Author/Authors :
Xiong, Xi Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology - Second Clinical Medical College of Army Medical University - Chongqing, China , Gao, Chun-yan Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology - Second Clinical Medical College of Army Medical University - Chongqing, China , Ying, De-mei Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology - Second Clinical Medical College of Army Medical University - Chongqing, China , Yan, Ping Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology - Second Clinical Medical College of Army Medical University - Chongqing, China , Zhang, Zhi-jia Department of Clinical Laboratory - Second Clinical Medical College of Army Medical University - Chongqing, China , Kuang, Na Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology - Second Clinical Medical College of Army Medical University - Chongqing, China , Tian, Hong-ju Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology - Second Clinical Medical College of Army Medical University - Chongqing, China , Luo, Li Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology - Second Clinical Medical College of Army Medical University - Chongqing, China , Long, Shu-yu Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology - Second Clinical Medical College of Army Medical University - Chongqing, China , Chen, Zheng-qiong Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology - Second Clinical Medical College of Army Medical University - Chongqing, China
Abstract :
The effect of mifepristone for treatment of low-risk cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) was monitored by contrast-enhanced
ultrasound (CEUS). Methods. Data were collected from 23 CSP patients with a 10-point risk score <5 (low-risk CSP) and from 23
intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) patients with a scar from a previous cesarean delivery. All patients were prescribed 75 mg mifepristone daily for 2 days and underwent transvaginal CEUS before and after administration of mifepristone. On the third day,
uterine curettage was performed after transvaginal CEUS. Arrival time (AT), peak intensity (PI), and area under the curve (AUC)
around the gestational sac were monitored by CEUS before and after application of mifepristone, and the rate of effective
treatment was compared between the two patient groups. Results. No patients experienced side effects from either the CEUS
procedure or the mifepristone treatment. Changes in AT, PI, and AUC index from before vs. after mifepristone treatment did not
differ significantly between the two groups (all p values >0.05). There was also no significant difference in the rate of effective
treatment between the two groups (95.65% in the CSP group vs. 100% in the IUP group; p > 0.05). Conclusions. Based on
monitoring by CEUS, the effect of mifepristone in low-risk CSP was comparable to that in IUP.
Keywords :
Ultrasound , Risk , Treatment , CEUS
