First Trimester Vaginal Bleeding

Variant: 1 First trimester vaginal bleeding. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US pelvis transabdominal	Usually Appropriate	O
US pelvis transvaginal	Usually Appropriate	O
US duplex Doppler pregnant uterus	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Panel Members

Sherelle L. Laifer-Narin, MD^a; Alana Fruauff, MD^b; Cinthia Cruz Romero, MD^c; Dorothy I. Bulas, MD^d; Ingrid Burger, MD, PhD^e; Christopher Fung, MD^f; Jane Goldman, MD^g; Michael Gottlieb, MD^h; Priyanka Jha, MDⁱ; Robin B. Levenson, MD^j; Catherine H. Phillips, MD^k; Liina Poder, MD^l; David Schultz, MD^m; Ashish P. Wasnik, MDⁿ.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Initial Imaging Definition

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: First trimester vaginal bleeding. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: First trimester vaginal bleeding. Initial imaging.
A. CT pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 1: First trimester vaginal bleeding. Initial imaging.
B. CT pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: First trimester vaginal bleeding. Initial imaging.
C. CT pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: First trimester vaginal bleeding. Initial imaging.
D. MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: First trimester vaginal bleeding. Initial imaging.
E. MRI pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: First trimester vaginal bleeding. Initial imaging.
F. US duplex Doppler pregnant uterus

Variant 1: First trimester vaginal bleeding. Initial imaging.
G. US pelvis transabdominal

Variant 1: First trimester vaginal bleeding. Initial imaging.
H. US pelvis transvaginal

Summary of Highlights

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Safety Considerations in Pregnant Patients

