Poonam Desai, DO

Case

A 45-year-old Chinese man with no known medical history presented to the ED with right-sided facial spasm and cheek swelling, which began immediately after he bit into a piece of taro root, approximately 2 hours prior to presentation. The patient stated that the root was an ingredient in a soup that a relative had made. According to the patient, after biting into the root, he immediately experienced a burning pain on the right side of his mouth. He further noted that he swallowed less than two bites of the root and stopped eating because the act of chewing was too painful.

Initial vital signs at presentation were: blood pressure, 140/100 mm Hg; heart rate, 84 beats/min; respiratory rate, 14 beats/min; and temperature, 97.6°F. Oxygen saturation was 98% on room air. The patient’s physical examination was remarkable for pain upon opening the mouth, as well as right-sided cheek and lip swelling and tenderness. The tongue and oropharynx were not erythematous or swollen. The patient was only able to speak in short sentences, secondary to oropharyngeal pain, but he was in no respiratory distress. No urticaria, pruritus, wheezing, or stridor was present.

During the patient’s workup, his 40-year-old wife also presented to the same ED for evaluation of burning pain and spasm on the left side of her mouth, which she stated also developed immediately after she bit into a piece of taro root contained in the same soup as that ingested by the patient.

The wife’s vital signs were unremarkable, and she was in no respiratory distress. Her physical examination was remarkable only for left-sided cheek and lip swelling and tenderness, associated with an erythematous oropharynx and pain with speaking.

What is taro? What are the manifestations of taro toxicity?

Taro commonly refers to plants from the Araceae family, usually Colocasia esculenta.¹ Taro is ubiquitous in Southern Asia and Southeast India. It is a widely naturalized and perennial tropical plant primarily grown as a root vegetable, and is a common flavor in boba (bubble) tea. All members of Araceae contain calcium oxalate crystals in the form of raphides, sharp needle-shaped crystals packaged in idioblasts and contained within the waxy leaf.² Pressure on the idioblasts, such as from mastication, triggers the release of the raphides. The needles pierce the surface of any tissue with which they come into contact, creating a gateway for proteolytic enzymes to enter the consumer.³ The leaves and root of Araceae must be cooked before eating to inactivate the raphides.

Oral exposure to uncooked taro leaves or taro root can result in mouth irritation and swelling that can progress to angioedema and airway obstruction. Although the traditional method of removing taro raphides is to soak the root in cold water overnight,^4,5 this does not fully remove all of the raphides. Instead, taro root should be thoroughly cooked in boiling water to draw-out oxalates from the root into the cooking water, which must then be discarded. Consuming taro with warm milk also reduces the effect of the oxalates by about 80%.⁶

Many other plants of the Araceae family, such as Dieffenbachia (dumbcane), share similar toxicity and are commonly kept in the home and office.

Patients with oral exposure to taro may experience a delayed (also termed biphasic) anaphylactic reaction, ie, the development of anaphylactic symptoms more than 4 hours after the inciting event. Delayed anaphylaxis is distinct from delayed hypersensitivity, though both may be immunoglobulin E-mediated. Delayed hypersensitivity presents later (2-14 days) and with less immediately life-threatening effects, most commonly dermatitis (eg, poison ivy dermatitis).

While both of the patients in this case presented with mild symptoms, life-threatening angioedema of the oropharynx, anaphylaxis, and hypocalcemia have been reported^7,8 and should be considered in any symptomatic patient with exposure to taro.

What is the differential diagnosis of plant-related mouth pain?

The oral mucosa is composed of superficial layers of mucin and epithelial cells that lie over the dermis and connective tissue. Local immune cells, including mast cells and Langerhans cells, reside in the deeper layers. The differential diagnosis of plant-based mouth pain can be divided into mechanical, chemical, and thermal causes.

Mechanical Causes. Causes of mechanical plant-based oral pain include structural damage when foreign matter, such as barbs, sharp leaves, or hard seeds, pierce the layers of the oral mucosa.

