen F. Interventions for tubal ectopic pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;1:
CD000324.
Akira S, Negishi Y, Abe T, Ichikawa M, Takeshita T. Prophylactic intratubal
injection of methotrexate after linear salpingostomy for prevention of persistent ectopic pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2008;34:885–9.
Saraj AJ, Wilcox JG, Najmabadi S, Stein SM, Johnson MB, Paulson RJ. Resolution of hormonal markers of ectopic gestation: a randomized trial
comparing single-dose intramuscular methotrexate with salpingostomy.
Obstet Gynecol 1998;92:989–94.
Colacurci N, De Franciscis P, Zarcone R, Fortunato N, Passaro M, Mollo A, et al.
Time length of negativization of hCG serum values after either surgical or
medical treatment of ectopic pregnancy. Panminerva Med 1998;40:223–5.
Vaissade L, Gerbaud L, Pouly JL, Job-Spira N, Bouyer J, Coste J, et al. Costeffectiveness analysis of laparoscopic surgery versus methotrexate: comparison of data recorded in an ectopic pregnancy registry [article in French].
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 2003;32:447–58.
Nieuwkerk PT, Hajenius PJ, Ankum WM, Van der Veen F, Wijker W,
Bossuyt PM. Systemic methotrexate therapy versus laparoscopic salpingostomy in patients with tubal pregnancy. Part I. Impact on patients' healthrelated quality of life. Fertil Steril 1998;70:511–7.
van Mello NM, Mol F, Opmeer BC, de Bekker-Grob EW, Essink-Bot ML,
Ankum WM, et al. Salpingotomy or salpingectomy in tubal ectopic pregnancy: what do women prefer? Reprod Biomed Online 2010;21:687–93.
Allonier C, Ego A, Gerbaud L, Job-Spira N, Subtil D, Bouyer J. Comparison of
fertility rates after ectopic pregnancy in Auvergne and Lille regions [article in
French]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 2003;32:439–46.
Bouyer J, Fernandez H, Coste J, Pouly JL, Job-Spira N. Fertility after ectopic
pregnancy: 10-year results in the Auvergne Registry [article in French]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 2003;32:431–8.
Bouyer J, Coste J, Shojael T, Pouly JL, Fernandez H, Gerbaud L, et al. Risk factors for extrauterine pregnancy in women using an intrauterine device. Fertil
Steril 2000;74:899–908.
Dias Pereira G, Hajenius PJ, Mol BW, Ankum WM, Hemrika DJ, Bossuyt PM,
et al. Fertility outcome after systemic methotrexate and laparoscopic salpingostomy for tubal pregnancy. Lancet 1999;353:724–5.
Zilber U, Pansky M, Bukovsky I, Golan A. Laparoscopic salpingostomy versus
laparoscopic local methotrexate injection in the management of unruptured
ectopic gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:600–2.
Nilsson UW, Wilmann T, Kaitu'u-Lino T, Whitehead C, Dimitriadis E,
Menkhorst E, et al. Effects of Gefitinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor
inhibitor on human placental cell growth. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:737–51.
Skubisz MM, Horne AW, Johns TG, Nilsson UW, Duncan WC, Wallace EM,
et al. Combination gefitinib and methotrexate compared with methotrexate
alone to treat ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:745–51.
Gong W, Ren H, Han C, Li Y, Wu Z. Superselective uterine arterial embolization combined with transcatheter intra-arterial methotrexate infusion in 40
cases with fallopian tube ectopic pregnancy. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2013;
40:222–6.
VOL. 101 NO. 3 / MARCH 2014