ObjectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy of methotrexate perfusion combined with interventional treatment and the traditional treatment with methotrexate and mifepristone for cesarean scar pregnancy. MethodA total of 589 patients diagnosed with cesarean scar pregnancy after surgery between January 2012 and March 2015 in our hospital were selected to be our study subjects. The patients were informed of the two kinds of treatment, and based on their own will, they were arranged into corresponding groups. Group A had 234 patients who were willing to undergo the conventional therapy:intramuscular injection of methotrexate (20 mg, once per day for 5 days); oral mifepristone (50 mg once per day for 3 to 5 days); and the continuation of drugs was determined by local pregnancy tissue blood flow on B ultrasound and liver function of the patients. Group B had 255 patients who selected uterine artery perfusion and arterial embolism. There was no significant difference in terms of age, serum human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) and uterine incision gestation sac size between the two groups of patients (P>0.05). Then we compared the treatment effect between the two groups. ResultsThe differences in the amount of bleeding, the time of blood HCG dropped to normal, and hospitalization duration between the two groups were significant (P<0.05), while in the rate of hysterectomy, drug-induced liver injury were not (P<0.05). ConclusionsMethotrexate perfusion combined with interventional treatment is better than the traditional treatment with methotrexate and mifepristone for cesarean scar pregnancy in terms of clinical efficacy and safety.