Chemical Causes. Chemical-related causes of oral pain include caustic ingestion, for example from detergents or cleaning agents that contaminate the broth. Araceae, such as taro or arum, have sharp calcium oxalate crystals tipped with phospholipases and proteases that cause mechanical pain on piercing mucous membranes, and chemical pain by enzymatically degrading epithelium and mucosa. Both chemical and mechanical irritation can lead to an inflammatory response. Raw taro can cause irritant contact stomatitis as the raphides pierce the oral mucosa. It can also cause allergic stomatitis if antigens related to the phospholipases or proteases are presented to Langerhans cells.⁹

Thermal Causes. The hot temperature of the ingested broth could cause thermal injury, but the injury is likely to be more diffuse.

How common is taro exposure, and how is it treated?

From 1995 to 1999, 15 cases of taro poisoning were reported to the Drug and Toxicology Information service in Zimbabwe.¹⁰ From 2005 to 2009, 21 out of 31 cases reported to the Hong Kong Poison Control Center involving gastrointestinal irritation involved the consumption of Colocasia fallax, a form of taro more common in Tibet, the Himalayas, and northern Indochina.⁷ Of the 31 cases, six patients were treated with diphenhydramine, epinephrine, and dexamethasone for angioedema.

From 2011 to 2013, two cases of mouth irritation and swelling after eating raw taro leaves were reported to the British Columbia Poison Control Center.¹¹ Those two patients were observed for 6 hours without specific treatment and discharged.

Case Conclusion

Due to concerns of the potential for anaphylaxis, both patients were treated intravenously with 50 mg diphenhydramine and 10 mg dexamethasone. The husband was also given 650 mg acetaminophen orally for pain relief; his wife declined pain medication. Laboratory evaluation, including a complete blood count, basic metabolic panel, liver function panel, and urinalysis were ordered for both patients; all results were within normal limits for both patients.

After an uneventful 6-hour observation period, both patients were discharged home with instructions to return to the ED if they develop any signs of allergic reaction and to call emergency medical services for any sign of anaphylaxis.

Case

A 45-year-old Chinese man with no known medical history presented to the ED with right-sided facial spasm and cheek swelling, which began immediately after he bit into a piece of taro root, approximately 2 hours prior to presentation. The patient stated that the root was an ingredient in a soup that a relative had made. According to the patient, after biting into the root, he immediately experienced a burning pain on the right side of his mouth. He further noted that he swallowed less than two bites of the root and stopped eating because the act of chewing was too painful.

Initial vital signs at presentation were: blood pressure, 140/100 mm Hg; heart rate, 84 beats/min; respiratory rate, 14 beats/min; and temperature, 97.6°F. Oxygen saturation was 98% on room air. The patient’s physical examination was remarkable for pain upon opening the mouth, as well as right-sided cheek and lip swelling and tenderness. The tongue and oropharynx were not erythematous or swollen. The patient was only able to speak in short sentences, secondary to oropharyngeal pain, but he was in no respiratory distress. No urticaria, pruritus, wheezing, or stridor was present.

During the patient’s workup, his 40-year-old wife also presented to the same ED for evaluation of burning pain and spasm on the left side of her mouth, which she stated also developed immediately after she bit into a piece of taro root contained in the same soup as that ingested by the patient.

The wife’s vital signs were unremarkable, and she was in no respiratory distress. Her physical examination was remarkable only for left-sided cheek and lip swelling and tenderness, associated with an erythematous oropharynx and pain with speaking.

What is taro? What are the manifestations of taro toxicity?

Taro commonly refers to plants from the Araceae family, usually Colocasia esculenta.¹ Taro is ubiquitous in Southern Asia and Southeast India. It is a widely naturalized and perennial tropical plant primarily grown as a root vegetable, and is a common flavor in boba (bubble) tea. All members of Araceae contain calcium oxalate crystals in the form of raphides, sharp needle-shaped crystals packaged in idioblasts and contained within the waxy leaf.² Pressure on the idioblasts, such as from mastication, triggers the release of the raphides. The needles pierce the surface of any tissue with which they come into contact, creating a gateway for proteolytic enzymes to enter the consumer.³ The leaves and root of Araceae must be cooked before eating to inactivate the raphides.

Oral exposure to uncooked taro leaves or taro root can result in mouth irritation and swelling that can progress to angioedema and airway obstruction. Although the traditional method of removing taro raphides is to soak the root in cold water overnight,^4,5 this does not fully remove all of the raphides. Instead, taro root should be thoroughly cooked in boiling water to draw-out oxalates from the root into the cooking water, which must then be discarded. Consuming taro with warm milk also reduces the effect of the oxalates by about 80%.⁶

Many other plants of the Araceae family, such as Dieffenbachia (dumbcane), share similar toxicity and are commonly kept in the home and office.

Patients with oral exposure to taro may experience a delayed (also termed biphasic) anaphylactic reaction, ie, the development of anaphylactic symptoms more than 4 hours after the inciting event. Delayed anaphylaxis is distinct from delayed hypersensitivity, though both may be immunoglobulin E-mediated. Delayed hypersensitivity presents later (2-14 days) and with less immediately life-threatening effects, most commonly dermatitis (eg, poison ivy dermatitis).

While both of the patients in this case presented with mild symptoms, life-threatening angioedema of the oropharynx, anaphylaxis, and hypocalcemia have been reported^7,8 and should be considered in any symptomatic patient with exposure to taro.

What is the differential diagnosis of plant-related mouth pain?

The oral mucosa is composed of superficial layers of mucin and epithelial cells that lie over the dermis and connective tissue. Local immune cells, including mast cells and Langerhans cells, reside in the deeper layers. The differential diagnosis of plant-based mouth pain can be divided into mechanical, chemical, and thermal causes.

Mechanical Causes. Causes of mechanical plant-based oral pain include structural damage when foreign matter, such as barbs, sharp leaves, or hard seeds, pierce the layers of the oral mucosa.

Chemical Causes. Chemical-related causes of oral pain include caustic ingestion, for example from detergents or cleaning agents that contaminate the broth. Araceae, such as taro or arum, have sharp calcium oxalate crystals tipped with phospholipases and proteases that cause mechanical pain on piercing mucous membranes, and chemical pain by enzymatically degrading epithelium and mucosa. Both chemical and mechanical irritation can lead to an inflammatory response. Raw taro can cause irritant contact stomatitis as the raphides pierce the oral mucosa. It can also cause allergic stomatitis if antigens related to the phospholipases or proteases are presented to Langerhans cells.⁹

Thermal Causes. The hot temperature of the ingested broth could cause thermal injury, but the injury is likely to be more diffuse.

How common is taro exposure, and how is it treated?

From 1995 to 1999, 15 cases of taro poisoning were reported to the Drug and Toxicology Information service in Zimbabwe.¹⁰ From 2005 to 2009, 21 out of 31 cases reported to the Hong Kong Poison Control Center involving gastrointestinal irritation involved the consumption of Colocasia fallax, a form of taro more common in Tibet, the Himalayas, and northern Indochina.⁷ Of the 31 cases, six patients were treated with diphenhydramine, epinephrine, and dexamethasone for angioedema.

From 2011 to 2013, two cases of mouth irritation and swelling after eating raw taro leaves were reported to the British Columbia Poison Control Center.¹¹ Those two patients were observed for 6 hours without specific treatment and discharged.

Case Conclusion

Due to concerns of the potential for anaphylaxis, both patients were treated intravenously with 50 mg diphenhydramine and 10 mg dexamethasone. The husband was also given 650 mg acetaminophen orally for pain relief; his wife declined pain medication. Laboratory evaluation, including a complete blood count, basic metabolic panel, liver function panel, and urinalysis were ordered for both patients; all results were within normal limits for both patients.

