The clinical performance of the M4 decision support model to triage women with a pregnancy of unknown location as at low or high risk of complications

Clinical decision support systems for maternity care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The use of Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) is increasing throughout healthcare and may be able to improve safety and outcomes in maternity care, but maternity care has key differences to other disciplines that complicate the use of CDSS. We aimed to identify evaluated CDSS and synthesise evidence of their impact on maternity care.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review for articles published before 24th May 2024 that described i) CDSS that ii) investigated the impact of their use iii) in maternity settings. Medline, CINAHL, CENTRAL and HMIC were searched for articles relating to evaluations of CDSS in maternity settings, with forward- and backward-citation tracing conducted for included articles. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool, and CDSS were described according to the clinical problem, purpose, design, and technical environment. Quantitative results from articles reporting appropriate data were meta-analysed to estimate odds of a CDSS achieving its desired outcome using a multi-level random effects model, first by individual CDSS and then across all CDSS. PROSPERO ID: CRD42022348157.

Findings

We screened 12,039 papers and included 87 articles describing 47 unique CDSS. 24 articles (28%) described randomised controlled trials, 30 (34%) described non-randomised interventional studies, 10 (11%) described mixed methods studies, 10 (11%) described qualitative studies, 7 (8%) described quantitative descriptive studies, and 7 (8%) described economic evaluations. 49 (56%) were in High-Income Countries and 38 (44%) in Low- and Middle-Income countries, with no CDSS trialled in both income categories. Meta-analysis of 35 included studies found an odds ratio for improved outcomes of 1.69 (95% confidence interval 1.24-2.30). There was substantial variation in effects, aims, CDSS types, context, study designs, and outcomes.

Interpretation

Most CDSS evaluations showed improvements in outcomes, but there was heterogeneity in all aspects of design and evaluation of systems. CDSS are increasingly important in delivering healthcare, and Electronic Health Records and mHealth will increase their availability, but traditional epidemiological methods may be limited in guiding design and demonstrating effectiveness due to rapid CDSS development lifecycles and the complex systems in which they are embedded. Development methods that are attentive to context, such as Human Centred Design, will help to meet this need.

Funding

None.

Safety of methotrexate administration in women with pregnancy of unknown location at high risk of ectopic pregnancy

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety of current guidelines on methotrexate (MTX) administration in women with pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) who are considered to have a high risk of underlying ectopic pregnancy (EP), and to investigate whether implementation of these guidelines would result in inadvertent exposure to MTX of viable intrauterine pregnancies (IUPs).

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study of consecutive clinically stable women who were classified with PUL at the early pregnancy unit of Nepean Hospital, Sydney, Australia, between 2007 and 2021. PUL was defined as a positive pregnancy test in the absence of signs of IUP or EP on transvaginal ultrasound. Patients with a PUL that behaved biochemically like an EP, but for which the location of pregnancy was not confirmed on ultrasound, were eligible for MTX to minimize the risk of subsequent tubal rupture. Criteria discussed in the guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) were applied to the PUL database. The number of patients eligible to receive MTX and the number with an underlying viable IUP who would be inadvertently prescribed MTX were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 816 women with PUL were reviewed, of whom 724 had complete data and were included in the final analysis. Six patients had persistent PUL and the remaining 718 had a diagnosis of viable IUP, non-viable IUP, EP or failed PUL. According to the ACOG, ASRM, RCOG and NICE guidelines, the rate of MTX administration among patients with PUL would have been 2.76%, 4.56%, 0.41% and 35.36%, respectively. However, no persistent PUL would have received MTX according to the ACOG, ASRM and RCOG protocols (the NICE protocol identified patients with persistent PUL with a sensitivity of 100%), and the majority of MTX treatments were unnecessary because those patients were later classified as having non-viable IUP or failed PUL. Application of ACOG and ASRM guidance could result theoretically in inadvertent MTX administration to women with an underlying viable IUP at a rate of 4.1/1000 (3/724).

CONCLUSIONS

Current guidelines used to predict high risk of EP in the PUL population lead to inadvertent MTX administration to women with an underlying viable IUP. These guidelines should be used wisely to ensure that no wanted pregnancy is exposed to MTX. Women with PUL should be monitored carefully, and MTX should be used judiciously when the location of pregnancy is yet to be confirmed. © 2024 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Diagnostic utility of clinicodemographic, biochemical and metabolite variables to identify viable pregnancies in a symptomatic cohort during early gestation

A significant number of pregnancies are lost in the first trimester and 1-2% are ectopic pregnancies (EPs). Early pregnancy loss in general can cause significant morbidity with bleeding or infection, while EPs are the leading cause of maternal mortality in the first trimester. Symptoms of pregnancy loss and EP are very similar (including pain and bleeding); however, these symptoms are also common in live normally sited pregnancies (LNSP). To date, no biomarkers have been identified to differentiate LNSP from pregnancies that will not progress beyond early gestation (non-viable or EPs), defined together as combined adverse outcomes (CAO). In this study, we present a novel machine learning pipeline to create prediction models that identify a composite biomarker to differentiate LNSP from CAO in symptomatic women. This prospective cohort study included 370 participants. A single blood sample was prospectively collected from participants on first emergency presentation prior to final clinical diagnosis of pregnancy outcome: LNSP, miscarriage, pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) or tubal EP (tEP). Miscarriage, PUL and tEP were grouped together into a CAO group. Human chorionic gonadotrophin β (β-hCG) and progesterone concentrations were measured in plasma. Serum samples were subjected to untargeted metabolomic profiling. The cohort was randomly split into train and validation data sets, with the train data set subjected to variable selection. Nine metabolite signals were identified as key discriminators of LNSP versus CAO. Random forest models were constructed using stable metabolite signals alone, or in combination with plasma hormone concentrations and demographic data. When comparing LNSP with CAO, a model with stable metabolite signals only demonstrated a modest predictive accuracy (0.68), which was comparable to a model of β-hCG and progesterone (0.71). The best model for LNSP prediction comprised stable metabolite signals and hormone concentrations (accuracy = 0.79). In conclusion, serum metabolite levels and biochemical markers from a single blood sample possess modest predictive utility in differentiating LNSP from CAO pregnancies upon first presentation, which is improved by variable selection and combination using machine learning. A diagnostic test to confirm LNSP and thus exclude pregnancies affecting maternal morbidity and potentially life-threatening outcomes would be invaluable in emergency situations.

Ambulatory human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) testing: a verification of two hCG point of care devices

OBJECTIVES

Quantitative human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) measurements are used to manage women classified with a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL). Two point of care testing (POCT) devices that quantify hCG are commercially available. We verified the i-STAT 1 (Abbott) and the AQT 90 FLEX (Radiometer) prior to use in PUL triage.

METHODS

Tests for precision, external quality assurance (EQA), correlation, hook effect and recovery were undertaken alongside a POCT usability assessment during this prospective multi-center verification.

RESULTS

Coefficients of variation ranged between 4.0 and 5.1 % for the three i-STAT 1 internal quality control (IQC) solutions and between 6.8 and 7.3 % for the two AQT IQC solutions. Symmetric differences in POCT EQA results when compared with laboratory and EQA stock values ranged between 3.2 and 24.5 % for the i-STAT 1 and between 3.3 and 36.9 % for the AQT. Correlation coefficients (i-STAT 1: 0.96, AQT: 0.99) and goodness of fit curves (i-STAT 1: 0.92, AQT: 0.99) were excellent when using suitable whole blood samples. An hCG hook effect was noted with the i-STAT 1 between 572,194 and 799,089 IU/L, lower than the hook effect noted with the AQT, which was between 799,089 and 1,619,309 IU/L. When hematocrit concentration was considered in sample types validated for use with each device, hCG recovery was 108 % with the i-STAT 1 and 98 % with the AQT. The i-STAT 1 scored lower on usability overall (90/130) than the AQT (121/130, p<0.001, Mann-Whitney).

CONCLUSIONS

Both hCG POCT devices were verified for use in clinical practice. Practical factors must also be considered when choosing which device to use in each unit.

Updating M6 pregnancy of unknown location risk-prediction model including evaluation of clinical factors

OBJECTIVES

Ectopic pregnancy (EP) is a major high-risk outcome following a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) classification. Biochemical markers are used to triage PUL as high vs low risk to guide appropriate follow-up. The M6 model is currently the best risk-prediction model. We aimed to update the M6 model and evaluate whether performance can be improved by including clinical factors.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study recruited consecutive PUL between January 2015 and January 2017 at eight units (Phase 1), with two centers continuing recruitment between January 2017 and March 2021 (Phase 2). Serum samples were collected routinely and sent for β-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) and progesterone measurement. Clinical factors recorded were maternal age, pain score, bleeding score and history of EP. Based on transvaginal ultrasonography and/or biochemical confirmation during follow-up, PUL were classified subsequently as failed PUL (FPUL), intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) or EP (including persistent PUL (PPUL)). The M6 models with (M6P ) and without (M6NP ) progesterone were refitted and extended with clinical factors. Model validation was performed using internal-external cross-validation (IECV) (Phase 1) and temporal external validation (EV) (Phase 2). Missing values were handled using multiple imputation.

RESULTS

Overall, 5473 PUL were recruited over both phases. A total of 709 PUL were excluded because maternal age was < 16 years or initial β-hCG was ≤ 25 IU/L, leaving 4764 (87%) PUL for analysis (2894 in Phase 1 and 1870 in Phase 2). For the refitted M6P model, the area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC) for EP/PPUL vs IUP/FPUL was 0.89 for IECV and 0.84-0.88 for EV, with respective sensitivities of 94% and 92-93%. For the refitted M6NP model, the AUCs were 0.85 for IECV and 0.82-0.86 for EV, with respective sensitivities of 92% and 93-94%. Calibration performance was good overall, but with heterogeneity between centers. Net Benefit confirmed clinical utility. The change in AUC when M6P was extended to include maternal age, bleeding score and history of EP was between -0.02 and 0.01, depending on center and phase. The corresponding change in AUC when M6NP was extended was between -0.01 and 0.03. At the 5% threshold to define high risk of EP/PPUL, extending M6P altered sensitivity by -0.02 to -0.01, specificity by 0.03 to 0.04 and Net Benefit by -0.005 to 0.006. Extending M6NP altered sensitivity by -0.03 to -0.01, specificity by 0.05 to 0.07 and Net Benefit by -0.005 to 0.006.

CONCLUSIONS

The updated M6 model offers accurate diagnostic performance, with excellent sensitivity for EP. Adding clinical factors to the model improved performance in some centers, especially when progesterone levels were not suitable or unavailable. © 2023 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Beta-human chorionic gonadotrophin point of care testing for the management of pregnancy of unknown location

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does a commercially available quantitative beta-human chorionic gonadotrophin (BHCG) point of care testing (POCT) device improve workflow management in early pregnancy by performing comparably to gold standard laboratory methods, and is the performance of a validated pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) triage strategy maintained using POCT BHCG results?

DESIGN

Women classified with a PUL between 2018 and 2021 at three early pregnancy units were included. The linear relationship of untreated whole-blood POCT and serum laboratory BHCG values was defined using coefficients and regression. Paired serial BHCG values were then incorporated into the validated M6 multinomial logistic regression model to stratify the PUL as at high risk or at low risk of clinical complications. The sensitivity and negative predictive value were assessed. The timings required for equivocal POCT and laboratory care pathways were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 462 PUL were included. The discrepancy between 571 laboratory and POCT BHCG values was -5.2% (-6.2 IU/l), with a correlation coefficient of 0.96. The 133 PUL with paired 0 and 48 h BHCG values were compared using the M6 model. The sensitivity for high-risk outcomes (96.2%) and negative predictive values (98.5%) was excellent for both. Sample receipt and laboratory processing took 135 min (421 timings), compared with 12 min (91 timings) when using POCT (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

POCT BHCG values correlated well with laboratory testing measurements. The M6 model retained its performance when using POCT BHCG values. Using the model with POCT may improve workflow and patient care without compromising on effective PUL triage.

Pregnancy of unknown location: external validation of the hCG-based M6NP and M4 prediction models in an emergency gynaecology unit

OBJECTIVE

To investigate if M6NP predicting ectopic pregnancy (EP) among women with pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) is valid in an emergency gynaecology setting and comparing it with its predecessor M4.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

University Hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Women with PUL.

METHODS

All consecutive women with a PUL during a study period of 3 years were screened for inclusion. Risk prediction of an EP was based on two serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) levels taken at least 24 hours and no longer than 72 hours apart.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The area under the ROC curve (AUC) expressed the ability of a model to distinguish an EP from a non-EP (discrimination). Calibration assessed the agreement between the predicted risk of an EP and the true risk (proportion) of EP. The proportion of EPs and non-EPs classified as high risk assessed the model's sensitivity and false positive rate (FPR). The proportion of non-EPs among women classified as low risk was the model's negative predictive value (NPV). The clinical utility of a model was evaluated with decision curve analysis.

RESULTS

1061 women were included in the study, of which 238 (22%) had a final diagnosis of EP. The AUC for EP was 0.85 for M6NP and 0.81 for M4. M6NP made accurate risk predictions of EP up to predictions of 20% but thereafter risks were underestimated. M4 was poorly calibrated up to risk predictions of 40%. With a 5% threshold for high risk classification the sensitivity for EP was 95% for M6NP, the FPR 50% and NPV 97%. M6NP had higher sensitivity and NPV than M4 but also a higher FPR. M6NP had utility at all thresholds as opposed to M4 that had no utility at thresholds≤5%.

CONCLUSIONS

M6NP had better predictive performance than M4 and is valid in women with PUL attending an emergency gynaecology unit. Our results can encourage implementation of M6NP in related yet untested clinical settings to effectively support clinical decision-making.

Evaluating cut-off levels for progesterone, β human chorionic gonadotropin and β human chorionic gonadotropin ratio to exclude pregnancy viability in women with a pregnancy of unknown location: A prospective multicenter cohort study

INTRODUCTION

There is no global agreement on how to best determine pregnancy of unknown location viability and location using biomarkers. Measurements of progesterone and β human chorionic gonadotropin (βhCG) are still used in clinical practice to exclude the possibility of a viable intrauterine pregnancy (VIUP). We evaluate the predictive value of progesterone, βhCG, and βhCG ratio cut-off levels to exclude a VIUP in women with a pregnancy of unknown location.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of prospective multicenter study data of consecutive women with a pregnancy of unknown location between January 2015 and 2017 collected from dedicated early pregnancy assessment units of eight hospitals. Single progesterone and serial βhCG measurements were taken. Women were followed up until final pregnancy outcome between 11 and 14 weeks of gestation was confirmed using transvaginal ultrasonography: (1) VIUP, (2) non-viable intrauterine pregnancy or failed pregnancy of unknown location, and (3) ectopic pregnancy or persisting pregnancy of unknown location. The predictive value of cut-off levels for ruling out VIUP were evaluated across a range of values likely to be encountered clinically for progesterone, βhCG, and βhCG ratio.

RESULTS

Data from 2507 of 3272 (76.6%) women were suitable for analysis. All had data for βhCG levels, 2248 (89.7%) had progesterone levels, and 1809 (72.2%) had βhCG ratio. The likelihood of viability falls with the progesterone level. Although the median progesterone level associated with viability was 59 nmol/L, VIUP were identified with levels as low as 5 nmol/L. No single βhCG cut-off reliably ruled out the presence of viability with certainty, even when the level was more than 3000 IU/L, there were 39/358 (11%) women who had a VIUP. The probability of viability decreases with the βhCG ratio. Although the median βhCG ratio associated with viability was 2.26, VIUP were identified with ratios as low as 1.02. A progesterone level below 2 nmol/L and βhCG ratio below 0.87 were unlikely to be associated with viability but were not definitive when considering multiple imputation.

CONCLUSIONS

Cut-off levels for βhCG, βhCG ratio, and progesterone are not safe to be used clinically to exclude viability in early pregnancy. Although βhCG ratio and progesterone have slightly better performance in comparison, single βhCG used in this manner is highly unreliable.

Management of early gestations with low beta-human chorionic gonadotropin conceived by assisted reproductive technologies: performance of M4 predictive model

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and performance of the M4 model for classifying as high risk or low risk for ectopic pregnancy (EP) pregnancies conceived by assisted reproductive technologies (ART) that present with low beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) concentration in early gestation.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study of 243 pregnancies conceived by ART with low β-hCG levels (5-50 IU/L) at 4 + 0 to 4 + 2 weeks' gestation. After subsequent β-hCG testing at 48 h, pregnancies were classified according to the M4 model into the following categories: (i) high risk, probable EP/persistent pregnancy of unknown location (PPUL), when the risk for EP was ≥ 5%; (ii) low risk, probable intrauterine pregnancy (IUP), when the risk of EP was < 5% and the likelihood of IUP was greater than that of a failed pregnancy of unknown location (FPUL); and (iii) low risk, probable FPUL, when the risk of EP was < 5% and the likelihood of a FPUL was greater than that of an IUP. The predictive performance of the M4 model for EP and its ability to discriminate between high- and low-risk pregnancies was assessed using the final pregnancy outcome at 11 to 13 weeks of gestation as reference, which was classified as EP/PPUL, FPUL or IUP.

RESULTS

The sensitivity and specificity of the M4 model in detecting a high-risk pregnancy (EP/PPUL) were 60.0% (95% CI, 43.6-74.4%) and 79.8% (95% CI, 73.8-84.7%), respectively. The area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve of the M4 model for discriminating between high-risk and low-risk (FPUL/IUI) pregnancies was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.62-0.81). The model had a positive likelihood ratio of 2.97 (95% CI, 2.03-4.36) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.50 (95% CI, 0.33-0.76). The kappa index was 0.30 (95% CI, 0.16-0.43), indicating a low degree of agreement between the model classification and the final diagnosis. No serious adverse events related directly to the application of the M4 model were observed, although 14 pregnancies classified ultimately as high risk had been categorized initially as low risk by the M4 model. Of these, seven resolved with expectant management, five with methotrexate (MTX) and two required laparoscopic surgery (one after failure of medical treatment with MTX and one after deviation from the follow-up protocol). There were no cases of EP/PPUL with additional complications or need for blood or other blood product transfusion. Of the 243 ART pregnancies with low β-hCG concentration in early gestation, only 47 (19.3%) had an IUP, half (24/47) of which had an early miscarriage, resulting in only 9.5% (23/243) cases having an ongoing pregnancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of the M4 model in pregnancies conceived by ART with low β-hCG concentration in early gestation showed limited capacity in classifying them as being at low or high risk for EP, therefore, its use in pregnancies of this type is not recommended. No serious adverse events or complications related to the use of the model were observed. These pregnancies have a low probability of ending in an IUP as well as a high rate of early miscarriage. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Serum calponin 2 is a novel biomarker of tubal ectopic pregnancy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate serum protein calponin 2 (CNN2) as a candidate biomarker for tubal ectopic pregnancy (EP).

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Single University affiliated tertiary hospital.

PATIENT(S)

Serum samples were obtained from 84 patients with EP, 39 with viable intrauterine pregnancy (vIUP), and 42 with miscarriage. Moreover, 10 fallopian tube and corresponding villous tissue samples from patients with EP, 6 villous tissue samples from patients with vIUP, and 10 villous tissue samples from patients with miscarriage were collected.

INTERVENTION(S)

Serum CNN2 concentrations were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; CNN2 expression in tissues was evaluated via immunohistochemistry and quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The diagnostic performance of serum CNN2 to discriminate an EP from vIUP and miscarriage.

RESULT(S)

CNN2 was highly expressed in villous stromal cells isolated from patients with EP, and CNN2 messenger ribonucleic acid expression was upregulated in villous tissues from women with EP compared with that in women with vIUPs and miscarriages. Serum CNN2 concentration was higher in women with EP than that in women with vIUP and miscarriage. The serum CNN2 predicted EP from vIUP and miscarriage with areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.931 (95% confidence interval: 0.889-0.975). For discriminating EP from miscarriage only, the AUC was 0.906 (95% confidence interval: 0.835-0.977). In contrast, the AUCs for serum human chorionic gonadotropin were 0.809 and 0.637, respectively.

CONCLUSION(S)

Our data highlight the possibility of serum CNN2 as a single biomarker for the diagnosis of EP.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR 1900020483.

Guideline No. 414: Management of Pregnancy of Unknown Location and Tubal and Nontubal Ectopic Pregnancies

OBJECTIVE

To provide an evidence-based algorithm to guide the diagnosis and management of pregnancy of unknown location and tubal and nontubal ectopic pregnancy.

TARGET POPULATION

All patients of reproductive age.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

The implementation of this guideline aims to benefit patients with positive β-human chorionic gonadotropin results and provide physicians with a standard algorithm for expectant, medical, and surgical treatment of pregnancy of unknown location and tubal pregnancy and nontubal ectopic pregnancies.

EVIDENCE

The following search terms were entered into PubMed/Medline and Cochrane in 2018: cesarean section, chorionic gonadotropin, beta subunit, human/blood, fallopian tubes/surgery, female, fertility, humans, infertility, laparoscopy, methotrexate, methotrexate/administration & dosage, methotrexate/therapeutic use, pregnancy (abdominal, angular, cervix, cornual, ectopic, ectopic/diagnosis, ectopic/diagnostic imaging, ectopic/drug therapy, ectopic/epidemiology, ectopic/mortality, ectopic/surgery, heterotopic, interstitial, isthmo-cervical, ovarian, tubal, unknown location), recurrence, risk factors, salpingectomy, salpingostomy, tubal pregnancy, ultrasonography, doppler ultrasonography, and prenatal. Articles included were randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, observational studies, and case reports. Additional publications were identified from the bibliographies of these articles. Only English-language articles were reviewed.

VALIDATION METHODS

The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See online Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and weak recommendations).

INTENDED AUDIENCE

Obstetrician-gynaecologists, family physicians, emergency physicians, midwives, registered nurses, nurse practitioners, medical students, and residents and fellows.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS (GRADE RATINGS IN PARENTHESES)

RECOMMENDATIONS (GRADE RATINGS IN PARENTHESES).

Directive clinique no 414 : Prise en charge des grossesses de localisation indéterminée et des grossesses ectopiques tubaires et non tubaires

OBJECTIF

Fournir un algorithme fondé sur des données probantes pour orienter le diagnostic et la prise en charge de la grossesse de localisation indéterminée et de la grossesse ectopique tubaire ou non tubaire.

POPULATION CIBLE

Toutes les patientes en âge de procréer. BéNéFICES, RISQUES ET COûTS: La mise en œuvre de la présente directive a pour objectif de bénéficier aux patientes ayant obtenu un résultat positif pour la sous-unité bêta de la gonadotrophine chorionique et de fournir aux médecins un algorithme normalisé pour l'expectative et le traitement pharmacologique ou chirurgical en cas de grossesse de localisation indéterminée et de grossesse ectopique tubaire ou non tubaire. DONNéES PROBANTES: Les termes de recherche suivants ont été entrés dans les bases de données PubMed-Medline et Cochrane en 2018 : cesarean section, chorionic gonadotropin, beta subunit, human/blood, fallopian tubes/surgery, female, fertility, humans, infertility, laparoscopy, methotrexate, methotrexate/administration & dosage, methotrexate/therapeutic use, pregnancy (abdominal, angular, cervix, cornual, ectopic, ectopic/diagnosis, ectopic/diagnostic imaging, ectopic/drug therapy, ectopic/epidemiology, ectopic/mortality, ectopic/surgery, heterotopic, interstitial, isthmo-cervical, ovarian, tubal, unknown location), recurrence, risk factors, salpingectomy, salpingostomy, tubal pregnancy, ultrasonography, doppler ultrasonography et prenatal. Les articles retenus sont des essais cliniques randomisés, des méta-analyses, des revues systématiques, des études observationnelles et des études de cas. Des publications supplémentaires ont été sélectionnées à partir des notices bibliographiques de ces articles. Seuls les articles en anglais ont été examinés. MéTHODES DE VALIDATION: Les auteurs ont évalué la qualité des données probantes et la solidité des recommandations en utilisant la méthodologie GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Voir l'annexe A en ligne (tableau A1 pour les définitions et tableau A2 pour l'interprétation des recommandations fortes et faibles). PUBLIC VISé: Obstétriciens-gynécologues, médecins de famille, urgentologues, sages-femmes, infirmières autorisées, infirmières praticiennes, étudiants en médecine, résidents et moniteurs cliniques. DÉCLARATIONS SOMMAIRES (CLASSEMENT GRADE ENTRE PARENTHèSES): RECOMMANDATIONS (CLASSEMENT GRADE ENTRE PARENTHèSES).

How do the M4 and M6 models perform in an Australian pregnancy of unknown location population?

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) is made when there is an elevated serum β human chorionic gonadotropin (βhCG) and no pregnancy on transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound. Most of these pregnancies end as intra-uterine pregnancies or unsuccessful pregnancies and can be safely managed expectantly. However, up to 20% of these women will have an ectopic pregnancy. Several mathematical models, including the M4 and M6 protocols, have been developed using biochemical markers to triage PUL presentations. This rationalises numbers of tests and visits made without compromising safety and allowing timely intervention.

AIMS

We aimed to externally validate the M4 and M6 models in an Australian tertiary early pregnancy assessment service (EPAS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective single-centre cohort study across five years. Our study population included all women attending our EPAS with a PUL who had at least two serum βhCG levels and one progesterone level measured. The M4 and M6 models were retrospectively applied.

RESULTS

Of the 360 women in the study population, there were 26 confirmed ectopic pregnancies (7.2%) and six persisting PULs (2%). The M4 model had a sensitivity and specificity of 72%. The M6P model had a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 63%. The M6P misclassified two ectopic pregnancies into the low-risk group, compared with seven in the M4 model.

