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

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Liping Yu ◽  
Bikang Yang ◽  
Qinyang Xu ◽  
Yincheng Teng ◽  
Zhuowei Xue
Keyword(s):  
Uterine Artery Embolization ◽  
Uterine Artery ◽  
Optimal Time ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Artery Embolization ◽  
Cesarean Scar Pregnancy ◽  
Cesarean Scar ◽  
Group A ◽  
Β Hcg ◽  
Group B

Abstract 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.

scholarly journals When to Perform Curettage After Uterine Artery Embolization for Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: a Clinical Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiao Wang ◽  
Hongling Peng ◽  
Xia Zhao ◽  
Xiaorong Qi
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Uterine Artery Embolization ◽  
Uterine Artery ◽  
Optimal Time ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Artery Embolization ◽  
Cesarean Scar Pregnancy ◽  
Cesarean Scar ◽  
Treatment Interval

Abstract Background: Prophylactic uterine artery embolization (UAE) combined with following curettage was suggested as an effective and minimally invasive treatment strategy for cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) with high bleeding risk. However, the timing of curettage after UAE remains to be studied. Thus, we aimed to identify the optimal time interval to perform curettage after UAE in patients with CSP.Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a large medical center for women and children in southwest China. CSP patients treated by UAE combined with following curettage were included and grouped by the treatment time interval between these two procedures. The clinical outcomes among arms were compared by univariate and multi-variable analysis.Results: Our study finally included a total of 314 CSP patients who received this combination treatment in our department from January 2014 to December 2019. The median time interval between UAE and curettage was 48 hours with a range of 12-168 hours in all participants. Thirty-two cases (10.2%) experienced intra-operative hemorrhage (blood loss ≥200mL). Seventeen cases (5.4%) used intrauterine balloon tamponade. Fourteen cases (4.5%) were converted into laparoscopy (or laparotomy). In the cohort study, patients with longer treatment interval had more intra-operative blood loss and higher incidence of complications than those with shorter interval (P＜0.05). The rate of intra-operative bleeding was 5.0% in patients who received curettage within 24 hours after UAE (Arm 1), in comparison with 19.4% in those who had treatment interval longer than 72 hours (Arm 4). In the multi-variable logistic regression model of bleeding, the treatment interval ＞72 hours had an adjusted odds ratio of 3.37 (95% confidence interval: 1.40-8.09). Conclusion: We suggest that curettage should not be delayed longer than 72 hours after UAE under general conditions.

scholarly journals Role of collateral embolization in addition to uterine artery embolization followed by hysteroscopic curettage for the management of cesarean scar pregnancy

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Guodong Zhang ◽  
Jijun Li ◽  
Jun Tang ◽  
Lei Zhang ◽  
Dechao Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Pelvic Pain ◽  
Uterine Artery Embolization ◽  
Uterine Artery ◽  
Artery Embolization ◽  
Cesarean Scar Pregnancy ◽  
Cesarean Scar ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Baseline Characteristics ◽  
Β Hcg

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, safety and outcome of the embolization of non-gonadal collateral supplying gestational sac (GS) in addition to uterine artery embolization (UAE), followed by hysteroscopic curettage for the management of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). Methods A retrospective study was undertaken from January 2012 to September 2018 in 24 CSP patients in whom non-gonadal collaterals supplying GS were identified by arterial angiography performed immediately after UAE. These patients underwent attempt collateral embolization in addition to UAE, followed by hysteroscopic curettage for the management of CSP. The 24 patients were divided into two groups based on whether they underwent technically successful collateral embolization (UAE-SCE group) or failed collateral embolization (UAE-FCE group) in addition to UAE. The baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes including time for serum β-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) levels normalization, blood loss, secondary anemia, and pelvic pain were compared between the two groups. The paired t test and Man Whitney test were used for comparisons of discrete and numerical variables, respectively. Results Collateral embolization was techinically successful in 16 (66.7%, 16/24) patients and failed in the other 8 (33.3%, 8/24) patients. There were no significant differences between the two groups in baseline characteristics. The mean blood loss and secondary anemia in the UAE-SCE group were significantly less than UAE-FCE group. No significant difference was found between the two groups in the mean time for β-hCG levels normalization and pelvic pain. Conclusions During the management of UAE combined with hysteroscopic curettage for CSP, additional embolization of non-gonadal collateral supplying GS during UAE is feasible and safe in patients with non-gonadal collateral supplying GS, and the additional embolization of the collateral may reduce blood bloss related to hysteroscopic curettage.

scholarly journals When to perform curettage after uterine artery embolization for cesarean scar pregnancy: a clinical study

