Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · J Lab Physicians 2023; 15(03): 425-430
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1761929
Original Article

Predictability of Hematological Parameters in the Diagnosis of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy

Sukran Dogru 
1   Division of Perinatology, Meram Faculty of Medicine, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
,
Asli Altinordu Atci
1   Division of Perinatology, Meram Faculty of Medicine, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
,
Fatih Akkus
1   Division of Perinatology, Meram Faculty of Medicine, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
,
Arif Caner Erdogan
2   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Meram Faculty of Medicine, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
,
Ali Acar
2   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Meram Faculty of Medicine, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is an increasing clinical condition that causes serious maternal morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to evaluate if inflammation markers measured by hemogram can aid in the diagnosis of CSP.

Materials and Methods A total of 86 patients were included in the study. The cases were divided as CSP (n: 42) and normal pregnancy (NP) (n: 44). At the time of admission, peripheral blood neutrophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, thrombocytes, systemic inflammatory index (SII) (neutrophil × platelet/lymphocyte), neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio, monocyte–lymphocyte ratio, and platelet–lymphocyte ratio were all measured. CSP and NP diagnoses were made by transabdominal or vaginal ultrasonography.

Results In the CSP group, mean age (p < 0.001), gravida (p < 0.001), parity (p < 0.001), number of surviving children (p < 0.001), number of abortions (p < 0.001), cesarean number (p < .001), dilatation and curettage count (p = 0.013), monocyte (M) value (p = 0.039) and monocyte/lymphocyte value (MLR) (p = 0.035) were significantly higher than the control group. The optimal M value cut-off value was found to be > 0.40, the sensitivity value was 78.57, and the specificity value was 50.00. AUC = 0.632 (SE = 0.061) for the MLR value. The optimal MLR cut-off value was found to be > 0.232, the sensitivity value was 61.90, and the specificity value was 63.64.

Conclusion Hemogram parameters, which are simple, inexpensive, and easily accessible, M and MLR are significantly higher in the diagnosis of CSP and can be used as an auxiliary parameter for ultrasonography.

Keywords

cesarean scar pregnancy - hemogram parameters - systemic inflammatory index

Consent to Publish

The participant has consented to the submission of the case report to the journal.


Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in this study.


Ethical Approval

Research involving human subjects complied with all relevant national regulations, institutional policies and is in accordance with the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration (as revised in 2013).


Authors' Contributions

S.D.: study design, patient management, and manuscript writing/editing; F.A.: data analysis, patient management. A.A.A.: data analysis, patient management; A.C.E.: data collection. A.A.: contributed to and approved of the final version of the manuscript.




Publication History

Article published online:
13 March 2023

© 2023. The Indian Association of Laboratory Physicians. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Miller R, Timor-Tritsch IE, Gyamfi-Bannerman C. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). Electronic address: pubs@smfm.org. Society for maternal-fetal medicine (SMFM) consult series# 49: cesarean scar pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 222 (05) B2-B14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Jauniaux E, Jurkovic D. Placenta accreta: pathogenesis of a 20th century iatrogenic uterine disease. Placenta 2012; 33 (04) 244-251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Calì G, D'Antonio F, Kaelin Agten A. Cesarean scar pregnancy: diagnosis and pathogenesis. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2019; 46 (04) 797-811
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hasegawa J, Ichizuka K, Matsuoka R, Otsuki K, Sekizawa A, Okai T. Limitations of conservative treatment for repeat Cesarean scar pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25 (03) 310-311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Litwicka K, Greco E. Caesarean scar pregnancy: a review of management options. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2011; 23 (06) 415-421
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Tantbirojn P, Crum CP, Parast MM. Pathophysiology of placenta creta: the role of decidua and extravillous trophoblast. Placenta 2008; 29 (07) 639-645
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Cali G. et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy is a precursor of morbidly adherent placenta. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 44 (03) 346-353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Cali G. et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy and early placenta accreta share common histology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 43 (04) 383-395
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kan Ö, Gemici A, Alkilic A. et al. The effect of preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio on predicting rupture risk in tubal ectopic pregnancies. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2019; 84 (04) 378-382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Calì G, Timor-Trisch IE, Palacios-Jaraquemada J. et al. Changes in ultrasonography indicators of abnormally invasive placenta during pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2018; 140 (03) 319-325
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Rotas MA, Haberman S, Levgur M. Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancies: etiology, diagnosis, and management. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107 (06) 1373-1381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Lee CL, Wang CJ, Chao A, Yen CF, Soong YK. Laparoscopic management of an ectopic pregnancy in a previous Caesarean section scar. Hum Reprod 1999; 14 (05) 1234-1236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A. Unforeseen consequences of the increasing rate of cesarean deliveries: early placenta accreta and cesarean scar pregnancy. A review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207 (01) 14-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Osborn DA, Williams TR, Craig BM. Cesarean scar pregnancy: sonographic and magnetic resonance imaging findings, complications, and treatment. J Ultrasound Med 2012; 31 (09) 1449-1456
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Wang J, Zhu Q-W, Cheng X-Y. et al. Assessment efficacy of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and monocyte-lymphocyte ratio in preeclampsia. J Reprod Immunol 2019; 132: 29-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Gupta AK, Hasler P, Holzgreve W, Gebhardt S, Hahn S. Induction of neutrophil extracellular DNA lattices by placental microparticles and IL-8 and their presence in preeclampsia. Hum Immunol 2005; 66 (11) 1146-1154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Reister F, Frank H-G, Kingdom JC. et al. Macrophage-induced apoptosis limits endovascular trophoblast invasion in the uterine wall of preeclamptic women. Lab Invest 2001; 81 (08) 1143-1152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Zhang K, Hua Y-Q, Wang D. et al. Systemic immune-inflammation index predicts prognosis of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. J Transl Med 2019; 17 (01) 30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Tanacan A, Uyanik E, Unal C, Beksac MS. A cut-off value for systemic immune-inflammation index in the prediction of adverse neonatal outcomes in preterm premature rupture of the membranes. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2020; 46 (08) 1333-1341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Abide Yayla C, Ozkaya E, Tayyar A, Senol T, Senturk MB, Karateke A. Predictive value of complete blood count parameters for placental invasion anomalies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2017; 30 (19) 2324-2328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Eskicioğlu F, Özdemir AT, Turan GA, Gür EB, Kasap E, Genç M. The efficacy of complete blood count parameters in the diagnosis of tubal ectopic pregnancy. Ginekol Pol 2014; 85 (11) 823-827
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Çintesun E, Akar S, Gul A. et al. Subclinical inflammation markers in hyperemesis gravidarum and ketonuria: a case-control study. J Lab Physicians 2019; 11 (02) 149-153
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar