Percreta score to differentiate between placenta accreta and placenta percreta with ultrasound and MR imaging.
abnormal placentation
magnetic resonance imaging
placenta accreta
placenta accreta spectrum
placenta increta
placenta percreta
ultrasound
Journal
Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica
ISSN: 1600-0412
Titre abrégé: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370343
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2022
10 2022
Historique:
revised:
05
06
2022
received:
21
02
2022
accepted:
18
06
2022
pubmed:
14
7
2022
medline:
4
10
2022
entrez:
13
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The objective of this study was to assess the performance of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features in helping to classify the type of placenta accreta spectrum (PAS; accreta/increta vs percreta), alone or combined in a predictive score. We conducted a retrospective study in 82 pregnant women with PAS who underwent ultrasound and MRI examination of the pelvis before delivery (from an initial cohort of 185 women with PAS). We estimated the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of MRI and ultrasound in the diagnosis of the type of PAS. We analyzed cesarean and imaging features using univariable logistic regression analysis. We constructed a nomogram to predict the risk of placenta percreta and validated it with bootstrap resampling, then used receiver operating characteristic curves to assess the performance of the model in distinguishing between placenta percreta and placenta accreta/increta. Among the 82 patients, 29 (35%) had placenta accreta/increta and 53 (65%) had placenta percreta. The best features to discriminate between placenta accreta/increta and placenta percreta with ultrasound were increased vascularization at the uterine serosa-bladder wall interface (odds ratio [OR] 7.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.78-24.99; p < 0.01) and the number of lacunae without a hyperechogenic halo (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.14-1.67; p = 0.012). Concerning MRI markers, heterogeneous placenta (OR 12.89; 95% CI 3.05-89.16; p = 0.002), dark intraplacental bands (OR 12.89; 95% CI 3.05-89.16; p = 0.002) and bladder wall interruption (OR 15.89; 95% CI 4.78-73.33; p < 0.001) had a higher OR in discriminating placenta accreta/increta from placenta percreta. The nomogram yielded areas under the curve of 0.841 (95% CI 0.754-0.927) and 0.856 (95% CI 0.767-0.945), after bootstrap resampling, for the accurate prediction of placenta percreta. The nomogram we developed to predict the risk of placenta percreta among patients with PAS had good discriminative capabilities. This performance and its impact on maternal morbidity should be confirmed by future prospective studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35822244
doi: 10.1111/aogs.14420
pmc: PMC9812204
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1135-1145Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).
Références
Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Feb;117(2 Pt 1):331-337
pubmed: 21309195
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Nov;203(5):430-9
pubmed: 21055510
Mod Pathol. 2020 Dec;33(12):2382-2396
pubmed: 32415266
Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jan;115(1):65-69
pubmed: 20027036
Eur Radiol. 2020 May;30(5):2604-2615
pubmed: 32040730
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Mar;212(3):343.e1-7
pubmed: 25446658
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;53(6):752-760
pubmed: 30834661
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Apr;55(4):467-473
pubmed: 31237043
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Aug;219(2):193.e1-193.e9
pubmed: 29733839
Radiology. 2021 Feb;298(2):403-412
pubmed: 33231529
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 05;11(2):e0148343
pubmed: 26849801
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022 Oct;101(10):1135-1145
pubmed: 35822244
J Ultrasound Med. 2021 Aug;40(8):1523-1532
pubmed: 33058255
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Mar;210(3):241.e1-6
pubmed: 24096181
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018 Mar;140(3):274-280
pubmed: 29405319
Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2020 Jun;10(6):1370-1391
pubmed: 32550143
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jun;218(6):618.e1-618.e7
pubmed: 29572089
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2016 Feb;45(2):198-206
pubmed: 26321608
BJOG. 2016 Jul;123(8):1348-55
pubmed: 26227006
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Mar;47(3):271-5
pubmed: 26205041
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019 Jul;146(1):20-24
pubmed: 31173360
Can Assoc Radiol J. 2021 Nov;72(4):597-598
pubmed: 33371730
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022 Nov;35(21):4056-4059
pubmed: 33179565
BJOG. 2021 Sep;128(10):1646-1655
pubmed: 33393174
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jan;224(1):B2-B14
pubmed: 33386103
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011 Oct;90(10):1140-6
pubmed: 21488840
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020 Jun;214(6):1417-1423
pubmed: 32208011
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2019 Jun;100(6):319-325
pubmed: 30853416
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021 Mar;100 Suppl 1:21-28
pubmed: 33811333
BJOG. 2018 Oct;125(11):1449-1450
pubmed: 29485720
Radiol Med. 2021 Sep;126(9):1216-1225
pubmed: 34156592
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Jan;99(2):e17908
pubmed: 31914010