CONCLUSIONS

The M6P model has the highest sensitivity of the three models and a negative predictive value of 99%. These numbers are comparable to the original United Kingdom population. Further prospective validation is planned.

The potential use of urinary hCG measurements in the management of pregnancies of unknown location

Multiple measurements of serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) are used to predict the final pregnancy outcome for women with a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) and monitor the management of ectopic pregnancy (EP). Urine-based testing would be more convenient and economical. This prospective cohort study involving 80 women assessed the degree of correlation between serum and urine hCG levels and whether urine hCG levels have the potential to impact clinical decision making in the management of women with a PUL. Paired urine and serum hCG measurements differed quite widely but were well correlated and the degree of correlation improved after creatinine correction. Although serial serum hCG measurements appear to be better for the overall prediction of pregnancy outcome in PUL (AUC 0.77-0.94 compared to corrected urine AUC 0.69-0.84), serial urine hCG measurements may have a role in identifying subtypes of low-risk PUL (AUC 0.83-0.84).

External validation of risk prediction model M4 in an Australian population: Rationalising the management of pregnancies of unknown location

BACKGROUND

The prediction model M4 can successfully classify pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) into a low- or high-risk group in developing ectopic pregnancy. M4 was validated in UK centres but in very few other countries outside UK.

AIM

To validate the M4 model's ability to correctly classify PULs in a cohort of Australian women.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of women classified with PUL, attending a Sydney-based teaching hospital between 2006 and 2018. The reference standard was the final characterisation of PUL: failed PUL (FPUL) or intrauterine pregnancy (IUP; low risk) vs ectopic pregnancy (EP) or persistent PUL (PPUL; high risk). Each patient was entered into the M4 model calculator and an estimated risk of FPUL/IUP or EP/PPUL was recorded. Diagnostic accuracy of the M4 model was evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 9077 consecutive women who underwent transvaginal sonography, 713 (7.9%) classified with a PUL. Six hundred and seventy-seven (95.0%) had complete study data and were included. Final outcomes were: 422 (62.3%) FPULs, 150 (22.2%) IUPs, 105 (15.5%) EPs and PPULs. The M4 model classified 455 (67.2%) as low-risk PULs of which 434 (95.4%) were FPULs/IUPs and 21 (4.6%) were EPs or PPULs. EPs/PPULs were correctly classified with sensitivity of 80.0% (95% CI 71.1-86.5%), specificity of 75.9% (95% CI 72.2-79.3%), positive predictive value of 37.8% (95% CI 33.8-42.1%) and negative predictive value of 95.3% (95% CI 93.1-96.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

We have externally validated the prediction model M4. It classified 67.2% of PULs as low risk, of which 95.4% were later characterised as FPULs or IUPs while still classifying 80.0% of EPs as high risk.

Triaging women with pregnancy of unknown location using two-step protocol including M6 model: clinical implementation study

OBJECTIVE

The M6 risk-prediction model was published as part of a two-step protocol using an initial progesterone level of ≤ 2 nmol/L to identify probable failing pregnancies (Step 1) followed by the M6 model (Step 2). The M6 model has been shown to have good triage performance for stratifying women with a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) as being at low or high risk of harboring an ectopic pregnancy (EP). This study validated the triage performance of the two-step protocol in clinical practice by evaluating the number of protocol-related adverse events and how effectively patients were triaged.

