Dataset Information

Terminology for describing normally sited and ectopic pregnancies on ultrasound: ESHRE recommendations for good practice

ABSTRACT: Abstract

STUDY QUESTION

What recommendations can be provided to improve terminology for normal and ectopic pregnancy description on ultrasound?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The present ESHRE document provides 17 consensus recommendations on how to describe normally sited and different types of ectopic pregnancies on ultrasound.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Current diagnostic criteria stipulate that each type of ectopic pregnancy can be defined by clear anatomical landmarks which facilitates reaching a correct diagnosis. However, a clear definition of normally sited pregnancies and a comprehensive classification of ectopic pregnancies are still lacking.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A working group of members of the ESHRE Special Interest Group in Implantation and Early Pregnancy (SIG-IEP) and selected experts in ultrasound was formed in order to write recommendations on the classification of ectopic pregnancies.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The working group included nine members of different nationalities with internationally recognised experience in ultrasound and diagnosis of ectopic pregnancies on ultrasound. This document is developed according to the manual for development of ESHRE recommendations for good practice. The recommendations were discussed until consensus by the working group, supported by a survey among the members of the ESHRE SIG-IEP.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A clear definition of normally sited pregnancy on ultrasound scan is important to avoid misdiagnosis of uterine ectopic pregnancies. A comprehensive classification of ectopic pregnancy must include definitions and descriptions of each type of ectopic pregnancy. Only a classification which provides descriptions and diagnostic criteria for all possible locations of ectopic pregnancy would be fit for use in routine clinical practice. The working group formulated 17 recommendations on the diagnosis of the different types of ectopic pregnancies on ultrasound. In addition, for each of the types of ectopic pregnancy, a schematic representation and examples on 2D and 3D ultrasound are provided.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Owing to the limited evidence available, recommendations are mostly based on clinical and technical expertise.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This document is expected to have a significant impact on clinical practice in ultrasound for early pregnancy. The development of this terminology will help to reduce the risk of misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The meetings of the working group were funded by ESHRE. T.T. declares speakers’ fees from GE Healthcare. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A

DISCLAIMER

This Good Practice Recommendations (GPR) document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and where relevant based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. ESHRE’s GPRs should be used for informational and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. Furthermore, ESHRE’s GPRs do not constitute or imply the endorsement, recommendation or favouring of any of the included technologies by ESHRE.

SUBMITTER: The ESHRE working group on Ectopic Pregnancy

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7738750 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe and compare the characteristics of ectopic pregnancies (EPs) in the year prior to vs during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of women diagnosed with an EP on transvaginal sonography conducted at a center in London, UK, providing early-pregnancy assessment, between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2020. Women were identified via the Astraia ultrasound reporting system using coded and non-coded outcomes of EP or pregnancy outside the uterine cavity. Data related to predefined outcomes were collected using Astraia and Cerner electronic reporting systems. Main outcome measures included clinical, ultrasound and biochemical features of EP, in addition to reported complications and management.ResultsThere were 22 683 consultations over the 2-year period. Following consultation, a similar number and proportion of EPs were diagnosed in 2019 (141/12 657 (1%)) and 2020 (134/10 026 (1%)). Both cohorts were comparable in age, ethnicity, weight and method of conception. Gestational age at the first transvaginal sonography scan and at diagnosis were similar, and no difference in location, size or morphology of EP was found between the two cohorts. Serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) levels at the time of EP diagnosis were higher in 2020 than in 2019 (1005 IU/L vs 665 IU/L; P = 0.03). The proportions of women according to type of final EP management were similar, but the rate of failed first-line management was higher during vs before the pandemic (16% vs 6%; P = 0.01). The rates of blood detected in the pelvis (hemoperitoneum) on ultrasound (23% vs 26%; P = 0.58) and of ruptured EP confirmed surgically (9% vs 3%; P = 0.07) were similar in 2019 vs 2020.ConclusionsNo difference was observed in the location, size, morphology or gestational age at the first ultrasound examination or at diagnosis of EP between women diagnosed before vs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Complication rates and final management strategy were also unchanged. However, hCG levels and the failure rate of first-line conservative management measures were higher during the pandemic. Our findings suggest that women continued to access appropriate care for EP during the COVID-19 pandemic, with no evidence of diagnostic delay or an increase in adverse outcome in our population. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Project description:Study questionWhat is good practice in ultrasound (US), and more specifically during the different stages of transvaginal oocyte retrieval, based on evidence in the literature and expert opinion on US practice in ART?Summary answerThis document provides good practice recommendations covering technical aspects of US-guided transvaginal oocyte retrieval (oocyte pick up: OPU) formulated by a group of experts after considering the published data, and including the preparatory stage of OPU, the actual procedure and post-procedure care.What is known alreadyUS-guided transvaginal OPU is a widely performed procedure, but standards for best practice are not available.Study design size durationA working group (WG) collaborated on writing recommendations on the practical aspects of transvaginal OPU. A literature search for evidence of the key aspects of the procedure was carried out. Selected papers (n = 190) relevant to the topic were analyzed by the WG.Participants/materials setting methodsThe WG members considered the following key points in the papers: whether US practice standards were explained; to what extent the OPU technique was described and whether complications or incidents and how to prevent such events were reported. In the end, only 108 papers could be used to support the recommendations in this document, which focused on transvaginal OPU. Laparoscopic OPU, transabdominal OPU and OPU for IVM were outside the scope of the study.Main results and the role of chanceThere was a scarcity of studies on the actual procedural OPU technique. The document presents general recommendations for transvaginal OPU, and specific recommendations for its different stages, including prior to, during and after the procedure. Most evidence focussed on comparing different equipment (needles) and on complications and risks, including the risk of infection. For these topics, the recommendations were largely based on the results of the studies. Recommendations are provided on equipment and materials, possible risks and complications, audit and training. One of the major research gaps was training and competence. This paper has also outlined a list of research priorities (including clarification on the value or full blood count, antibiotic prophylaxis and flushing, and the need for training and proficiency).Limitations reasons for cautionThe recommendations of this paper were mostly based on clinical expertise, as at present, only a few clinical trials have focused on the oocyte retrieval techniques, and almost all available data are observational. In addition, studies focusing on OPU were heterogeneous with significant difference in techniques used, which made drafting conclusions and recommendations based on these studies even more challenging.Wider implications of the findingsThese recommendations complement previous guidelines on the management of good laboratory practice in ART. Some useful troubleshooting/checklist recommendations are given for easy implementation in clinical practice. These recommendations aim to contribute to the standardization of a rather common procedure that is still performed with great heterogeneity.Study funding/competing interestsThe meetings of the WG were funded by ESHRE. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.Trial registration numberNA.ESHRE Pages content is not externally peer reviewed. The manuscript has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.