After an uneventful 6-hour observation period, both patients were discharged home with instructions to return to the ED if they develop any signs of allergic reaction and to call emergency medical services for any sign of anaphylaxis.

Case

A 45-year-old Chinese man with no known medical history presented to the ED with right-sided facial spasm and cheek swelling, which began immediately after he bit into a piece of taro root, approximately 2 hours prior to presentation. The patient stated that the root was an ingredient in a soup that a relative had made. According to the patient, after biting into the root, he immediately experienced a burning pain on the right side of his mouth. He further noted that he swallowed less than two bites of the root and stopped eating because the act of chewing was too painful.

Initial vital signs at presentation were: blood pressure, 140/100 mm Hg; heart rate, 84 beats/min; respiratory rate, 14 beats/min; and temperature, 97.6°F. Oxygen saturation was 98% on room air. The patient’s physical examination was remarkable for pain upon opening the mouth, as well as right-sided cheek and lip swelling and tenderness. The tongue and oropharynx were not erythematous or swollen. The patient was only able to speak in short sentences, secondary to oropharyngeal pain, but he was in no respiratory distress. No urticaria, pruritus, wheezing, or stridor was present.

During the patient’s workup, his 40-year-old wife also presented to the same ED for evaluation of burning pain and spasm on the left side of her mouth, which she stated also developed immediately after she bit into a piece of taro root contained in the same soup as that ingested by the patient.

The wife’s vital signs were unremarkable, and she was in no respiratory distress. Her physical examination was remarkable only for left-sided cheek and lip swelling and tenderness, associated with an erythematous oropharynx and pain with speaking.

What is taro? What are the manifestations of taro toxicity?

Taro commonly refers to plants from the Araceae family, usually Colocasia esculenta.¹ Taro is ubiquitous in Southern Asia and Southeast India. It is a widely naturalized and perennial tropical plant primarily grown as a root vegetable, and is a common flavor in boba (bubble) tea. All members of Araceae contain calcium oxalate crystals in the form of raphides, sharp needle-shaped crystals packaged in idioblasts and contained within the waxy leaf.² Pressure on the idioblasts, such as from mastication, triggers the release of the raphides. The needles pierce the surface of any tissue with which they come into contact, creating a gateway for proteolytic enzymes to enter the consumer.³ The leaves and root of Araceae must be cooked before eating to inactivate the raphides.

Oral exposure to uncooked taro leaves or taro root can result in mouth irritation and swelling that can progress to angioedema and airway obstruction. Although the traditional method of removing taro raphides is to soak the root in cold water overnight,^4,5 this does not fully remove all of the raphides. Instead, taro root should be thoroughly cooked in boiling water to draw-out oxalates from the root into the cooking water, which must then be discarded. Consuming taro with warm milk also reduces the effect of the oxalates by about 80%.⁶

Many other plants of the Araceae family, such as Dieffenbachia (dumbcane), share similar toxicity and are commonly kept in the home and office.

Patients with oral exposure to taro may experience a delayed (also termed biphasic) anaphylactic reaction, ie, the development of anaphylactic symptoms more than 4 hours after the inciting event. Delayed anaphylaxis is distinct from delayed hypersensitivity, though both may be immunoglobulin E-mediated. Delayed hypersensitivity presents later (2-14 days) and with less immediately life-threatening effects, most commonly dermatitis (eg, poison ivy dermatitis).

While both of the patients in this case presented with mild symptoms, life-threatening angioedema of the oropharynx, anaphylaxis, and hypocalcemia have been reported^7,8 and should be considered in any symptomatic patient with exposure to taro.

What is the differential diagnosis of plant-related mouth pain?