Gender Equality and Inclusivity Clause

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Al-Memar M, Vaulet T, Fourie H, et al. Early-pregnancy events and subsequent antenatal, delivery and neonatal outcomes: prospective cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 54(4):530-537, 2019 Oct.
2.	Hasan R, Baird DD, Herring AH, Olshan AF, Jonsson Funk ML, Hartmann KE. Patterns and predictors of vaginal bleeding in the first trimester of pregnancy. Ann Epidemiol. 2010;20(7):524-531.
3.	Phillips CH, Wortman JR, Ginsburg ES, Sodickson AD, Doubilet PM, Khurana B. First-trimester emergencies: a radiologist's perspective. [Review]. EMERG. RADIOL.. 25(1):61-72, 2018 Feb.
4.	Pedigo R. First trimester pregnancy emergencies: recognition and management. Emergency Medicine Practice. 21(1):1-20, 2019 Jan.Emerg. med. pract.. 21(1):1-20, 2019 Jan.
5.	Kao LY, Scheinfeld MH, Chernyak V, Rozenblit AM, Oh S, Dym RJ. Beyond ultrasound: CT and MRI of ectopic pregnancy. [Review]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 202(4):904-11, 2014 Apr.
6.	Shin DS, Poder L, Courtier J, Naeger DM, Westphalen AC, Coakley FV. CT and MRI of early intrauterine pregnancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 196(2):325-30, 2011 Feb.
7.	American College of Radiology. ACR Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media. Manual on Contrast Media. Available at: https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Contrast-Manual.
8.	Sellmyer MA, Desser TS, Maturen KE, Jeffrey RB, Jr., Kamaya A. Physiologic, histologic, and imaging features of retained products of conception. Radiographics 2013;33:781-96.
9.	American College of Radiology. ACR Committee on MR Safety. 2024 ACR Manual on MR Safety. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Radiology-Safety/Manual-on-MR-Safety.pdf.
10.	Liu W, Xie W, Zhao H, et al. Using MRI to differentiate upper-lateral intracavitary pregnancy and interstitial pregnancy for the patients with pregnancies in the uterotubal junction during the first trimester. Eur Radiol. 32(10):6619-6627, 2022 Oct.
11.	Ray JG, Vermeulen MJ, Bharatha A, Montanera WJ, Park AL. Association Between MRI Exposure During Pregnancy and Fetal and Childhood Outcomes. JAMA. 2016;316(9):952-961.
12.	Peng KW, Lei Z, Xiao TH, et al. First trimester caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy evaluation using MRI. Clin Radiol. 69(2):123-9, 2014 Feb.
13.	Ucisik-Keser FE, Matta EJ, Fabrega MG, Chandrasekhar C, Chua SS. The many faces of ectopic pregnancies: demystifying the common and less common entities. [Review]. Abdom Radiol. 46(3):1104-1114, 2021 03.
14.	Hugues C, Le Bras Y, Coatleven F, et al. Vascular uterine abnormalities: Comparison of imaging findings and clinical outcomes. Eur J Radiol. 84(12):2485-91, 2015 Dec.
15.	Amran UN, Zaiki FWA, Dom SM. A Review of the Thermal Effects During Pregnancy by Using Ultrasound: Doppler Mode. Pertanika J. Sci. Technol 2019;27:357-70.
16.	Salvesen K, Abramowicz J, Ter Haar G, et al. ISUOG statement on the safe use of Doppler for fetal ultrasound examination in the first 13 + 6 weeks of pregnancy (updated). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2021;57:1020.
17.	Frates MC, Doubilet PM, Peters HE, Benson CB. Adnexal sonographic findings in ectopic pregnancy and their correlation with tubal rupture and human chorionic gonadotropin levels. J Ultrasound Med. 33(4):697-703, 2014 Apr.
18.	Rodgers SK, Horrow MM, Doubilet PM, et al. A Lexicon for First-Trimester US: Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Consensus Conference Recommendations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2024.
19.	Doubilet PM, Phillips CH, Durfee SM, Benson CB. First-Trimester Prognosis When an Early Gestational Sac is Seen on Ultrasound Imaging: Logistic Regression Prediction Model. J Ultrasound Med. 40(3):541-550, 2021 Mar.
20.	Phillips CH, Benson CB, Durfee SM, Heller HT, Doubilet PM. "Pseudogestational Sac" and Other 1980s-Era Concepts in Early First-Trimester Ultrasound: Are They Still Relevant Today?. J Ultrasound Med. 39(8):1547-1551, 2020 Aug.
21.	Connolly A, Ryan DH, Stuebe AM, Wolfe HM. Reevaluation of discriminatory and threshold levels for serum beta-hCG in early pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(1):65-70.
22.	Doubilet PM, Benson CB, Bourne T, et al. Diagnostic criteria for nonviable pregnancy early in the first trimester. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(15):1443-1451.
23.	Ko JK, Cheung VY. Time to revisit the human chorionic gonadotropin discriminatory level in the management of pregnancy of unknown location. J Ultrasound Med. 33(3):465-71, 2014 Mar.
24.	Tuuli MG, Norman SM, Odibo AO, Macones GA, Cahill AG. Perinatal outcomes in women with subchorionic hematoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:1205-12.
25.	Al-Memar M, Vaulet T, Fourie H, et al. First-trimester intrauterine hematoma and pregnancy complications. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 55(4):536-545, 2020 04.
26.	Murugan VA, Murphy BO, Dupuis C, Goldstein A, Kim YH. Role of ultrasound in the evaluation of first-trimester pregnancies in the acute setting. Ultrasonography 2020;39:178-89.
27.	Naert MN, Khadraoui H, Muniz Rodriguez A, Naqvi M, Fox NS. Association Between First-Trimester Subchorionic Hematomas and Pregnancy Loss in Singleton Pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 134(2):276-281, 2019 08.
28.	Fu Z, Ding X, Wei D, Li J, Cang R, Li X. Impact of subchorionic hematoma on pregnancy outcomes in women with recurrent pregnancy loss. Biomol Biomed 2023;23:170-75.
29.	Gunay T, Yardimci OD. How does subchorionic hematoma in the first trimester affect pregnancy outcomes? Arch Med Sci 2022;18:639-46.
30.	Doubilet PM, Phillips CH, Durfee SM, Benson CB. Fourfold Improved Odds of a Good First Trimester Outcome Once a Yolk Sac Is Seen in Early Pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med. 41(11):2835-2840, 2022 Nov.
31.	Hendriks E, MacNaughton H, MacKenzie MC. First Trimester Bleeding: Evaluation and Management. [Review]. Am Fam Physician. 99(3):166-174, 2019 02 01.
32.	Preisler J, Kopeika J, Ismail L, et al. Defining safe criteria to diagnose miscarriage: prospective observational multicentre study. BMJ. 351:h4579, 2015 Sep 23.
33.	American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 200: Early Pregnancy Loss. Obstet Gynecol 2018;132:e197-e207.
34.	Tanaka Y, Mimura K, Kanagawa T, et al. Three-dimensional sonography in the differential diagnosis of interstitial, angular, and intrauterine pregnancies in a septate uterus. J Ultrasound Med 2014;33:2031-5.
35.	Cali G, Forlani F, Timor-Tritsch IE, Palacios-Jaraquemada J, Minneci G, D'Antonio F. Natural history of Cesarean scar pregnancy on prenatal ultrasound: the crossover sign. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 50(1):100-104, 2017 Jul.
36.	Savage JL, Maturen KE, Mowers EL, et al. Sonographic diagnosis of partial versus complete molar pregnancy: A reappraisal. J Clin Ultrasound 2017;45:72-78.
37.	American College of Radiology. ACR–SPR Practice Parameter for the Safe and Optimal Performance of Fetal Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=89+&releaseId=2.
38.	American College of Radiology. ACR-SPR Practice Parameter for Imaging Pregnant or Potentially Pregnant Patients with Ionizing Radiation. Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=23+&releaseId=2.
39.	American College of Radiology. ACR-ACOG-AIUM-SMFM-SRU Practice Parameter for the Performance of Standard Diagnostic Obstetrical Ultrasound. Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=28+&releaseId=2.
40.	National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Committee on National Statistics; Committee on Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. In: Becker T, Chin M, Bates N, eds. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.; 2022.
41.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.