Different treatment modalities for cesarean scar pregnancies: a single-center experience and literature review

Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A systematic review on expectant management

A Cesarean Scar Pregnancy (CSP) is a variant of uterine ectopic pregnancy defined by full or partial implantation of the gestational sac in the scar of a previous cesarean section. The continuous increase of Cesarean Deliveries is causing a parallel increase in CSP and its complications. Considering its high morbidity, the most usual recommendation has been termination of pregnancy in the first trimester; however, several cases progress to viable births. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the outcome of CSP managed expectantly and understand whether sonographic signs could correlate to the outcomes. An online-based search of PubMed and Cochrane Library Databases was used to gather studies including women diagnosed with a CSP who were managed expectantly. The description of all cases was analysed by the authors in order to obtain information for each outcome. 47 studies of different types were retrieved, and the gestational outcome was available in 194 patients. Out of these, 39 patients (20,1%) had a miscarriage and 16 (8,3%) suffered foetal death. 50 patients (25,8%) had a term delivery and 81 (41,8%) patients had a preterm birth, out of which 27 (13,9%) delivered before 34 weeks of gestation. In 102 (52,6%) patients, a hysterectomy was performed. Placenta Accreta Spectrum (PAS) was a common disorder among CSP and was linked to a higher rate of complications such as foetal death, preterm birth, hysterectomy, haemorrhagic morbidity and surgical complications. Some of the analysed articles showed that sonographic signs with specific characteristics, such as type II and III CSP classification, Crossover Sign - 1, "In the niche" implantation and lower myometrial thickness could be related to worse outcomes of CSP. This article provides a good understanding of CSP as an entity that, although rare, presents with a high rate of relevant morbidity. It is also understood that pregnancies with confirmed PAS had an even higher rate of morbidity. Some sonographic signs were shown to predict the prognosis of these pregnancies and further investigation is necessary to validate one or more signs so they can be used for a more reliable counselling of women with CSP.

Efficacy and Safety of High-intensity Focused Ultrasound Compared with Uterine Artery Embolization in Cesarean Section Pregnancy: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) compared with uterine artery embolization (UAE) in cesarean section pregnancy (CSP) and to calculate the success rate of HIFU.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase on September 30, 2022, and the related studies were independently reviewed by 2 researchers.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Medical subject headings and relevant terms from other articles were used for the database search. Patients with CSP who underwent HIFU were included in this analysis. The following results were recorded: success rate, intraoperative blood loss, time for serum beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (beta-HCG) normalization and menstruation recovery, adverse events, hospitalization time, and hospitalization expenses. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale scoring system and the methodological index for nonrandomized studies system to evaluate the quality of the studies.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Data from 6 studies were used to compare the efficacy and safety of UAE and HIFU. We pooled the success rate of HIFU by including 10 studies. No data overlap between the 10 studies. Success rate was higher in the HIFU group (odds ratio [OR] = 1.90; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-3.41; p = .03; I2 = 0). We performed the meta-analysis of single rate in R 4.2.0 software, and the success rate of HIFU group was 0.94 (95% CI 0.92-0.96; p = .04; I2 = 48%). Intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD]= -21.94 mL; 95% CI -67.34 to 23.47; p = .34; I2 = 99%) and time for serum beta-HCG normalization (MD = 3.13 days; 95% CI 0.02-6.25; p = .05; I2 = 70%) were not significantly different. Time to menstruation recovery (MD = 2.72 days; 95% CI 1.32-4.12; p = .0001; I2 = 0) in the UAE group was shorter than that in the HIFU group. Adverse events were not significantly different between the 2 groups (OR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.22-1.29; p = .16; I2 = 81%). Hospitalization time was not significantly different between the HIFU and UAE groups (MD = -0.41 days; 95% CI -1.14 to 0.31; p = .26; I2 = 55%). Hospitalization expenses of the HIFU group were lower than those of the UAE group (MD = -7488.49 yuan; 95% CI -8460.13 to -6516.84; p <.000; I2 = 0). Heterogeneity of the time for beta-HCG normalization, adverse events, and hospitalization time were improved after excluding one study, and HIFU showed better results in the sensitivity analysis of adverse events and hospitalization time.

CONCLUSION

According to our analysis, HIFU demonstrated satisfactory treatment success, accompanied by similar intraoperative blood loss, slower normalization of beta-HCG levels, and menstruation recovery, but potentially shorter hospitalization time, lower adverse events and lower costs than UAE. Therefore, HIFU is an effective, safe, and economical treatment for patients with CSP. These conclusions should be interpreted with caution because of the significant heterogeneity. However, large and strictly designed clinical trials are required to verify these conclusions.

Comparison of clinical safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided local lauromacrogol injection versus uterine artery embolization in the treatment of caesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to introduce the relatively novel method of ultrasound-guided local lauromacrogol injection (USG-LLI) followed by dilatation and curettage for caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) and to investigate the clinical safety and efficacy between uterine artery embolization (UAE) and USG-LLI in the treatment of CSP.

METHODS

The relevant literature and articles about USG-LLI, UAE and CSP published in eight electronic databases were searched to extract the primary outcomes for the selected articles. Review Manager Software(RevMan) V.5.2 was used for quantitative data synthesis and data analysis. Forest plots, sensitivity analysis and bias analysis were also performed on the included articles.

RESULTS

Of 10 studies included in our search, 623 patients were in the USG-LLI group and 627 patients were in the UAE groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of success rate, blood loss and time to human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) normalization. However, USG-LLI group patients than UAE group patients had a shorter duration of hospital stay (mean difference [MD] = -1.97; 95% confidence intervals [CI] -2.63 to -1.31; P < 0.05; I² = 95%), shorter restored menses (MD = -4.84; 95%CI -5.78 to -3.90; P < 0.05; I² = 95%), and lower complication rates [odds ratio(OR) = 0.21; 95%CI:0.15 to 0.30; P < 0.05]; and cheaper on expenses of hospitalization (MD = -8028.29; 95%CI -10,311.18 to -5745.40; P < 0.05; I² = 100%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate that USG-LLI is comparable in curative effect and success rates with UAE in the therapy of CSP, but patients in the USG-LLI group seem to have fewer complications rates, shorter duration of hospital stays and lower costs.

A study on the timing of uterine artery embolization followed by pregnancy excision for cesarean scar pregnancy: a prospective study in China

BACKGROUND

Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) remains a sporadic and special form of ectopic pregnancy in which the fertilized ovum is implanted on a previous cesarean scar within 12 weeks. This study aims to evaluate the optimal time interval between uterine artery embolization (UAE) and curettage modalities in order to provide the best clinical outcomes.

METHODS

From January 2018 to December 2020, we recruited 61 patients with CSP. They were randomly divided into two groups depending on whether the time interval between UAE and dilatation and curettage (D&C) requires additional hospitalization: 31 patients received prophylactic UAE followed by D&C on the same day (0-12 h; group A) and 30 patients need hospitalization (12-72 h; group B). The clinical characteristics, diagnostic data, and outcomes of the two groups were compared and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 59 (96.72%) cases had responded well to the first treatment. One patient in each arm undergone retreatment, but none of the 61 patients needed additional hysterectomy. There was no considerable relationship between the two groups with respect to the intraoperative hemorrhage during D&C, serum index (containing β-hCG, hemoglobin, CRP, and D-dimer) on the first day after D&C, side effects (containing fever and abdominal pain), renal, hepatic, and coagulation function, time of CSP residual mass disappearance, and hospitalization cost. The time of serum β-hCG resolution after surgery was 41.22 ± 14.97 days in group A and 66.67 ± 36.64 days in group B (P = 0.027), and group A treatment resulted in a shorten hospital stay as compared with group B (4.81 ± 2.74 days vs. 6.80 ± 2.14 days, P <  0.001). However, the average hourly serum β-hCG decrease rate within 24 h and the leukocytes on the first day after D&C in group B were superior than in group A (P <  0.050).

CONCLUSION

For patients with CSP, UAE followed by D&C on the same day (0-12 h) appears to have more advantages in hospitalization and recovery time, while the long time interval (12-72 h) may have a lower risk of inflammation and a more rapid decrease in serum β-hCG level within 24 h after D&C surgery. The treatment of CSP should be individualized based on the conditions of patients.

A review on management of caesarean scar pregnancy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the current literature on management of cesarean scar pregnancy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is a complex pathologic condition, which is strictly related to a previous caesarean section. It is an iatrogenic disorder, that has had an exponential increase over the last few years linked to the parallel increase in the number of caesarean sections. The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) confirmed the presence of surgical, medical, and minimally invasive therapies for caesarean scar pregnancy management but the optimal treatment is not known; the main recommendation is to avoid expectant management of CSP (GRADE 1B). The treatments for Caesarean scar pregnancy are multiple, and they include a surgical management, a medical management and a combination between these two types of treatments. Despite the recommendation of SMFM in this review, we also included some cases of conservative management published in the last months.

SUMMARY

Considering all the different approaches on CSP, the management has to be individualized mainly on gestational age and it has to be discussed by a multidisciplinary team, to choose the safest clinical option.

Risk factors for massive hemorrhage during the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is one of the serious complications associated with cesarean delivery (CD). This meta-analysis aims to identify risk factors associated with massive hemorrhage during the CSP treatment.

METHODS

Eight electronic databases were searched for case-control studies published before December 31th, 2018, which compared the possible factors causing massive bleeding during the CSP treatment. Quantitative synthesis was performed by RevMan 5.3. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias were performed by Stata 12.0.

RESULTS

Total 20 case - control studies including 3101 CSP patients with previous CD met the inclusion criteria. Bleeding group had 573 patients and the control group had 2528 patients. The risk factors for massive bleeding during CSP treatment included multiple gravidities (MD = 0.15, 95% CI 0.03-0.28, P = 0.73), big maximum diameter of gestation sac (MD = 18.49 mm, 95%CI 15.34-21.65, P < 0.01), high gestational days (MD = 8.98 days, 95% CI 4.12-13.84, P < 0.01), high β-HCG level (MD = 21.39 IU/ml, 95% CI 7.36-35.41, P = 0.03; MD = 3.02 U/ml, 95% CI 0.21-5.84, P < 0.01) and rich blood flow around the lesion (OR = 6.73, 95% CI 3.93-11.51, P = 0.59). While, thick myometrium (MD = - 4.94 mm, 95% CI - 6.12 to - 3.75, P < 0.01) may be protective factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple gravidities, big gestation sac, large gestational days, high serum β-HCG level, abundant blood supply to pregnancy sac and thin myometrium maybe the risk factors for massive bleeding during the CSP treatment.