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiao Wang ◽  
Hongling Peng ◽  
Xia Zhao ◽  
Xiaorong Qi
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Uterine Artery Embolization ◽  
Uterine Artery ◽  
Combined Treatment ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Artery Embolization ◽  
Cesarean Scar Pregnancy ◽  
Cesarean Scar ◽  
Treatment Interval

Abstract Background Prophylactic uterine artery embolization (UAE) combined with subsequent curettage is suggested as an effective and minimally invasive treatment strategy for cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) with a high bleeding risk. However, the timing of curettage after UAE remains to be studied. Thus, we aimed to identify the optimal time interval to perform curettage after UAE in patients with CSP. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a large medical center for women and children in Southwest China. CSP patients treated by UAE combined with subsequent curettage were included and grouped by the treatment time interval between these two procedures. The clinical outcomes among arms were compared by univariate and multivariable analysis. Results Our study included 314 CSP patients who received this combination treatment in our department from January 2014 to December 2019. The median time interval between UAE and curettage was 48 h, with a range of 12-168 h among all participants. Thirty-two patients (10.2%) experienced intraoperative hemorrhage (blood loss ≥200 mL). Intrauterine balloon tamponade was used in 17 cases (5.4%). In 14 cases (4.5%), the procedure was converted to laparoscopy (or laparotomy). In the cohort study, patients with longer treatment intervals had more intraoperative blood loss and a higher incidence of complications than those with shorter intervals (P < 0.05). The rates of intraoperative bleeding were 5.0% for patients who received curettage within 24 h after UAE (Arm 1) and 19.4% for those who had a treatment interval longer than 72 h (Arm 4). In the multivariable logistic regression model of bleeding, a treatment interval > 72 h had an adjusted odds ratio of 3.37 (95% confidence interval: 1.40-8.09). Conclusion We suggest that curettage not be delayed longer than 72 h after UAE in this combined treatment of CSP.

scholarly journals Role of collateral embolization in addition to uterine artery embolization followed by hysteroscopic curettage for the management of cesarean scar pregnancy

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guodong Zhang ◽  
Jijun Li ◽  
Jun Tang ◽  
Lei Zhang ◽  
Dechao Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Pelvic Pain ◽  
Uterine Artery Embolization ◽  
Uterine Artery ◽  
Artery Embolization ◽  
Cesarean Scar Pregnancy ◽  
Cesarean Scar ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Baseline Characteristics ◽  
Β Hcg

Abstract Background: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, safety and outcome of the embolization of non-gonadal collateral supplying gestational sac (GS) in addition to uterine artery embolization (UAE), followed by hysteroscopic curettage for the management of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). Methods: A retrospective study was undertaken from January 2012 to September 2018 in 24 CSP patients in whom non-gonadal collaterals supplying GS were identified by arterial angiography performed immediately after UAE. These patients underwent attempt collateral embolization in addition to UAE, followed by hysteroscopic curettage for the management of CSP. The 24 patients were divided into two groups based on whether they underwent technically successful collateral embolization (UAE-SCE group) or failed collateral embolization (UAE-FCE group) in addition to UAE. The baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes including time for serum β-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) levels normalization, blood loss, secondary anemia, and pelvic pain were compared between the two groups. The paired t test and Man Whitney test were used for comparisons of discrete and numerical variables, respectively. Results: Collateral embolization was techinically successful in 16 (66.7%, 16/24) patients and failed in the other 8 (33.3%, 8/24) patients. There were no significant differences between the two groups in baseline characteristics. The mean blood loss and secondary anemia in the UAE-SCE group were significantly less than UAE-FCE group. No significant difference was found between the two groups in the mean time for β-hCG levels normalization and pelvic pain. Conclusions: During the management of UAE combined with hysteroscopic curettage for CSP, additional embolization of non-gonadal collateral supplying GS during UAE is feasible and safe in patients with non-gonadal collateral supplying GS, and the additional embolization of the collateral may reduce blood bloss related to hysteroscopic curettage.

scholarly journals Role of collateral embolization in addition to uterine artery embolization followed by hysteroscopic curettage for the management of cesarean scar pregnancy

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guodong Zhang ◽  
Jijun Li ◽  
Jun Tang ◽  
Lei Zhang ◽  
Dechao Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Pelvic Pain ◽  
Uterine Artery Embolization ◽  
Uterine Artery ◽  
Artery Embolization ◽  
Cesarean Scar Pregnancy ◽  
Cesarean Scar ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Baseline Characteristics ◽  
Β Hcg

Abstract Purpose The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, safety and outcome of the embolization of non-gonadal collateral supplying gestational sac (GS) in addition to uterine artery embolization (UAE), followed by hysteroscopic curettage for the management of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). Methods A retrospective study was undertaken from January 2012 to September 2018 in 24 CSP patients in whom non-gonadal collaterals supplying GS were identified by arterial angiography performed immediately after UAE. These patients underwent attempt collateral embolization in addition to UAE, followed by hysteroscopic curettage for the management of CSP. The 24 patients were divided into two groups based on whether they underwent technically successful collateral embolization (UAE-SCE group) or failed collateral embolization (UAE-FCE group) in addition to UAE. The baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes including time for serum β-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) levels normalization, blood loss, secondary anemia, and pelvic pain were compared between the two groups. Results Collateral embolization was techinically successful in 16 (66.7%, 16/24) patients and failed in the other 8 (33.3%, 8/24) patients. There were no significant differences between the two groups in baseline characteristics. The mean blood loss and secondary anemia in the UAE-SCE group were significantly less than UAE-FCE group. No significant difference was found between the two groups in the mean time for β-hCG levels normalization and pelvic pain. Conclusions Embolization of non-gonadal collateral supplying GS in addition to UAE, followed by hysteroscopic curettage for the management of CSP may be a feasible, safe and effective treatment in patients with non-gonadal collateral supplying GS, and the additional embolization of the collateral may reduce blood bloss related to hysteroscopic curettage.

scholarly journals Role of collateral embolization in addition to uterine artery embolization followed by hysteroscopic curettage for the management of cesarean scar pregnancy

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guodong Zhang ◽  
Jijun Li ◽  
Jun Tang ◽  
Lei Zhang ◽  
Dechao Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Pelvic Pain ◽  
Uterine Artery Embolization ◽  
Uterine Artery ◽  
Artery Embolization ◽  
Cesarean Scar Pregnancy ◽  
Cesarean Scar ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Baseline Characteristics ◽  
Β Hcg

Abstract Background: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, safety and outcome of the embolization of non-gonadal collateral supplying gestational sac (GS) in addition to uterine artery embolization (UAE), followed by hysteroscopic curettage for the management of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). Methods: A retrospective study was undertaken from January 2012 to September 2018 in 24 CSP patients in whom non-gonadal collaterals supplying GS were identified by arterial angiography performed immediately after UAE. These patients underwent attempt collateral embolization in addition to UAE, followed by hysteroscopic curettage for the management of CSP. The 24 patients were divided into two groups based on whether they underwent technically successful collateral embolization (UAE-SCE group) or failed collateral embolization (UAE-FCE group) in addition to UAE. The baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes including time for serum β-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) levels normalization, blood loss, secondary anemia, and pelvic pain were compared between the two groups. The paired t test and Man Whitney test were used for comparisons of discrete and numerical variables, respectively. Results: Collateral embolization was techinically successful in 16 (66.7%, 16/24) patients and failed in the other 8 (33.3%, 8/24) patients. There were no significant differences between the two groups in baseline characteristics. The mean blood loss and secondary anemia in the UAE-SCE group were significantly less than UAE-FCE group. No significant difference was found between the two groups in the mean time for β-hCG levels normalization and pelvic pain. Conclusions: During the management of UAE combined with hysteroscopic curettage for CSP, additional embolization of non-gonadal collateral supplying GS during UAE is feasible and safe in patients with non-gonadal collateral supplying GS, and the additional embolization of the collateral may reduce blood bloss related to hysteroscopic curettage.

scholarly journals Role of collateral embolization in addition to uterine artery embolization followed by hysteroscopic curettage for the management of cesarean scar pregnancy

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guodong Zhang ◽  
Jijun Li ◽  
Jun Tang ◽  
Lei Zhang ◽  
Dechao Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Pelvic Pain ◽  
Uterine Artery Embolization ◽  
Uterine Artery ◽  
Artery Embolization ◽  
Cesarean Scar Pregnancy ◽  
Cesarean Scar ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Baseline Characteristics ◽  
Β Hcg

Abstract The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, safety and outcome of the embolization of non-gonadal collateral supplying gestational sac (GS) in addition to uterine artery embolization (UAE), followed by hysteroscopic curettage for the management of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). Methods: A retrospective study was undertaken from January 2012 to September 2018 in 24 CSP patients in whom non-gonadal collaterals supplying GS were identified by arterial angiography performed immediately after UAE. These patients underwent attempt collateral embolization in addition to UAE, followed by hysteroscopic curettage for the management of CSP. The 24 patients were divided into two groups based on whether they underwent technically successful collateral embolization (UAE-SCE group) or failed collateral embolization (UAE-FCE group) in addition to UAE. The baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes including time for serum β-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) levels normalization, blood loss, secondary anemia, and pelvic pain were compared between the two groups. The paired t test and Man Whitney test were used for comparisons of discrete and numerical variables, respectively. Results: Collateral embolization was techinically successful in 16 (66.7%, 16/24) patients and failed in the other 8 (33.3%, 8/24) patients. There were no significant differences between the two groups in baseline characteristics. The mean blood loss and secondary anemia in the UAE-SCE group were significantly less than UAE-FCE group. No significant difference was found between the two groups in the mean time for β-hCG levels normalization and pelvic pain. Conclusions: During the management of UAE combined with hysteroscopic curettage for CSP, additional embolization of non-gonadal collateral supplying GS during UAE is feasible and safe in patients with non-gonadal collateral supplying GS, and the additional embolization of the collateral may reduce blood bloss related to hysteroscopic curettage.

scholarly journals Role of collateral embolization in addition to uterine artery embolization followed by hysteroscopic curettage for the management of cesarean scar pregnancy

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guodong Zhang ◽  
Jijun Li ◽  
Jun Tang ◽  
Lei Zhang ◽  
Dechao Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Pelvic Pain ◽  
Uterine Artery Embolization ◽  
Uterine Artery ◽  
Artery Embolization ◽  
Cesarean Scar Pregnancy ◽  
Cesarean Scar ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Baseline Characteristics ◽  
Β Hcg

Abstract Background: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, safety and outcome of the embolization of non-gonadal collateral supplying gestational sac (GS) in addition to uterine artery embolization (UAE), followed by hysteroscopic curettage for the management of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). Methods: A retrospective study was undertaken from January 2012 to September 2018 in 24 CSP patients in whom non-gonadal collaterals supplying GS were identified by arterial angiography performed immediately after UAE. These patients underwent attempt collateral embolization in addition to UAE, followed by hysteroscopic curettage for the management of CSP. The 24 patients were divided into two groups based on whether they underwent technically successful collateral embolization (UAE-SCE group) or failed collateral embolization (UAE-FCE group) in addition to UAE. The baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes including time for serum β-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) levels normalization, blood loss, secondary anemia, and pelvic pain were compared between the two groups. The paired t test and Man Whitney test were used for comparisons of discrete and numerical variables, respectively. Results: Collateral embolization was techinically successful in 16 (66.7%, 16/24) patients and failed in the other 8 (33.3%, 8/24) patients. There were no significant differences between the two groups in baseline characteristics. The mean blood loss and secondary anemia in the UAE-SCE group were significantly less than UAE-FCE group. No significant difference was found between the two groups in the mean time for β-hCG levels normalization and pelvic pain. Conclusions: During the management of UAE combined with hysteroscopic curettage for CSP, additional embolization of non-gonadal collateral supplying GS during UAE is feasible and safe in patients with non-gonadal collateral supplying GS, and the additional embolization of the collateral may reduce blood bloss related to hysteroscopic curettage.

scholarly journals Risk factors for poor hemostasis of prophylactic uterine artery embolization before curettage in cesarean scar pregnancy

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (10) ◽  
pp. 030006052096437
Author(s):  
Hongan Tian ◽  
Shunzhen Li ◽  
Wanwan Jia ◽  
Kaihu Yu ◽  
Guangyao Wu
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Blood Supply ◽  
Uterine Artery Embolization ◽  
Uterine Artery ◽  
Embolic Agent ◽  
Artery Embolization ◽  
Cesarean Scar Pregnancy ◽  
Cesarean Scar ◽  
Hemorrhage Volume ◽  
Gestational Sac

Objective To observe the hemostatic effect of prophylactic uterine artery embolization (UAE) in patients with cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) and to examine the risk factors for poor hemostasis. Methods Clinical data of 841 patients with CSP who underwent prophylactic UAE and curettage were retrospectively analyzed to evaluate the hemorrhage volume during curettage. A hemorrhage volume ≥200 mL was termed as poor hemostasis. The risk factors of poor hemostasis were analyzed and complications within 60 days postoperation were recorded. Results Among the 841 patients, 6.30% (53/841) had poor postoperative hemostasis. The independent risk factors of poor hemostasis were gestational sac size, parity, embolic agent diameter (>1000 μm), multivessel blood supply, and incomplete embolization. The main postoperative complications within 60 days after UAE were abdominal pain, low fever, nausea and vomiting, and buttock pain, with incidence rates of 71.22% (599/841), 47.44% (399/841), 39.12% (329/841), and 36.39% (306/841), respectively. Conclusions Prophylactic UAE before curettage in patients with CSP is safe and effective in reducing intraoperative hemorrhage. Gestational sac size, parity, embolic agent diameter, multivessel blood supply, and incomplete embolization of all arteries supplying blood to the uterus are risk factors of poor hemostasis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document