Journals / Türkiye Acil Tıp Dergisi / 2008 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 4

Ektopik gebelik: Acil hekimi için gerçekten büyük bir fobi mi?

Ectopic pregnancy: Is it really an enormous phobia for emergency physicians?

Pages
155–159
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

All female patients in childbearing age disregarding the vital signs should be evaluated for an ectopic pregnancy.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: Any pregnancy in which the implantation occurs outside the uterine cavity is defined as ectopic pregnancy (EP).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Approximately 2% of all pregnancies are diagnosed as ectopic pregnancy.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:All female patients in childbearing age disregarding the vital signs should be evaluated for an ectopic pregnancy.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2002 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: Any pregnancy in which the implantation occurs outside the uterine cavity is defined as ectopic pregnancy (EP). Approximately 2% of all pregnancies are diagnosed as ectopic pregnancy. Ruptured EP is the most life-threatening emergency in the first trimester of pregnancy. The objective of this study is to determine the incidence of unstable ectopic pregnancy with abnormal vital signs and to find out the risk factors. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was conducted in a university emergency department with 50.000 annual visits per year. Patients diagnosed as ectopic pregnancy between 2002 and 2007 were determined from the computerized database (Mediacil® software) of the hospital and enrolled to the study. The age of the patient, symptoms and vital signs at the presentation, ectopic pregnancy risk factors, the human chorionic gonodatrophin (hCG) levels and the treatment choice were recorded. Results: Sixty-three patients diagnosed as ectopic pregnancy during the study period. The mean age of patients was 29.9±5.3 (min 21- max 44). The prevalence of ectopic pregnancy in our patient population was 3.4%. Six (9.5%) of all the ectopic pregnancy patients, evaluated in the emergency department had unstable vital signs and 4 patients (6.3%) presented with syncope. 20.6% of all the patients in the study had high risk, 27% of them had moderate risk and 52.4% had low risk. History of previous ectopic pregnancy were the most seen risk factor among the high risk factors (n=12, 19%). Conclusion: The most common emergency department symptoms of ectopic pregnancy are abdominal pain and vaginal bleeding. Especially the patients with previous ectopic pregnancy are risky for a recurrent ectopic pregnancy. All female patients in childbearing age disregarding the vital signs should be evaluated for an ectopic pregnancy.

Özet

Giriş: Gebelik materyalinin uterus dışına yerleşmesi ektopik gebelik (EG) olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Tüm gebeliklerin yaklaşık %2’si ektopik gebeliktir. Ektopik gebelik rüptürü birinci trimesterde yaşamı en fazla tehdit eden acil durumdur. Bu çalışmanın amacı ektopik gebelik ile acil serviste değerlendirilen hastalardan stabil olmayanların prevalansını saptamak ve risk faktörlerini araştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışma geriye dönük olarak 2002-2007 yılları arasında, yıllık hasta sayısı 50.000 olan üniversite hastanesi acil servisinde gerçekleştirildi. Ektopik gebelik tanısı alan hastalar hastanemizin bilgisayar tabanlı veri tabanı (Mediacil®) taranarak saptandı. Hastaların demografik verileri, acil servise başvuru şikâyetleri, başvuru vital bulguları ve ektopik gebelik risk faktörleri kayıt edildi. Bulgular: Çalışma süresince boyunca ektopik gebelik tanısı alan 63 hasta çalışmaya alındı. Hastaların yaş ortalaması 29,9±5,3 (minimum 21 - maksimum 44) idi. Çalışma periyodu süresince acil servisteki ektopik gebelik prevalansı %3,4 olarak bulundu. Ektopik gebelik tanısı ile acil serviste değerlendirilen hastaların %9,5’inde (n=6) stabil olmayan vital bulgular mevcut iken hastalardan, %6,4’ü (n=4) senkop nedeniyle acil servise başvurdu. Ektopik gebelik saptanan 63 hastanın risk faktörleri geriye dönük olarak incelendiğinde; yüksek riskli %20,6, orta riskli %27 ve düşük riskli ile risk olmayan grup %52,4 olarak saptandı. Sonuç: Ektopik gebelik nedeniyle acil servise başvuran hastalarda en sık görülen şikâyet karın ağrısı ve vajinal kanamadır. Daha önceden ektopik gebelik öyküsü olan hastalar yeniden ektopik gebelik gelişimi açısından risk altındadırlar. Doğurganlık çağındaki tüm bayan hastalarda vital bulgularına bakılmaksızın ektopik gebelik göz önünde bulundurulmalıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜLEN, B., SÖYÜNCÜ, S., YİĞİT, Ö. (2022). Ektopik gebelik: Acil hekimi için gerçekten büyük bir fobi mi?. Türkiye Acil Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 4, 155–159. https://ajindex.com/articles/626111

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Tenore JL. Ectopic pregnancy. Am Fam Physician 2000;61:1080-8
  2. Della-Giustina D, Denny M. Ectopic pregnancy. Emerg Med Clin North Am 2003;21:565-84
  3. Buckley RG, King KJ, Disney JD, Gorman JD, Klausen JH. History and physical examination to estimate the risk of ectopic pregnancy: validation of a clinical prediction model. Ann Emerg Med 1999;34:589-94
  4. Mukul LV, Teal SB. Current management of ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2007;34:403-19, x
  5. Olsson T, Terent A, Lind L. Rapid Emergency Medicine Score can predict longterm mortality in nonsurgical emergency department patients. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11:1008-13
  6. Tay JI, Moore J, Walker JJ. Ectopic pregnancy. BMJ 2000;320(7239):916-9
  7. Aleem FA, DeFazio M, Gintautas J. Endovaginal sonography for the early diagnosis of intrauterine and ectopic pregnancies. Hum Reprod 1990;5:755-8
  8. Ankum WM, Van der Veen F, Hamerlynck JV, Lammes FB. Laparoscopy: a dispensable tool in the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy? Hum Reprod 1993;8:1301-6
  9. Cacciatore B, Ylöstalo P, Stenman UH, Widholm O. Suspected ectopic pregnancy: ultrasound findings and hCG levels assessed by an immunofluorometric assay. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1988;95:497-502
  10. Sindos M, Togia A, Sergentanis TN, Kabagiannis A, Malamas F, Farfaras A, et al. Ruptured ectopic pregnancy: risk factors for a life-threatening condition. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2008 Sep 2
  11. Barnhart KT, Gosman G, Ashby R, Sammel M. The medical management of ectopic pregnancy: a meta-analysis comparing “single dose” and “multidose” regimens. Obstet Gynecol 2003;101:778-84
  12. Hajenius PJ, Mol F, Mol BW, Bossuyt PM, Ankum WM, van der Veen F. Interventions for tubal ectopic pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(1):CD000324.