Summary
This study examined the misdiagnosis and delayed diagnosis factors for ectopic pregnancy (EP) and heterotopic pregnancy (HP) after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) in an attempt to reduce the diagnostic error. Clinical data of patients who underwent IVF-ET treatment and had clinical pregnancy from 12463 cycles were retrospectively analyzed. Their findings of serum β-hCG test and transvaginal ultrasonography were also obtained during follow-up. These patients were divided into two groups according to the diagnosis accuracy of EP/HP: early diagnosis and misdiagnosis/delayed diagnosis. The results showed that the incidence of EP and HP was 3.8% (125/3286) and 0.8% (27/3286) respectively for IVF/ICSI-ET cycle, and 3.8% (55/1431) and 0.7% (10/1431) respectively for frozen- thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycle. Ruptured EP occurred in 28 patients due to initial misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis. Related factors fell in 3 categories: (1) clinician factors: misunderstanding of patients’ medical history, insufficient training in ultrasonography and unawareness of EP and HP; (2) patient factors: noncompliance with medical orders and lack of communication with clinicians; (3) complicated conditions of EP: atypical symptoms, delayed elevation of serum β-hCG level, early rupture of cornual EP, asymptomatic in early gestation and pregnancy of unknown location. All the factors were interwoven, contributing to the occurrence of EP and HP. It was concluded that complicated conditions are more likely to affect the diagnosis accuracy of EP/HP after IVF-ET. Transvaginal ultrasonography should be performed at 5 weeks of gestation. Intensive follow-up including repeated ultrasonography and serial serum β-hCG tests should be performed in patients with a suspicious diagnosis at admission.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Juneau C, Bates GW. Reproductive outcomes after medical and surgical management of ectopic pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol, 2012,55(2):455–460
Rosman ER, Keegan DA, Krey L, et al. Ectopic pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization: a look at the donor egg population. Fertil Steril, 2009,92(5):1791–1793
Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 2001 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology registry. Fertil Steril, 2007,87(6):1253–1266
Milki AA, Jun SH. Ectopic pregnancy rates with day 3 versus day 5 embryo transfer: a retrospective analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 2003,3(1):7
Farquhar CM. Ectopic pregnancy. Lancet, 2005,366 (9485):583–591
Malak M, Tawfeeq T, Holzer H, et al. Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy after in vitro fertilization treatment. J Obstet Gynaecol Can, 2011,33(6):617–619
Casikar I, Reid S, Condous G. Ectopic pregnancy: Ultrasound diagnosis in modern management. Clin Obstet Gynecol, 2012,55(2):402–409
van Mello NM, Zietse CS, Mol F, et al. Severe maternal morbidity in ectopic pregnancy is not associated with maternal factors but may be associated with quality of care. Fertil Steril, 2012,97(3):623–629
Orji EO, Fasubaa OB, Adeyemi B, et al. Mortality and morbidity associated with misdiagnosis of ectopic pregnancy in a defined Nigerian population. J Obstet Gynaecol, 2002,22(5):548–550
Seeber BE. What serial hCG can tell you, and cannot tell you, about an early pregnancy. Fertil Steril, 2012,98 (5):1074–1077
Kirk E, Condous G, Bourne T. Pregnancies of unknown location. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 2009, 23(4):493–499
Clayton HB, Schieve LA, Peterson HB, et al. A comparison of heterotopic and intrauterine-only pregnancy outcomes after assisted reproductive technologies in the United States from 1999 to 2002. Fertil Steril, 2007, 87(2):303–309
Rosner F. Patient noncompliance: causes and solutions. Mt Sinai J Med, 2006,73(2):553–559
Baron KT, Babagbemi KT, Arleo EK, et al. Emergent complications of assisted reproduction: expecting the unexpected. Radiographics, 2013,33(1):229–244
Gibson KR, Horne AW. Ruptured heterotopic pregnancy: an unusual presentation of an uncommon clinical problem. BMJ Case Rep, 2012, [PMID: 23192579]
Seeber BE, Sammel MD, Guo W, et al. Application of redefined human chorionic gonadotropin curves for the diagnosis of women at risk for ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril, 2006, 86(2):454–459
Barnhart KT. Clinical practice. Ectopic pregnancy. N Engl J Med, 2009,361(4):379–387
Carazo HB, Perez-Ezquerra BR, Sanz LA, et al. Uterine rupture of a cornual pregnancy: an obstetric emergency. Ginecol Obstet Mex, 2012,80(7):491–494
Seshadri S, Shirley P, Jaiganesh T, et al. In vitro fertilisation and embryo transfer for bilateral salpingectomies results in a ruptured ovarian ectopic pregnancy due to a tubal stump fistula: a case report and review of the literature. BMJ Case Rep, 2010, [PMID: 22736389]
Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, De Leon L, et al. Frozen- thawed embryo transfer is associated with a significantly reduced incidence of ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril, 2012,98(6):1490–1494
Ishihara O, Kuwahara A, Saitoh H. Frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer reduces ectopic pregnancy risk: an analysis of single embryo transfer cycles in Japan. Fertil Steril, 2011,95(6):1966–1969
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Both authors contributed equally to this work.
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81170574), the National Key Basic Research Development Plan of China (973 Program) (No. 2007CB948104), Key Science and Technology Projects of Guangzhou (No. 11C22120737) and Comprehensive Strategic Sciences Cooperation Projects of Guangdong Province and Chinese Academy (No. 04020416).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, Ll., Chen, X., Ye, Ds. et al. Misdiagnosis and delayed diagnosis for ectopic and heterotopic pregnancies after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. J. Huazhong Univ. Sci. Technol. [Med. Sci.] 34, 103–107 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11596-014-1239-7
Received:
Revised:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11596-014-1239-7