medigraphic.com
ISSN 2594-1518 (Electronic)
ISSN 1405-0099 (Print)

2005, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Cir Gen 2005; 27 (3)

Bayesian analysis of ultrasonographic findings during ectopic pregnancy

López-Valle RG

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 199-204
PDF size: 227.99 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction:Ectopic pregnancy (EP) is the main cause of maternal death during the first trimester of pregnancy, and is frequently diagnosed erroneously. This work assesses the diagnostic value of the ultrasound and its capacity to serve for decision taking in our medical milieu in the diagnosis of EP.
Setting:Third level health care hospital.
Patients and methods:We reviewed the ultrasound reports of 108 patients admitted to our institution with suspected EP (November 1999 to December 2001), confirmed in 72 of them. By means of Bayesian analysis we searched for the indicators that had a direct relation with the definitive diagnosis, using χ2 and α = 0.05, and assigned a positive/negative value to each according to its presence/absence, to create a diagnostic score.
Results:We identified four indicators related directly with EP (annexial mass, extrauterine gestational sac, decidual response, and free liquid in the cavity). By means of applying the positive and negative values derived from the Bayesian analysis, we were able to create a diagnostic score with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.875 and 0.722, respectively (p ‹ 0.05).
Conclusion:We propose a diagnostic score based on the use of four ultrasonographic indicators directly related with ectopic pregnancy.


REFERENCES

  1. Mascarenhas L, Williamson J, Smith S. The changing face of ectopic pregnancy. BMJ 1997; 315: 141-6.

  2. Dart RG, Kaplan B, Varaklis K. Predictive value of history and physical examination in patients with suspected ectopic pregnancy. Ann Emerg Med 1999; 33: 283–90.

  3. Hick JL, Rodgerson JD, Heegaard WG, Sterner S. Vital signs fail to correlate with hemoperitoneum from ruptured ectopic pregnancy. Am J Emerg Med 2001; 19: 488–91.

  4. Romero R, Kadar N, Copel JA, Jeanty P, DeCherney AH, Hobbins JC. The value of serial human chorionic gonadotropin testing as a diagnostic tool in ectopic pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 155: 392–4.

  5. Barnhart K, Mennuti MT, Benjamin I, Jacobson S, Goodman D, Coutifaris C. Prompt diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy in an emergency department setting. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 84: 1010–5.

  6. Tay JI, Moore J, Walker JJ. Ectopic pregnancy. BMJ 2000; 320: 916–9.

  7. Ankum WM, Van der Veen F, Bossuyt PM. Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 1996; 65: 1093–9.

  8. Tenore JL. Ectopic pregnancy. Am Fam Physician 2000; 61: 1080–8.

  9. Carson SA, Buster JE. Ectopic pregnancy. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1174–81.

  10. Atrash HK, Friede A, Hogue CJ. Ectopic pregnancy mortality in the United States, 1970–1983. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 70: 817–22.

  11. Lemus JF. Ectopic pregnancy: an update. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2000; 12: 369–75.

  12. Garrido MAC, Casian CG, Sánchez CR. Hallazgos ultrasonográficos más frecuentes del embarazo ectópico. Rev Hosp Jua Mex 2001; 68: 77–82.

  13. Hauswald M, Williamson MR. Transvaginal ultrasonography in patients with human chorionic gonadotropin values less [correct] than 1,000 mIU/mL: how often is the study diagnostic? Ann Emerg Med 1997; 30: 206–9.

  14. Levgur M, Tsai T, Kang K, Feldman J, Kory LA. Endometrial stripe thickness in tubal and intrauterine pregnancies. Fertil Steril 2000; 74: 889–91.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com