The oral mucosa is composed of superficial layers of mucin and epithelial cells that lie over the dermis and connective tissue. Local immune cells, including mast cells and Langerhans cells, reside in the deeper layers. The differential diagnosis of plant-based mouth pain can be divided into mechanical, chemical, and thermal causes.

Mechanical Causes. Causes of mechanical plant-based oral pain include structural damage when foreign matter, such as barbs, sharp leaves, or hard seeds, pierce the layers of the oral mucosa.

Chemical Causes. Chemical-related causes of oral pain include caustic ingestion, for example from detergents or cleaning agents that contaminate the broth. Araceae, such as taro or arum, have sharp calcium oxalate crystals tipped with phospholipases and proteases that cause mechanical pain on piercing mucous membranes, and chemical pain by enzymatically degrading epithelium and mucosa. Both chemical and mechanical irritation can lead to an inflammatory response. Raw taro can cause irritant contact stomatitis as the raphides pierce the oral mucosa. It can also cause allergic stomatitis if antigens related to the phospholipases or proteases are presented to Langerhans cells.⁹

Thermal Causes. The hot temperature of the ingested broth could cause thermal injury, but the injury is likely to be more diffuse.

How common is taro exposure, and how is it treated?

From 1995 to 1999, 15 cases of taro poisoning were reported to the Drug and Toxicology Information service in Zimbabwe.¹⁰ From 2005 to 2009, 21 out of 31 cases reported to the Hong Kong Poison Control Center involving gastrointestinal irritation involved the consumption of Colocasia fallax, a form of taro more common in Tibet, the Himalayas, and northern Indochina.⁷ Of the 31 cases, six patients were treated with diphenhydramine, epinephrine, and dexamethasone for angioedema.

From 2011 to 2013, two cases of mouth irritation and swelling after eating raw taro leaves were reported to the British Columbia Poison Control Center.¹¹ Those two patients were observed for 6 hours without specific treatment and discharged.

Case Conclusion

Due to concerns of the potential for anaphylaxis, both patients were treated intravenously with 50 mg diphenhydramine and 10 mg dexamethasone. The husband was also given 650 mg acetaminophen orally for pain relief; his wife declined pain medication. Laboratory evaluation, including a complete blood count, basic metabolic panel, liver function panel, and urinalysis were ordered for both patients; all results were within normal limits for both patients.

After an uneventful 6-hour observation period, both patients were discharged home with instructions to return to the ED if they develop any signs of allergic reaction and to call emergency medical services for any sign of anaphylaxis.

Case

A 26-year-old gravida 3, para 2-0-0-2, aborta 0 whose last menstrual period was 15 weeks 5 days, presented to the ED with complaints of mild vaginal spotting, which she first noted postcoitally the previous day. The patient denied fatigue, lightheadedness, dyspnea, abdominal pain, nausea, or vomiting.

Physical examination revealed a well-appearing patient with normal vital signs. The abdomen was soft and nontender, and the fundus was palpable at the level of the umbilicus. A speculum examination was unremarkable, with normal external genitalia, a closed cervical os, no adnexal masses or tenderness, and no blood in the vaginal vault. Laboratory studies were significant for a serum beta human chorionic gonadotropin (beta-hCG) of 7,442 mIU/mL (reference range for 15 weeks: 12,039-70,971 mIU/mL). The patient was Rh positive with a stable hematocrit.

A bedside ultrasound, performed by an ultrasound-]trained emergency physician (EP), was noted to demonstrate a complex intrauterine mass comprised of several small, rounded anechoic clusters (Figure).

Discussion

Hydatidiform moles are a subset of abnormal pregnancies termed gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD). The two greatest risk factors for GTD are previous GTD and extremis of maternal age.¹ Patients often present to the ED because of painless heavy vaginal bleeding, hyperemesis gravidarum, symptoms of hyperthyroidism, or preeclampsia before 20 weeks.² Clinically, these patients present with an enlarged uterus for gestational age and very high beta-hCG levels, often greater than 100,000 mIU/mL.³ The high beta-hCG levels can lead the patient to present with symptoms of hyperthyroidism, such as severe hypertension, given the similar chemical structures of beta-hCG and thyroid-stimulating hormone.⁴

After a D&C, interval beta-hCG levels need to be obtained to ensure resolution. A patient with beta-hCG levels that do not fall by 10% after 3 weeks, or are still present after 6 months, should be referred to a gynecologic oncologist.^5,6 Furthermore, a chest X-ray is strongly suggested, as the lungs are often the first place of metastasis.⁷

Partial hydatidiform moles are formed by a dispermic fertilization of a normal ovum leading to a triploid pattern, and are clinically distinguished from complete molar pregnancies because affected patients have a uterus that is often small for gestational age.⁸ Also, while the beta-hCG is also abnormally elevated, the median value is more modest at approximately 50,000 mIU/mL.³

According to the American College of Radiology’s Appropriateness Criteria, ultrasound is the gold standard for evaluating gestational trophoblastic disease. While the classic sonographic appearance of a molar pregnancy is described as a “snowstorm” appearance, advancement in technology more clearly demonstrates a “cluster of grapes” or “honeycomb” appearance.⁹ On Doppler mode, increased vascularity peripherally can also be detected due to engorgement of the spiral arteries. While partial moles tend to have more focal lesions, the greatest distinguishing factor is the presence of embryonic or fetal tissue, which is not seen in complete moles. However, due to the heterogeneous appearance of the uterus in all GTD, molar pregnancies can sometimes be misinterpreted as missed abortions or clotted blood, so that pathological confirmation is mandatory for all products of conception in the United States and Canada.^2,10

Summary

This case is of particular interest because it demonstrates an atypical presentation of a partial hydatidiform mole. While most classic presentations include older patients with heavy vaginal bleeding, a smaller uterus than expected, significantly elevated beta-hCGs, and hyperemesis gravidarum, our patient was relatively young with no history of molar pregnancies in the past, a larger-than-expected uterus, and no vaginal bleeding noted. Laboratory values also indicated a significantly lower-than-expected beta-hCG level. As such, bedside ultrasound findings were unexpected but resulted in the prompt diagnosis, an emergent obstetric consultation, and confirmatory radiology imaging. The ED bedside ultrasound findings did demonstrate the characteristic “cluster of grapes” appearance surrounded by the hyperechoic appearance of the spiral arteries (Figure). An intrauterine yolk sac was also identified by ultrasound, which strongly suggested a partial rather than a complete hydatidiform molar pregnancy.

While hydatidiform pregnancies are relatively rare, EPs should be aware of the clinical and sonographic features of these diseases. This case, particularly given the atypical clinical presentation for a partial molar pregnancy, highlights the importance of ultrasound in pregnancy, and the utility of bedside ultrasound in the evaluation of the etiology of vaginal bleeding in the early pregnant patient that presents to the ED.

Case

A 26-year-old gravida 3, para 2-0-0-2, aborta 0 whose last menstrual period was 15 weeks 5 days, presented to the ED with complaints of mild vaginal spotting, which she first noted postcoitally the previous day. The patient denied fatigue, lightheadedness, dyspnea, abdominal pain, nausea, or vomiting.

Physical examination revealed a well-appearing patient with normal vital signs. The abdomen was soft and nontender, and the fundus was palpable at the level of the umbilicus. A speculum examination was unremarkable, with normal external genitalia, a closed cervical os, no adnexal masses or tenderness, and no blood in the vaginal vault. Laboratory studies were significant for a serum beta human chorionic gonadotropin (beta-hCG) of 7,442 mIU/mL (reference range for 15 weeks: 12,039-70,971 mIU/mL). The patient was Rh positive with a stable hematocrit.

A bedside ultrasound, performed by an ultrasound-]trained emergency physician (EP), was noted to demonstrate a complex intrauterine mass comprised of several small, rounded anechoic clusters (Figure).

Discussion

Hydatidiform moles are a subset of abnormal pregnancies termed gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD). The two greatest risk factors for GTD are previous GTD and extremis of maternal age.¹ Patients often present to the ED because of painless heavy vaginal bleeding, hyperemesis gravidarum, symptoms of hyperthyroidism, or preeclampsia before 20 weeks.² Clinically, these patients present with an enlarged uterus for gestational age and very high beta-hCG levels, often greater than 100,000 mIU/mL.³ The high beta-hCG levels can lead the patient to present with symptoms of hyperthyroidism, such as severe hypertension, given the similar chemical structures of beta-hCG and thyroid-stimulating hormone.⁴

After a D&C, interval beta-hCG levels need to be obtained to ensure resolution. A patient with beta-hCG levels that do not fall by 10% after 3 weeks, or are still present after 6 months, should be referred to a gynecologic oncologist.^5,6 Furthermore, a chest X-ray is strongly suggested, as the lungs are often the first place of metastasis.⁷

Partial hydatidiform moles are formed by a dispermic fertilization of a normal ovum leading to a triploid pattern, and are clinically distinguished from complete molar pregnancies because affected patients have a uterus that is often small for gestational age.⁸ Also, while the beta-hCG is also abnormally elevated, the median value is more modest at approximately 50,000 mIU/mL.³

According to the American College of Radiology’s Appropriateness Criteria, ultrasound is the gold standard for evaluating gestational trophoblastic disease. While the classic sonographic appearance of a molar pregnancy is described as a “snowstorm” appearance, advancement in technology more clearly demonstrates a “cluster of grapes” or “honeycomb” appearance.⁹ On Doppler mode, increased vascularity peripherally can also be detected due to engorgement of the spiral arteries. While partial moles tend to have more focal lesions, the greatest distinguishing factor is the presence of embryonic or fetal tissue, which is not seen in complete moles. However, due to the heterogeneous appearance of the uterus in all GTD, molar pregnancies can sometimes be misinterpreted as missed abortions or clotted blood, so that pathological confirmation is mandatory for all products of conception in the United States and Canada.^2,10

Summary

This case is of particular interest because it demonstrates an atypical presentation of a partial hydatidiform mole. While most classic presentations include older patients with heavy vaginal bleeding, a smaller uterus than expected, significantly elevated beta-hCGs, and hyperemesis gravidarum, our patient was relatively young with no history of molar pregnancies in the past, a larger-than-expected uterus, and no vaginal bleeding noted. Laboratory values also indicated a significantly lower-than-expected beta-hCG level. As such, bedside ultrasound findings were unexpected but resulted in the prompt diagnosis, an emergent obstetric consultation, and confirmatory radiology imaging. The ED bedside ultrasound findings did demonstrate the characteristic “cluster of grapes” appearance surrounded by the hyperechoic appearance of the spiral arteries (Figure). An intrauterine yolk sac was also identified by ultrasound, which strongly suggested a partial rather than a complete hydatidiform molar pregnancy.

While hydatidiform pregnancies are relatively rare, EPs should be aware of the clinical and sonographic features of these diseases. This case, particularly given the atypical clinical presentation for a partial molar pregnancy, highlights the importance of ultrasound in pregnancy, and the utility of bedside ultrasound in the evaluation of the etiology of vaginal bleeding in the early pregnant patient that presents to the ED.

Case

A 26-year-old gravida 3, para 2-0-0-2, aborta 0 whose last menstrual period was 15 weeks 5 days, presented to the ED with complaints of mild vaginal spotting, which she first noted postcoitally the previous day. The patient denied fatigue, lightheadedness, dyspnea, abdominal pain, nausea, or vomiting.

Physical examination revealed a well-appearing patient with normal vital signs. The abdomen was soft and nontender, and the fundus was palpable at the level of the umbilicus. A speculum examination was unremarkable, with normal external genitalia, a closed cervical os, no adnexal masses or tenderness, and no blood in the vaginal vault. Laboratory studies were significant for a serum beta human chorionic gonadotropin (beta-hCG) of 7,442 mIU/mL (reference range for 15 weeks: 12,039-70,971 mIU/mL). The patient was Rh positive with a stable hematocrit.

A bedside ultrasound, performed by an ultrasound-]trained emergency physician (EP), was noted to demonstrate a complex intrauterine mass comprised of several small, rounded anechoic clusters (Figure).

Discussion

Hydatidiform moles are a subset of abnormal pregnancies termed gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD). The two greatest risk factors for GTD are previous GTD and extremis of maternal age.¹ Patients often present to the ED because of painless heavy vaginal bleeding, hyperemesis gravidarum, symptoms of hyperthyroidism, or preeclampsia before 20 weeks.² Clinically, these patients present with an enlarged uterus for gestational age and very high beta-hCG levels, often greater than 100,000 mIU/mL.³ The high beta-hCG levels can lead the patient to present with symptoms of hyperthyroidism, such as severe hypertension, given the similar chemical structures of beta-hCG and thyroid-stimulating hormone.⁴

After a D&C, interval beta-hCG levels need to be obtained to ensure resolution. A patient with beta-hCG levels that do not fall by 10% after 3 weeks, or are still present after 6 months, should be referred to a gynecologic oncologist.^5,6 Furthermore, a chest X-ray is strongly suggested, as the lungs are often the first place of metastasis.⁷

Partial hydatidiform moles are formed by a dispermic fertilization of a normal ovum leading to a triploid pattern, and are clinically distinguished from complete molar pregnancies because affected patients have a uterus that is often small for gestational age.⁸ Also, while the beta-hCG is also abnormally elevated, the median value is more modest at approximately 50,000 mIU/mL.³

According to the American College of Radiology’s Appropriateness Criteria, ultrasound is the gold standard for evaluating gestational trophoblastic disease. While the classic sonographic appearance of a molar pregnancy is described as a “snowstorm” appearance, advancement in technology more clearly demonstrates a “cluster of grapes” or “honeycomb” appearance.⁹ On Doppler mode, increased vascularity peripherally can also be detected due to engorgement of the spiral arteries. While partial moles tend to have more focal lesions, the greatest distinguishing factor is the presence of embryonic or fetal tissue, which is not seen in complete moles. However, due to the heterogeneous appearance of the uterus in all GTD, molar pregnancies can sometimes be misinterpreted as missed abortions or clotted blood, so that pathological confirmation is mandatory for all products of conception in the United States and Canada.^2,10

Summary

This case is of particular interest because it demonstrates an atypical presentation of a partial hydatidiform mole. While most classic presentations include older patients with heavy vaginal bleeding, a smaller uterus than expected, significantly elevated beta-hCGs, and hyperemesis gravidarum, our patient was relatively young with no history of molar pregnancies in the past, a larger-than-expected uterus, and no vaginal bleeding noted. Laboratory values also indicated a significantly lower-than-expected beta-hCG level. As such, bedside ultrasound findings were unexpected but resulted in the prompt diagnosis, an emergent obstetric consultation, and confirmatory radiology imaging. The ED bedside ultrasound findings did demonstrate the characteristic “cluster of grapes” appearance surrounded by the hyperechoic appearance of the spiral arteries (Figure). An intrauterine yolk sac was also identified by ultrasound, which strongly suggested a partial rather than a complete hydatidiform molar pregnancy.

While hydatidiform pregnancies are relatively rare, EPs should be aware of the clinical and sonographic features of these diseases. This case, particularly given the atypical clinical presentation for a partial molar pregnancy, highlights the importance of ultrasound in pregnancy, and the utility of bedside ultrasound in the evaluation of the etiology of vaginal bleeding in the early pregnant patient that presents to the ED.