METHODS

This was a prospective multicenter interventional study of 3272 women with a PUL, carried out between January 2015 and January 2017 in four district general hospitals and four university teaching hospitals in the UK. The final pregnancy outcome was defined as: a failed PUL (FPUL), an intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) or an EP (including persistent PUL (PPUL)). FPUL and IUP were grouped as low-risk and EP/PPUL as high-risk PUL. Serum progesterone and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) levels were measured at presentation in all patients. If the initial progesterone level was ≤ 2 nmol/L, patients were discharged and were asked to have a follow-up urine pregnancy test in 2 weeks to confirm a negative result. If the progesterone level was > 2 nmol/L or a measurement had not been taken, hCG level was measured again at 48 h and results were entered into the M6 model. Patients were managed according to the outcome predicted by the protocol. Those classified as 'low risk, probable FPUL' were advised to perform a urine pregnancy test in 2 weeks and those classified as 'low risk, probable IUP' were invited for a scan a week later. When a woman with a PUL was classified as high risk (i.e. risk of EP ≥ 5%) she was reviewed clinically within 48 h. One center used a progesterone cut-off of ≤ 10 nmol/L and its data were analyzed separately. If the recommended management protocol was not adhered to, this was recorded as a protocol deviation and classified as: unscheduled visit for clinician reason, unscheduled visit for patient reason or incorrect timing of blood test or ultrasound scan. The classifications outlined in the UK Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines were used to evaluate the incidence of adverse events. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of the 3272 women with a PUL, 2625 were included in the final analysis (317 met the exclusion criteria or were lost to follow-up, while 330 were evaluated using a progesterone cut-off of ≤ 10 nmol/L). Initial progesterone results were available for 2392 (91.1%) patients. In Step 1, 407 (15.5%) patients were classified as low risk (progesterone ≤ 2 nmol/L), of whom seven (1.7%) were ultimately diagnosed with an EP. In 279 of the remaining 2218 women with a PUL, the M6 model was not applied owing to protocol deviation or because the outcome was already known (usually on the basis of an ultrasound scan) before a second hCG reading was taken; of these patients, 30 were diagnosed with an EP. In Step 2, 1038 women with a PUL were classified as low risk, of whom eight (0.8%) had a final outcome of EP. Of 901 women classified as high risk at Step 2, 275 (30.5%) had an EP. Therefore, 275/320 (85.9%) EPs were correctly classified as high risk. Overall, 1445/2625 PUL (55.0%) were classified as low risk, of which 15 (1.0%) were EP. None of these cases resulted in a ruptured EP or significant clinical harm. Sixty-two women participating in the study had an adverse event, but no woman had a serious adverse event as defined in the UK GCP guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has shown that the two-step protocol incorporating the M6 model effectively triaged the majority of women with a PUL as being at low risk of an EP, minimizing the follow-up required for these patients after just two visits. There were few misclassified EPs and none of these women came to significant clinical harm or suffered a serious adverse clinical event. The two-step protocol incorporating the M6 model is an effective and clinically safe way of rationalizing the management of women with a PUL. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Diagnostic protocols for the management of pregnancy of unknown location: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is no international consensus on how to manage women with a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL).

OBJECTIVES

To present a systematic quantitative review summarising the evidence related to management protocols for PUL.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE, COCHRANE and DARE databases were searched from 1 January 1984 to 31 January 2017. The primary outcome was accurate risk prediction of women initially diagnosed with a PUL having an ectopic pregnancy (high risk) as opposed to either a failed PUL or intrauterine pregnancy (low risk).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All studies written in the English language, which were not case reports or series that assessed women classified as having a PUL at initial ultrasound.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Forty-three studies were included. QUADAS-2 criteria were used to assess the risk of bias. We used a novel, linear mixed-effects model and constructed summary receiver operating characteristic curves for the thresholds of interest.

MAIN RESULTS

There was a high risk of differential verification bias in most studies. Meta-analyses of accuracy were performed on (i) single human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) cut-off levels, (ii) hCG ratio (hCG at 48 hours/initial hCG), (iii) single progesterone cut-off levels and (iv) the 'M4 model' (a logistic regression model based on the initial hCG and hCG ratio). For predicting an ectopic pregnancy, the areas under the curves (95% CI) for these four management protocols were as follows: (i) 0.42 (0.00-0.99), (ii) 0.69 (0.57-0.78), (iii) 0.69 (0.54-0.81) and (iv) 0.87 (0.83-0.91), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The M4 model was the best available method for predicting a final outcome of ectopic pregnancy. Developing and validating risk prediction models may optimise the management of PUL.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Pregnancy of unknown location meta-analysis: M4 model has best test performance to predict ectopic pregnancy.

Factors to consider in pregnancy of unknown location

The management of women with a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) can vary significantly and often lacks a clear evidence base. Intensive follow-up is usually required for women with a final outcome of an ectopic pregnancy. This, however, only accounts for a small proportion of women with a pregnancy of unknown PUL location. There remains a clear clinical need to rationalize the follow-up of PUL so women at high risk of having a final outcome of an ectopic pregnancy are followed up more intensively and those PUL at low risk of having an ectopic pregnancy have their follow-up streamlined. This review covers the main management strategies published in the current literature and aims to give clinicians an overview of the most up-to-date evidence that they can take away into their everyday clinical practice when caring for women with a PUL.