The impact of ultrasound-based antenatal screening strategies to detect vasa praevia in the United Kingdom: An exploratory study using decision analytic modelling methods.


Journal

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2022
Historique:
received: 18 08 2021
accepted: 02 12 2022
entrez: 20 12 2022
pubmed: 21 12 2022
medline: 23 12 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The objective of this exploratory modelling study was to estimate the effects of second-trimester, ultrasound-based antenatal detection strategies for vasa praevia (VP) in a hypothetical cohort of pregnant women. For this, a decision-analytic tree model was developed covering four discrete detection pathways/strategies: no screening; screening targeted at women undergoing in-vitro fertilisation (IVF); screening targeted at women with low-lying placentas (LLP); screening targeted at women with velamentous cord insertion (VCI) or a bilobed or succenturiate (BL/S) placenta. Main outcome measures were the number of referrals to transvaginal sonography (TVS), diagnosed and undiagnosed cases of VP, overdetected cases of VCI, and VP-associated perinatal mortality. The greatest number of referrals to TVS occurred in the LLP-based (2,083) and VCI-based screening (1,319) pathways. These two pathways also led to the highest proportions of pregnancies diagnosed with VP (VCI-based screening: 552 [78.9% of all pregnancies]; LLP-based: 371 [53.5%]) and the lowest proportions of VP leading to perinatal death (VCI-based screening: 100 [14.2%]; LLP-based: 196 [28.0%]). In contrast, the IVF-based pathway resulted in 66 TVS referrals, 50 VP diagnoses (7.1% of all VP pregnancies), and 368 (52.6%) VP-associated perinatal deaths which was comparable to the no screening pathway (380 [54.3%]). The VCI-based pathway resulted in the greatest detection of VCI (14,238 [99.1%]), followed by the IVF-based pathway (443 [3.1%]); no VCI detection occurred in the LLP-based or no screening pathways. In conclusion, the model results suggest that a targeted LLP-based approach could detect a substantial proportion of VP cases, while avoiding VCI overdetection and requiring minimal changes to current clinical practice. High-quality data is required to explore the clinical and cost-effectiveness of this and other detection strategies further. This is necessary to provide a robust basis for future discussion about routine screening for VP.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36538562
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279229
pii: PONE-D-21-26780
pmc: PMC9767376
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e0279229

Informations de copyright

Copyright: © 2022 Ruban-Fell et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

All authors have completed the ICJME uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work other than that described above; JM, CV, and AM are employees of the UK NSC secretariat which funded the submitted work; CH is a member of the UK NSC; BT and ORA are members of the Fetal, Maternal and Child Health Group (FMCH) of the UK NSC; GA is a Council member of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and a Steering Committee member of the UK Obstetric Surveillance System; BRF, JK and THC are, or were formerly, employed by Costello Medical which was commissioned for the model development and supportive work by the UK NSC; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. The above statement does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Références

J Gen Intern Med. 1990 Sep-Oct;5(5 Suppl):S47-9
pubmed: 2231064
Fertil Steril. 2002 Sep;78(3):642-3
pubmed: 12215350
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36
pubmed: 22007046
Syst Rev. 2020 Jun 23;9(1):147
pubmed: 32576295
J Clin Diagn Res. 2017 Mar;11(3):LE01-LE04
pubmed: 28511418
Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 6;6(1):242
pubmed: 29208042
Med Decis Making. 2012 Sep-Oct;32(5):722-32
pubmed: 22990087
BMJ Open. 2019 Mar 23;9(3):e024324
pubmed: 30904850
Med Decis Making. 2012 Sep-Oct;32(5):678-89
pubmed: 22990083
J Clin Med Res. 2015 Nov;7(11):853-6
pubmed: 26491497
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May;55(5):605-612
pubmed: 31840871
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021 Sep;100(9):1694-1699
pubmed: 34077551
BMJ. 1996 Aug 3;313(7052):275-83
pubmed: 8704542
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2014 Aug 13;3(3):123-8
pubmed: 25197676
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Oct;213(4 Suppl):S70-7
pubmed: 26428505
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jun;21(6):564-9
pubmed: 12808673
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009 Aug;31(8):748-753
pubmed: 19772710
BJOG. 2016 Jul;123(8):1278-87
pubmed: 26694639
Ultrasound. 2018 Feb;26(1):6-15
pubmed: 29456577
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021 May;57(5):720-725
pubmed: 33085148
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011 Jul;284(1):47-51
pubmed: 20652281
Kidney Int. 2009 Oct;76(7):694-9
pubmed: 19536087
Obstet Gynecol. 2004 May;103(5 Pt 1):937-42
pubmed: 15121568
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Aug;18(2):109-15
pubmed: 11529988
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 30;8(7):e70380
pubmed: 23936197
Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2020 Aug;2(3):100117
pubmed: 33345868
BJOG. 2019 Jan;126(1):e49-e61
pubmed: 30260094
Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2022 Apr 14;16:100353
pubmed: 35492962
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 May;45(5):516-22
pubmed: 25491755
BJOG. 2010 Aug;117(9):1108-18
pubmed: 20560948
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Oct;52(4):522-529
pubmed: 29786153
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Feb;35(2):205-9
pubmed: 20014327
Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Aug;122(2 Pt 1):352-357
pubmed: 23969805
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Apr;55(4):556-557
pubmed: 31115101
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018 Jul;142(1):9-14
pubmed: 29572823

Auteurs

Benjamin Ruban-Fell (B)

Costello Medical, London, United Kingdom.

George Attilakos (G)

Fetal Medicine Unit, University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom.

Tao Haskins-Coulter (T)

Costello Medical, London, United Kingdom.

Christopher Hyde (C)

Exeter Test Group, Institute of Health Research, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, St. Luke's Campus, Exeter, United Kingdom.

Jeanette Kusel (J)

Costello Medical, London, United Kingdom.

Anne Mackie (A)

National Screening Committee, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.

Oliver Rivero-Arias (O)

National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Basky Thilaganathan (B)

Fetal Medicine Unit, St George's University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Molecular & Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Nigel Thomson (N)

The Society and College of Radiographers, London, United Kingdom.

Cristina Visintin (C)

UK National Screening Committee, London, United Kingdom.

John Marshall (J)

UK National Screening Committee, London, United Kingdom.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH