...
首页> 外文期刊>Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology: the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology >Triaging women with pregnancy of unknown location using two‐step protocol including M6 model: clinical implementation study
【24h】

Triaging women with pregnancy of unknown location using two‐step protocol including M6 model: clinical implementation study

机译:筛选的女性怀孕的未知位置使用两步协议包括M6模型:临床实施研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

ABSTRACT Objective The M6 risk‐prediction model was published as part of a two‐step protocol using an initial progesterone level of ≤?2?nmol/L to identify probable failing pregnancies (Step 1) followed by the M6 model (Step?2). The M6 model has been shown to have good triage performance for stratifying women with a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) as being at low or high risk of harboring an ectopic pregnancy (EP). This study validated the triage performance of the two‐step protocol in clinical practice by evaluating the number of protocol‐related adverse events and how effectively patients were triaged. Methods This was a prospective multicenter interventional study of 3272 women with a PUL, carried out between January 2015 and January 2017 in four district general hospitals and four university teaching hospitals in the UK. The final pregnancy outcome was defined as: a failed PUL (FPUL), an intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) or an EP (including persistent PUL (PPUL)). FPUL and IUP were grouped as low‐risk and EP/PPUL as high‐risk PUL. Serum progesterone and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) levels were measured at presentation in all patients. If the initial progesterone level was ≤?2?nmol/L, patients were discharged and were asked to have a follow‐up urine pregnancy test in 2?weeks to confirm a negative result. If the progesterone level was ?2?nmol/L or a measurement had not been taken, hCG level was measured again at 48?h and results were entered into the M6 model. Patients were managed according to the outcome predicted by the protocol. Those classified as ‘low risk, probable FPUL’ were advised to perform a urine pregnancy test in 2?weeks and those classified as ‘low risk, probable IUP’ were invited for a scan a week later. When a woman with a PUL was classified as high risk (i.e. risk of EP ≥?5%) she was reviewed clinically within 48?h. One center used a progesterone cut‐off of ≤?10?nmol/L and its data were analyzed separately. If the recommended management protocol was not adhered to, this was recorded as a protocol deviation and classified as: unscheduled visit for clinician reason, unscheduled visit for patient reason or incorrect timing of blood test or ultrasound scan. The classifications outlined in the UK Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines were used to evaluate the incidence of adverse events. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results Of the 3272 women with a PUL, 2625 were included in the final analysis (317 met the exclusion criteria or were lost to follow‐up, while 330 were evaluated using a progesterone cut‐off of ≤?10?nmol/L). Initial progesterone results were available for 2392 (91.1%) patients. In Step 1, 407 (15.5%) patients were classified as low risk (progesterone ≤?2?nmol/L), of whom seven (1.7%) were ultimately diagnosed with an EP. In 279 of the remaining 2218 women with a PUL, the M6 model was not applied owing to protocol deviation or because the outcome was already known (usually on the basis of an ultrasound scan) before a second hCG reading was taken; of these patients, 30 were diagnosed with an EP. In Step 2, 1038 women with a PUL were classified as low risk, of whom eight (0.8%) had a final outcome of EP. Of 901 women classified as high risk at Step 2, 275 (30.5%) had an EP. Therefore, 275/320 (85.9%) EPs were correctly classified as high risk. Overall, 1445/2625 PUL (55.0%) were classified as low risk, of which 15?(1.0%) were EP. None of these cases resulted in a ruptured EP or significant clinical harm. Sixty‐two women participating in the study had an adverse event, but no woman had a serious adverse event as defined in the UK GCP guidelines. Conclusions This study has shown that the two‐step protocol incorporating the M6 model effectively triaged the majority of women with a PUL as being at low risk of an EP, minimizing the follow‐up required for these patients after just two visits. There were few misclassified EPs and none of these women came to
机译:摘要目的M6的风险预测模型发表的两步协议吗使用一个初始孕酮水平的≤2 ?识别可能的失败怀孕(步骤1)其次是M6模型(一步? 2)。已被证明有良好的分类性能为女性怀孕的未知位置(普尔)是在低或高的风险窝藏宫外孕(EP)。两步骤的分类性能进行验证协议通过评估在临床实践中协议相关的不良事件和如何有效的患者筛选。是一个前瞻性多中心介入研究的3272名妇女普尔,执行2015年1月至2017年1月在4地区普通医院和四个大学英国的教学医院。结果被定义为:一个失败的普尔(FPUL)子宫内怀孕(IUP)或一个EP(包括持续的普尔(PPUL))。尽可能低的风险和EP / PPUL普尔风险高。孕激素和人体绒毛膜促性腺激素(hCG)水平测定在演讲病人。≤2 ?要求一个遵循了尿妊娠试验2?孕激素水平在2 ?测量没有,hCG水平在48再次测量吗?到M6模型中。根据预测的结果协议。FPUL”被建议进行尿妊娠测试2 ?风险,可能IUP被邀请为扫描星期后。归类为高风险(即风险EP≥? 5%)她回顾临床在48 ? h。中心使用黄体酮切断量≤? 10 ?及其数据分别进行了分析。建议管理协议并没有坚持,这是作为一个协议偏差和记录为临床医生分为:计划外的访问病人原因或原因,计划外访问不正确的血液检测或超声波的时机扫描。临床实践(GCP)被用来指导方针评估不良事件的发生率。使用描述性统计分析。结果与普尔的3272名妇女中,有2625人包括在最终的分析(317了排除标准或者失去跟随,在330年评估使用孕激素切断必经的≤10 ? nmol / L)。结果2392名(91.1%)患者。在步骤1中,407例(15.5%)患者分类低风险(孕激素≤2 ? nmol / L),其中7(1.7%)最终被诊断为患有EP。普尔,M6模型并不是由于应用协议偏差或因为结果已知的基础上(通常是一个超声波扫描),然后第二个hCG阅读拍摄;一个EP。被分类为低风险,其中8例(0.8%)EP的最终结果。高风险在步骤2,275例(30.5%)有EP。因此,275/320(85.9%)的每股收益是正确的归类为高风险。(55.0%)被分类为低风险,其中15 ? (1.0%) EP。在EP破裂或显著的临床危害。六十参与研究的两个女人了不良事件,但是没有女人有严重不良事件定义在英国GCP指南。结论本研究表明两步协议将M6模型有效地修复大多数的女性普尔是在低风险的EP,最小化遵循这些病人后所需量两次。这些女人来到

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号