The Prevalence and Ultrasonographic Features of Ectopic Pregnancy, Rawalpindi, Pakistan

Authors

  • Nimra Idrees Zohra Institute of Health Sciences (GCUF), Rawalpindi, Pakistan
  • Aqsa Rehman Superior University, Lahore, Pakistan
  • Sadikun Nabi Combined Military Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh
  • Mehwish Niaz Zohra Institute of Health Sciences (GCUF), Rawalpindi, Pakistan
  • Hashmatullah Stanikzai Shaikh Zayed Postgraduate Medical Institute, Lahore, Pakistan
  • Hina Syed Riphah International University, Islamabad, Pakistan
  • Anam Hanif University of Sargodha
  • Ali Husnain Zohra Institute of Health Sciences (GCUF), Rawalpindi, Pakistan https://orcid.org/0009-0003-7720-6090

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.70749/ijbr.v3i9.2374

Keywords:

Ultrasonography, Ectopic pregnancy, Tubal pregnancy, Prevalence

Abstract

Background: Ectopic pregnancy (EP) continues to be a major contributor to maternal morbidity and mortality throughout early gestation. Early detection using ultrasonography is crucial for effective therapy and optimal outcomes. Objective: To find out the prevalence and ultrasonographic characteristics of ectopic pregnancy in patients exhibiting early pregnancy problems. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed at Health Ways Diagnostic Centre and Life Care Lab in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, from April 2024 to September 2024. One hundred fifty (150) women aged 20-40 years with suspected early pregnancy problems underwent transvaginal and/or transabdominal ultrasonography. Data on clinical presentation, β-hCG levels, and sonographic findings were gathered and analyzed utilizing SPSS and GraphPad Prism. Results: In a study of 150 women, 29 cases of ectopic pregnancy were identified, resulting in a prevalence rate of 19.3% (95% CI: 13.8–26.4%). Tubal pregnancies constituted 96.6% of cases, whereas non-tubal pregnancies represented only 3.4% (p < 0.01). The predominant age group of patients was 31–35 years, comprising 36.7% of the sample, with the majority of diagnoses made before 9 weeks of gestation. The primary risk factors identified were intrauterine device use (34%), prior ectopic pregnancy (34.4%), and tubal surgery (17%). The predominant ultrasonographic finding was an empty uterus accompanied by an adnexal mass (48.3%), followed by an adnexal mass with free fluid (27.6%) and the hyperechoic ring sign (17.2%). The classic tubal ring was identified in merely 6.9% of instances. Conclusion: This study concludes that ectopic pregnancy predominantly originates in the fallopian tubes and is frequently linked to risk factors, including the use of intrauterine devices (IUDs) and previous tubal surgeries. Transvaginal ultrasonography is essential for early and precise diagnosis.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. N. T. Gizaw, M. A. K/Mariam, and M. G. Fayera, “Magnitude of ectopic pregnancy, management methods, and its associated factors among pregnant women attending Ambo University Referral Hospital in Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia: A seven years retrospective institutional based cross-sectional study,” PLOS Glob. Public Health, vol. 5, no. 6, p. e0004611, June 2025.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0004611.

2. D. Papageorgiou, I. Sapantzoglou, I. Prokopakis, and E. Zachariou, “Tubal Ectopic Pregnancy: From Diagnosis to Treatment,” Biomedicines, vol. 13, no. 6, p. 1465, June 2025.

https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines13061465.

3. T. Raine-Bennett et al., “Disparities in the Incidence of Ectopic Pregnancy in a Large Health Care System in California, 2010−2019,” Perm. J., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 61–68, Sept. 2022.

https://doi.org/10.7812/TPP/21.099.

4. S. Zhang, J. Liu, L. Yang, H. Li, J. Tang, and L. Hong, “Global burden and trends of ectopic pregnancy: An observational trend study from 1990 to 2019,” PLOS ONE, vol. 18, no. 10, p. e0291316, Oct. 2023.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291316.

5. Naushaba Malik, Tehmina Munir Ahmed, Maryam Rauf, Shah Bakht Aftab, M. Nasib Ahmed, and Sara Jamil Khan, “Ectopic Pregnancy: An Analysis of Prevalence and Clinical Magnitude,” Ann. PIMS-Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Med. Univ., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 218–221, June 2024.

https://doi.org/10.48036/apims.v20i3.1081.

6. M. Bai, O. Kulsoom, Azra, Bushra, J. Atta, and S. Javaid, “incidence, Predictability and Causes of Tubal Rupture IN Ectopic Pregnancy in a Pakistani Population: A Descrptive Cross-Sectional Study,” JRMDS, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 110–115, 2022.

7. M. Houser, N. Kandalaft, and N. J. Khati, “Ectopic pregnancy: a resident’s guide to imaging findings and diagnostic pitfalls,” Emerg. Radiol., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 161–172, Feb. 2022.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-021-01974-7.

8. K. Mullany, M. Minneci, R. Monjazeb, and O. C. Coiado, “Overview of ectopic pregnancy diagnosis, management, and innovation,” Womens Health, vol. 19, p. 17455057231160349, Jan. 2023.

https://doi.org/10.1177/17455057231160349.

9. N. Joshi, “Clinical Profile, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Ectopic Pregnancy: A One-Year Observational Study From a Tertiary Care Hospital in Eastern India,” Cureus, Feb. 2025.

https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.79276.

10. N. T. Gizaw, M. A. K/Mariam, and M. G. Fayera, “Magnitude of ectopic pregnancy, management methods, and its associated factors among pregnant women attending Ambo University Referral Hospital in Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia: A seven years retrospective institutional based cross-sectional study,” PLOS Glob. Public Health, vol. 5, no. 6, p. e0004611, June 2025.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0004611.

11. P. M. Doubilet, C. B. Benson, T. Bourne, and M. Blaivas, “Diagnostic Criteria for Nonviable Pregnancy Early in the First Trimester,” N. Engl. J. Med., vol. 369, no. 15, pp. 1443–1451, Oct. 2013.

https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1302417.

12. E. Hendriks, R. Rosenberg, and L. Prine, “Ectopic Pregnancy: Diagnosis and Management,” Am. Fam. Physician, vol. 101, no. 10, pp. 599–606, May 2020.

13. E. Scarpelli et al., “Predictors of Methotrexate Success and Fertility Outcomes in Tubal Ectopic Pregnancy: A Retrospective Cohort Study,” Medicina (Mex.), vol. 61, no. 6, p. 1058, June 2025.

https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61061058.

14. A. Richardson, I. Gallos, S. Dobson, B. K. Campbell, A. Coomarasamy, and N. Raine‐Fenning, “Accuracy of first‐trimester ultrasound in diagnosis of tubal ectopic pregnancy in the absence of an obvious extrauterine embryo: systematic review and meta‐analysis,” Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol., vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 28–37, Jan. 2016.

https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14844.

15. S. Winder, S. Reid, and G. Condous, “Ultrasound diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy,” Australas. J. Ultrasound Med., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 29–33, May 2011.

https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2205-0140.2011.tb00192.x.

16. S. Winder, S. Reid, and G. Condous, “Ultrasound diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy,” Australas. J. Ultrasound Med., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 29–33, May 2011.

https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2205-0140.2011.tb00192.x.

17. Y. Madani, “The use of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy: a case report and review of the literature,” Medscape J. Med., vol. 10, no. 2, p. 35, Feb. 2008.

Downloads

Published

2025-09-30

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 9 (2025): Indus Journal of Bioscience Research

Section

Original Article

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Indus Journal of Bioscience Research

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Idrees, N., Rehman, A., Nabi, S., Niaz, M., Stanikzai, H., Syed, H., Hanif, A., & Husnain, A. (2025). The Prevalence and Ultrasonographic Features of Ectopic Pregnancy, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Indus Journal of Bioscience Research, 3(9), 194-198. https://doi.org/10.70749/ijbr.v3i9.2374