The Epidemiology and Associated Factors of Ectopic Pregnancy in Saudi Arabia: A Literature Review
Moath Alkathiri, Abdulrahman AlmousaBackground
Ectopic pregnancy (EP) is a serious maternal complication with a worldwide prevalence of about 2%. It is defined as the implantation of the product of conception outside the uterine cavity. Patients with EP may present with a wide range of clinical symptoms, including abdominal/pelvic pain, vaginal bleeding, missed menstrual cycle, and an empty uterine cavity on ultrasound. After diagnosing EPs, medical and/or surgical treatment options are available based on the patient’s hemodynamic status, ectopic location, fetal cardiac activity, size of the gestational sac, level of β‐HCG, and patient profile.
Objective
This narrative literature review aims to summarize published primary studies on the epidemiology and reported associated factors of EP in Saudi Arabia between 2000 and 2024.
Results
A total of 1342 EP cases were reported across the included studies. Reported prevalence estimates ranged from 0.23% to 1.20%. The reviewed studies were from different regions of the Kingdom, including Abha, Khamis Mushait, Yanbu, Makkah, Madina, Jeddah, Khobar, and Majmaah. The prevalence of EPs fluctuated between 2000 and 2019 and had three peaks: 1.13% (2012), 1.14% (2013), and 1.2% (2019). Multiple associated factors linked to EP were reported in this review, including a history of pelvic surgery, C‐sections, previous EP, abortions, intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD) use, and pelvic inflammatory diseases (PIDs).
Conclusions
EP is a serious complication that causes significant maternal morbidity and mortality and has a substantial burden on the healthcare system. In this review, eleven studies were reviewed regarding the epidemiology of EPs in the Kingdom. No clear pattern or trend in prevalence was identified, although the majority of studies reported lower EP rates than the worldwide prevalence. Several associated factors were reported across the included studies; however, these findings should be interpreted cautiously because most studies were retrospective and descriptive in nature.