Fertility and sterility · 2001
Prophylactic methotrexate after linear salpingostomy: a decision analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gracia C R, Brown H A, Barnhart K T
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare two strategies for managing women after linear salpingostomy for treatment of tubal pregnancy: observation and prophylactic methotrexate.
DESIGN: Decision analysis.
SETTING: Outpatient tertiary-care center.
PATIENT(S): One thousand hypothetical women treated with a linear salpingostomy for ectopic pregnancy.
INTERVENTION(S): Observation after salpingostomy and treatment of persistent ectopic pregnancy with a single dose of methotrexate (current standard of care) versus treatment with prophylactic methotrexate at the time of salpingostomy.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Number of ruptured ectopic pregnancies, surgical procedures, complications, and cost for each group (observation vs. prophylaxis).
RESULT(S): Prophylactic methotrexate results in fewer cases of tubal rupture (0.4% vs. 3.7%) and fewer procedures (1.9% vs. 4.7%) at a lower cost ($67.55 less/patient) compared with observation alone. Methotrexate-associated complications occur more frequently with prophylaxis (5.5% vs. 0.8%). Certain conditions change which strategy is preferable. Observation is the best strategy when the persistent ectopic pregnancy rate is <9%, the success of prophylaxis is <95%, the complication rate associated with methotrexate is >18%, or the rupture rate of persistent ectopic pregnancies is <7.3%.
CONCLUSION(S): Prophylactic methotrexate at the time of linear salpingostomy for the treatment of ectopic pregnancy is preferable to observation as long as certain conditions exist.
DESIGN: Decision analysis.
SETTING: Outpatient tertiary-care center.
PATIENT(S): One thousand hypothetical women treated with a linear salpingostomy for ectopic pregnancy.
INTERVENTION(S): Observation after salpingostomy and treatment of persistent ectopic pregnancy with a single dose of methotrexate (current standard of care) versus treatment with prophylactic methotrexate at the time of salpingostomy.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Number of ruptured ectopic pregnancies, surgical procedures, complications, and cost for each group (observation vs. prophylaxis).
RESULT(S): Prophylactic methotrexate results in fewer cases of tubal rupture (0.4% vs. 3.7%) and fewer procedures (1.9% vs. 4.7%) at a lower cost ($67.55 less/patient) compared with observation alone. Methotrexate-associated complications occur more frequently with prophylaxis (5.5% vs. 0.8%). Certain conditions change which strategy is preferable. Observation is the best strategy when the persistent ectopic pregnancy rate is <9%, the success of prophylaxis is <95%, the complication rate associated with methotrexate is >18%, or the rupture rate of persistent ectopic pregnancies is <7.3%.
CONCLUSION(S): Prophylactic methotrexate at the time of linear salpingostomy for the treatment of ectopic pregnancy is preferable to observation as long as certain conditions exist.