Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 296, Issue 1, pp 85–92 | Cite as

Diagnosis and management of heterotopic pregnancy following embryo transfer: clinical analysis of 55 cases from a single institution

  • Jiangtao Lyu
  • Hong Ye
  • Weihua Wang
  • Yi LinEmail author
  • Wenjie Sun
  • Li Lei
  • Lijuan Hao
General Gynecology

Abstract

Objective

The aims of this study were to summarize the clinical features of patients with heterotopic pregnancy (HP) following embryo transfer (ET) and explore the risk factors for miscarriage after surgery.

Methods

All patients with HP following ET treated by surgery between August 2014 and August 2015 in Chongqing Health Center for Women and Children were retrospectively reviewed.

Results

Fifty-five patients were identified, including 40 with tubal HP, 9 interstitial HP and 6 cornual HP. The most frequent manifestations before diagnosis was abdominal pain (29.1%), while 19 patients (34.5%) had no symptoms before diagnosis. The sensitivity of symptoms for HP was 65.5%. Gestational age at symptom onset of these patients with symptoms (n = 36) was 5.8 weeks (range 4.7–8.1). Forty-seven patients (85.5%) were suspected of HP when they received first transvaginal ultrasonography (TVS). The mean gestational age at diagnosis was 6.3 weeks (range 4.7–8.3, 16–41 days after ET). First TVS suggesting HP (P = 0.000) and first TVS performed before day 27 (P = 0.000) were two independent predictors for gestational age at diagnosis. Gestational age at surgery day was 6.7 weeks (range 5.3–10.7). Fifty-one patients (92.7%) resulted in a live birth. Gestational age at surgery day was the only independent risk factor for miscarriage in patients with HP treated by laparotomy (OR 0.003, 95% CI 0.001–0.604).

Conclusions

Routine TVS at day 27 after ET could facilitate the diagnosis of HP, symptoms onset before or after day 27 are clues to early diagnosis. Prompt surgery after diagnosis may improve the prognosis of HP following ET.

Keywords

Diagnosis Embryo transfer Heterotopic pregnancy Treatment 

Notes

Authors contribution

JL: Project development, Data Collection, Manuscript writing. HY: Data collection. Weihua Wang: Data analysis. YL: Project development, Data Collection, Manuscript editing. WS: Data collection. LL: Data collection. LH: Data collection

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This study had no funding.

Conflict of interest

Jiangtao Lyu declares that he has no conflict of interest. Hong Ye declares that she has no conflict of interest. Weihua Wang declares that he has no conflict of interest. Yi Lin declares that she has no conflict of interest. Wenjie Sun declares that she has no conflict of interest. Li Lei declares that she has no conflict of interest. Lijuan Hao declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Approval was not requested from the human institutional review board, since the study was a summary of information of diagnosis and treatment what was considered routine management at our hospital.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study, when they admitted to inpatient department.

References

  1. 1.
    Talbot K, Simpson R, Price N et al (2011) Heterotopic pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol 31(1):7–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li XH, Ouyang Y, Lu GX (2013) Value of transvaginal sonography in diagnosing heterotopic pregnancy after in-vitro fertilization with embryo transfer. Ultrasound Obst Gynecol 41(5):563–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pitkin RM (2003) Discriminatory hCG zone: its use in the sonographic evaluation for ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 102(4):672CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kirk E, Bottomley C, Bourne T (2014) Diagnosing ectopic pregnancy and current concepts in the management of pregnancy of unknown location. Hum Reprod Update 20(2):250–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sijanovic S, Vidosavljevic D, Sijanovic I (2011) Methotrexate in local treatment of cervical heterotopic pregnancy with successful perinatal outcome: case report. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 37(9):1241–1245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deka D, Bahadur A, Singh A et al (2012) Successful management of heterotopic pregnancy after fetal reduction using potassium chloride and methotrexate. J Hum Reprod Sci 5(1):57–60CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Qiong Z, Yanping L, Deep JP, Prasad DJ et al (2011) Treatment of cornual heterotopic pregnancy via selective reduction without feticide drug. J Minim invasive Gynecol 18(6):766–768CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Condous G, Okaro EA, Lu C et al (2005) The accuracy of transvaginal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy prior to surgery. Hum Reprod 20(5):1404–1409CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Allison PD (2012) Logistic regression using SAS: theory and application. SAS InstituteGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cookingham LM, Goossen RP, Sparks AET et al (2015) Successful treatment algorithm for evaluation of early pregnancy after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 104(4):932–937CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Xu Y, Lu Y, Chen H et al (2016) Heterotopic pregnancy after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer after bilateral total salpingectomy/tubal ligation: case report and literature review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 23(3):338–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clayton HB, Schieve LA, Peterson HB et al (2007) A comparison of heterotopic and intrauterine-only pregnancy outcomes after assisted reproductive technologies in the United States from 1999 to 2002. Fertil Steril 87(2):303–309CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shi CM, Jia DL, Song XL et al (2016) Effect of laparoscopic surgery under total intravenous anesthesia on postoperative pregnancy outcomes of heterotopic pregnancies. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 96(4):293–296PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim MJ, Jung YW, Cha JH et al (2016) Successful management of heterotopic cornual pregnancy with laparoscopic cornual resection. Eur J Obstet Gynecol R B 203:199–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jeon JH, Hwang YI, Shin IH et al (2016) The risk factors and pregnancy outcomes of 48 cases of heterotopic pregnancy from a single center. J Korean Med Sci 31(7):1094–1099CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li JB, Kong LZ, Yang JB et al (2016) Management of heterotopic pregnancy: experience from 1 tertiary medical center. Medicine 95(5):e2570CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liu M, Zhang X, Geng L et al (2014) Risk factors and early predictors for heterotopic pregnancy after in vitro fertilization. PLoS One 10(10):e0139146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yu Y, Xu W, Xie Z et al (2014) Management and outcome of 25 heterotopic pregnancies in zhejiang, china. Eur J Obstet Gynecol R B 180:157–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eom JM, Choi JS, Ko JH et al (2013) Surgical and obstetric outcomes of laparoscopic management for women with heterotopic pregnancy. J Obstet Gynecol Res 39(12):1580–1586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Soriano D, Vicus D, Schonman R et al (2010) Long-term outcome after laparoscopic treatment of heterotopic pregnancy: 19 cases. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(3):321–324CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Luo X, Lim CE, Huang C et al (2009) Heterotopic pregnancy following in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer: 12 cases report. Arch Gynecol Obstet 280(2):325–329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hunter JG, Swanstrom L, Thornburg K (1995) Carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum induces fetal acidosis in a pregnant ewe model. Surg Endosc 9(3):272–279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Allaert SEG, Carlier SPK, Weyne LPG et al (2007) First trimester anesthesia exposure and fetal outcome. A review. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg 58(2):119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fatum M, Rojansky N (2001) Laparoscopic surgery during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Surv 56(1):50–59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Alptekin H, Dal Y (2014) Heterotopic pregnancy following IVF-ET: successful treatment with salpingostomy under spinal anesthesia and continuation of intrauterine twin pregnancy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 289(4):911–914CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Reproductive EndocrinologyChongqing Health Center for Women and ChildrenChongqingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Chongqing Reproductive and Genetics InstituteChongqing Health Center for Women and ChildrenChongqingPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Shaanxi Center for Disease Control and PreventionShaanxiPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations