Search

Abstract Background Heterotopic pregnancy (HP) is a rare type of pathological pregnancy, and the most common site of concomitant ectopic pregnancy (EP) is the fallopian tube. Some studies have shown that expectant treatment could be considered because some EPs tend to regress spontaneously. However, data on the expectant treatment of HP are lacking. This study aimed to examine the outcomes of eutopic pregnancies following expectant management of concomitant tubal EP after in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Methods This was a retrospective, observational matched cohort study. All patients who conceived with tubal HP (HTP) via IVF/ICSI and were treated expectantly between January 2010 and December 2021 were enrolled. Each HTP patient managed expectantly (A) was randomly matched with one control patient who conceived with a solely eutopic pregnancy (B) and one HTP patient who underwent surgical therapy (C) from our clinical database according to predefined criteria. The expectant group and the control groups were matched for maternal age (MA; ±1 year), gravidity (0; ≥1) and gestational age (GA) at presentation (± 2 days). The pregnancy outcomes of the study group and the control groups were compared. Results More than three-quarters of the EPs in patients treated expectantly were inhomogeneous solid masses (n = 95, 76.6%), and an empty gestational sac was the second most common (n = 18, 14.5%). The rates of live birth (76.6%, 79.0%, 73.4%; P = 0.647 (A versus B); P = 0.557 (A versus C)) and early miscarriage (21.8%, 19.4%, 25.8%; P = 0.637 (A versus B); P = 0.456 (A versus C)) in the expectant group were similar to those in the eutopic group and those in the surgical group. There were no significant differences in of the preterm birth rate (7.3%, 7.3%, 7.3%; P = 1.000 (A versus B); P = 1.000 (A versus C)), perinatal mortality (1.0%, 1.0%, 1.1%; P = 1.000 (A versus B); P = 1.000 (A versus C)), GA at delivery (38.7 ± 2.1, 38.4 ± 2.4, 38.5 ± 2.3 weeks; P = 0.286 (A versus B); P = 0.425 (A versus C)) or birth weight (3294.8 ± 507.2, 3238.2 ± 646.1, 3194.5 ± 452.9 g; P = 0.498 (A versus B); P = 0.157 (A versus C)). Conclusion Expectant management was an option for select women with HTP. The prognoses of the concomitant eutopic pregnancies were comparable to those of the solely eutopic singleton pregnancies and the HTPs managed surgically. The application of this protocol in clinical practice significantly reduces the need for surgical or medical treatment of EP. Notably, close follow-up is required, and patients need to be vigilant and have immediate access to medical resources in case of an emergency.

Abstract Background Due to the specific nature of interstitial pregnancy (IP), there are significant risks to both the mother and the foetus in women with a heterotopic interstitial pregnancy (HIP). IP alone has been analysed as a site-specific ectopic pregnancy (EP) in previous studies; however, according to the latest European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology criteria, IP is classified as a tubal pregnancy. If IP can be classified as a tubal pregnancy, then there is no difference in the effects of these two methods on intrauterine pregnancies (IUPs). Under the premise of timely surgery, disposing of IPs and tubal pregnancy (excluding IPs) should also have no differential effect on IUPs. Methods Patients with heterotopic fallopian tubal pregnancy (HP-tube) and HIP seen at our hospital from January 2005 to December 2020 were included. All included patients were diagnosed by transvaginal sonography (TVS), and EPs were confirmed by surgery and pathological analysis. The IUP outcomes after surgical treatment of the EPs were compared between the HP-tube group (n = 464) and the HIP group (n = 206). The outcomes of IUPs were evaluated in patients with HIP who underwent either laparoscopy (169 cases) or laparotomy (36 cases). Results There was no significant difference in postoperative miscarriage (6.90% vs. 6.80%, odds ratio (OR) = 1.859, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.807–4.279), p = 0.145); early spontaneous miscarriage (19.61% vs. 18.93%, OR = 0.788, 95% CI (0.495–1.255), p = 0.316); or late miscarriage (0.43% vs. 0.49%, OR = 0.823, 95% CI (0.070–9.661), p = 0.877) between the HP-tube group and the HIP group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of preterm birth (7.33% vs. 6.80%, OR = 1.044, 95% CI (0.509–2.139), p = 0.907), live birth rate (71.60% vs. 73.30%, OR = 1.010, 95% CI (0.670–1.530), p = 0.980), or perinatal mortality rate (2.00% vs. 0.65%, OR = 0.580, 95% CI (0.030–3.590), p = 0.620). Compared to laparotomy for HIPs, laparoscopic treatment was associated with similar rates of postoperative miscarriage (5.33% vs. 13.90%, p = 0.076), live birth rate (72.80% vs. 75.00%, p = 0.948), caesarean Sect. (83.90% vs. 77.80%, p = 0.414). Conclusions After early diagnosis and treatment of EPs, patients in the HP-tube and HIP groups achieved comparable outcomes. Laparotomy and laparoscopy for treating HIPs yielded similar pregnancy outcomes.

Abstract Background Accurately determining the normal range of early pregnancy markers can help to predict adverse pregnancy outcomes. The variance in ovulation days leads to uncertain accuracy of reference intervals for natural pregnancies. While the gestational age (GA) is accurate estimation during in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET). Thus, the objective of this research is to construct reference intervals for gestational sac diameter (GSD), yolk sac diameter (YSD), embryonic length (or crown–rump length, CRL) and embryonic heart rate (HR) at 6–10 gestational weeks (GW) after IVF-ET. Methods From January 2010 to December 2016, 30,416 eligible singleton pregnancies were retrospectively recruited. All included participants had full records of early ultrasound measurements and phenotypically normal live neonates after 37 GW, with birth weights > the 5th percentile for gestational age. The curve-fitting method was used to screen the optimal models to predict GSD, CRL, YSD and HR based on gestational days (GD) and GW. Additionally, the percentile method was used to calculate the 5th, 50th, and 95th percentiles. Results There were significant associations among GSD, CRL, YSD, HR and GD and GW, the models were GSD = − 29.180 + 1.070 GD (coefficient of determination [R2] = 0.796), CRL = − 11.960 - 0.147 GD + 0.011 GD2 (R2 = 0.976), YSD = − 2.304 + 0.184 GD - 0.011 GD2 (R2 = 0.500), HR = − 350.410 + 15.398 GD - 0.112 GD2 (R2 = 0.911); and GSD = − 29.180 + 7.492 GW (R2 = 0.796), CRL = − 11.960 - 1.028 GW + 0.535 GW2 (R2 = 0.976), YSD = − 2.304 + 1.288 GW - 0.054 GW2 (R2 = 0.500), HR = − 350.410 + 107.788 GW - 5.488 GW2 (R2 = 0.911), (p

Abstract Background Trichorionic triplet pregnancy reduction to twin pregnancy is associated with a lower risk of preterm delivery but not with a lower risk of miscarriage. However, data on dichorionic triamniotic (DCTA) triplet pregnancy outcomes are lacking. This study aimed to compare the pregnancy outcomes of DCTA triplets conceived via in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) managed expectantly or reduced to a monochorionic (MC) singleton or monochorionic diamniotic (MCDA) twins at 11–13+ 6 gestational weeks. Methods Two hundred ninety-eight patients with DCTA triplets conceived via IVF-ET between 2012 and 2016 were retrospectively analysed. DCTA triplets with three live foetuses were reduced to a MC singleton (group A) or MCDA twins (group B) or underwent expectant management (group C). Each multifoetal pregnancy reduction (MFPR) was performed at 11–13+ 6 gestational weeks. Pregnancy outcomes in the 3 groups were compared. Results Eighty-four DCTA pregnancies were reduced to MC singleton pregnancies, 149 were reduced to MCDA pregnancies, and 65 were managed expectantly. There were no significant differences among groups A, B, and C in miscarriage rate (8.3 vs. 7.4 vs. 10.8%, respectively) and live birth rate (90.5 vs. 85.2 vs. 83.1%, respectively) (P > 0.05). Group A had significantly lower rates of preterm birth (8.3 vs. 84.6%; odds ratio (OR) 0.017, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.006–0.046) and low birth weight (LBW; 9.2 vs. 93.2%; OR 0.007, 95% CI 0.003–0.020) than group C (P