Local injection of methotrexate dissolved in saline versus methotrexate suspensions for the conservative treatment of ectopic pregnancy

Interventions for tubal ectopic pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for tubal ectopic pregnancy are; (1) surgery, e.g. salpingectomy or salpingo(s)tomy, either performed laparoscopically or by open surgery; (2) medical treatment, with a variety of drugs, that can be administered systemically and/or locally by various routes and (3) expectant management.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of surgery, medical treatment and expectant management of tubal ectopic pregnancy in view of primary treatment success, tubal preservation and future fertility.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (up to February 2006), Current Controlled Trials Register (up to October 2006), and MEDLINE (up to October 2006) were searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatments in women with tubal ectopic pregnancy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and quality assessment was done independently by two reviewers. Differences were resolved by discussion with all reviewers.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty five studies have been analysed on the treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy, describing 25 different comparisons.

SURGERY

Laparoscopic salpingostomy is significantly less successful than the open surgical approach in the elimination of tubal ectopic pregnancy (2 RCTs, n=165, OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09, 0.86) due to a significant higher persistent trophoblast rate in laparoscopic surgery (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.1, 11). However, the laparoscopic approach is significantly less costly than open surgery (p=0.03). Long term follow-up (n=127) shows no evidence of a difference in intra uterine pregnancy rate (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.59, 2.5) but there is a non significant tendency to a lower repeat ectopic pregnancy rate (OR 0.47, 95% 0.15, 1.5). Salpingostomy alone is significantly less successful than when combined with a prophylactic single shot methotrexate (2 RCTs, n=163, OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08-0.76) to prevent persistent trophoblast.

MEDICAL TREATMENT

Systemic methotrexate in a fixed multiple dose intramuscular regimen has a non significant tendency to a higher treatment success than laparoscopic salpingostomy (1 RCT, n=100, OR 1.8, 95% CI 0.73, 4.6). No significant differences are found in long term follow-up (n=74): intra uterine pregnancy (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.32, 2.1) and repeat ectopic pregnancy (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.19, 4.1). One single dose intramuscular methotrexate is significantly less successful than laparoscopic salpingostomy (4 RCTs, n=265, OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20, 0.71). With a variable dose regimen treatment success rises, but shows no evidence of a difference compared to laparoscopic salpingostomy (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.52, 2.3). Long term follow-up (n=98) do not differ significantly (intra uterine pregnancy OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.43, 2.4, ectopic pregnancy OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.12, 2.4). The efficacy of systemic single dose methotrexate alone is significantly less successful than when combined with mifepristone (2 RCTs, n=262, OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35, 1.0). The same goes for the addition of traditional Chinese medicine (1 RCT, n=78, OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02, 0.39). Local medical treatment administered transvaginally under ultrasound guidance is significantly better than a 'blind' intra-tubal injection under laparoscopic guidance in the elimination of tubal ectopic pregnancy (1 RCT, n=36, methotrexate OR 5.8, 95% CI 1.3, 26; 1 RCT, n=80, hyperosmolar glucose OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15, 0.93). However, compared to laparoscopic salpingostomy, local injection of methotrexate administered transvaginally under ultrasound guidance is significantly less successful (1 RCT, n=78, OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04, 0.76) but with positive long term follow up (n=51): a significantly higher intra uterine pregnancy rate (OR 4.1, 95% CI 1.3, 14) and a non significant tendency to a lower repeat ectopic pregnancy rate (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05, 1.7). EXPECTANT MANAGEMENT: Expectant management is significantly less successful than prostaglandin therapy (1 RCT, n=23, OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02-0.39).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the surgical treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy laparoscopic surgery is a cost effective treatment. An alternative nonsurgical treatment option in selected patients is medical treatment with systemic methotrexate. Expectant management can not be adequately evaluated yet.

Interventions for tubal ectopic pregnancy

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy can now often be made by non-invasive methods due to sensitive pregnancy tests (in urine and serum) and high resolution transvaginal sonography, which have been integrated in diagnostic algorithms. These algorithms, in combination with the increased awareness and knowledge of risk factors among both clinicians and patients, have enabled an early and accurate diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy. As a consequence, the clinical presentation of ectopic pregnancy has changed from a life threatening disease to a more benign condition. This in turn has resulted in major changes in the options available for therapeutic management. Many treatment options are now available to the clinician in the treatment of tubal pregnancy: surgical treatment, which can be performed radically or conservatively, either laparoscopically or by an open surgical procedure; medical treatment, with a variety of drugs, that can be administered systemically and/or locally by different routes (transvaginally under sonographic guidance or under laparoscopic guidance); expectant management. The choice of a treatment modality should be based on short-term outcome measures (primary treatment success and reinterventions for clinical symptoms or persistent trophoblast) and on long-term outcome measures (tubal patency and future fertility).

OBJECTIVES

In the treatment of tubal pregnancy various types of treatments are available: surgical treatment, medical treatment and expectant management. In this review the effects of various treatments are summarized in terms of treatment success, need for reinterventions, tubal patency and future fertility.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trials register and MEDLINE were searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing treatments in women with ectopic pregnancy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial quality was assessed and data extracted independently by two reviewers. Differences were resolved by discussion with all reviewers.

MAIN RESULTS

Laparoscopic conservative surgery is significantly less successful than the open surgical approach in the elimination of tubal pregnancy due to a higher persistent trophoblast rate of laparoscopic surgery. Long term follow-up shows similar tubal patency rates, whereas the number of subsequent intrauterine pregnancies is comparable, and the number of repeat ectopic pregnancies lower, although these differences are not statistically significant. The laparoscopic approach is less costly as a result of significantly less blood loss and analgesic requirement, and a shorter duration of operation time, hospital stay, and convalescence time. Compared to laparoscopic conservative surgery (salpingostomy) local methotrexate is not a treatment option. Injection of this drug, both under laparoscopic guidance and under ultrasound guidance, is significantly less successful in the elimination of tubal pregnancy. Systemic methotrexate in a single dose intramuscular regimen is not effective enough in eliminating the tubal pregnancy compared to laparoscopic salpingostomy. This as a result of inadequately declining serum hCG concentrations after one single dose of methotrexate necessitating additional methotrexate injections or surgical interventions. If methotrexate primarily given in a multiple dose intramuscular regimen is compared with laparoscopic salpingostomy no large differences are found in medical outcomes, both short term and long term. However, this treatment regimen is associated with a greater impairment of health related quality of life and is more expensive, due to surgical interventions for clinical signs of tubal rupture, generating additional direct costs due to prolonged hospital stay. Furthermore, indirect costs due to productivity loss are higher. Only in patients with low initial serum hCG concentrations systemic methotrexate leads to costs savings compared to laparoscopic salpingostomy.