Vasa Previa in Singleton Pregnancies: Diagnosis and Clinical Management Based on an International Expert Consensus.

Clinical Guideline Clinical management Delphi. Prenatal diagnosis Expert consensus Practice Guideline Survey Ultrasound Vasa previa

Journal

American journal of obstetrics and gynecology
ISSN: 1097-6868
Titre abrégé: Am J Obstet Gynecol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370476

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
15 Mar 2024
Historique:
received: 20 11 2023
revised: 01 03 2024
accepted: 09 03 2024
medline: 18 3 2024
pubmed: 18 3 2024
entrez: 17 3 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

There are limited data to guide the diagnosis and management of vasa previa. Currently, what is known is largely based on case reports or series and cohort studies. (s): To systematically collect and classify expert opinions and achieve consensus on the diagnosis and clinical management of vasa previa using focus group discussions (FGD) and a Delphi technique. A four-round FGD and a three-round Delphi survey of an international panel of experts on vasa previa were conducted. Experts were selected based on their publication record on vasa previa. First, we convened an FGD panel of 20 experts and agreed on which issues were unresolved in the diagnosis and management of vasa previa. A three-round anonymous electronic survey was then sent to the full expert panel. Survey questions were presented on the diagnosis and management of vasa previa that the experts were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale (from strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5). Consensus was defined as a median score of 5. Following responses to each round, any statements that had median scores of 3 or less were deemed to have had no consensus and excluded. Statements with a median score of 4 were revised and re-presented to the experts in the next round. Consensus and non-consensus statements were then aggregated. Sixty-eight international experts were invited to participate in the study, of which 57 participated. Experts were from 13 countries on five continents and have contributed to over 80% of published cohort studies on vasa previa, as well as national and international society guidelines. Completion rates were 84%, 93%, 91% for the first, second, and third rounds, respectively, and 71% completed all three rounds. The panel reached a consensus on 26 statements regarding the diagnosis and key points of management of vasa previa, including: 1) While there is no agreement on a distance between the fetal vessels and the cervical internal os to define vasa previa, the definition should not be limited to a 2 cm distance; 2) All pregnancies should be screened for vasa previa with routine examination for placental cord insertion and a color Doppler sweep of the region over the cervix at the second-trimester anatomy scan; 3) When a low-lying placenta or placenta previa is found in the second trimester, a transvaginal ultrasound with Doppler should be performed at around 32 weeks to rule out vasa previa; 4) Outpatient management of asymptomatic patients without risk factors for preterm birth is reasonable; 5)Asymptomatic patients with vasa previa should be delivered by scheduled cesarean between 35- and 37-weeks of gestation; and 6) There was no agreement on routine hospitalization, avoidance of intercourse, or use of 3-dimensional ultrasound for diagnosis of vasa previa. Through FGD and a Delphi process, an international expert panel reached consensus on the definition, screening, clinical management, and timing of delivery in vasa previa, which could inform the development of new clinical guidelines.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
There are limited data to guide the diagnosis and management of vasa previa. Currently, what is known is largely based on case reports or series and cohort studies.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
(s): To systematically collect and classify expert opinions and achieve consensus on the diagnosis and clinical management of vasa previa using focus group discussions (FGD) and a Delphi technique.
STUDY DESIGN METHODS
A four-round FGD and a three-round Delphi survey of an international panel of experts on vasa previa were conducted. Experts were selected based on their publication record on vasa previa. First, we convened an FGD panel of 20 experts and agreed on which issues were unresolved in the diagnosis and management of vasa previa. A three-round anonymous electronic survey was then sent to the full expert panel. Survey questions were presented on the diagnosis and management of vasa previa that the experts were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale (from strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5). Consensus was defined as a median score of 5. Following responses to each round, any statements that had median scores of 3 or less were deemed to have had no consensus and excluded. Statements with a median score of 4 were revised and re-presented to the experts in the next round. Consensus and non-consensus statements were then aggregated.
RESULTS RESULTS
Sixty-eight international experts were invited to participate in the study, of which 57 participated. Experts were from 13 countries on five continents and have contributed to over 80% of published cohort studies on vasa previa, as well as national and international society guidelines. Completion rates were 84%, 93%, 91% for the first, second, and third rounds, respectively, and 71% completed all three rounds. The panel reached a consensus on 26 statements regarding the diagnosis and key points of management of vasa previa, including: 1) While there is no agreement on a distance between the fetal vessels and the cervical internal os to define vasa previa, the definition should not be limited to a 2 cm distance; 2) All pregnancies should be screened for vasa previa with routine examination for placental cord insertion and a color Doppler sweep of the region over the cervix at the second-trimester anatomy scan; 3) When a low-lying placenta or placenta previa is found in the second trimester, a transvaginal ultrasound with Doppler should be performed at around 32 weeks to rule out vasa previa; 4) Outpatient management of asymptomatic patients without risk factors for preterm birth is reasonable; 5)Asymptomatic patients with vasa previa should be delivered by scheduled cesarean between 35- and 37-weeks of gestation; and 6) There was no agreement on routine hospitalization, avoidance of intercourse, or use of 3-dimensional ultrasound for diagnosis of vasa previa.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Through FGD and a Delphi process, an international expert panel reached consensus on the definition, screening, clinical management, and timing of delivery in vasa previa, which could inform the development of new clinical guidelines.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38494071
pii: S0002-9378(24)00442-3
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.03.013
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Auteurs

Yinka Oyelese (Y)

Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA; Maternal Fetal Care Center (MFCC), Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: koyelese@bidmc.harvard.edu.

Ali Javinani (A)

Maternal Fetal Care Center (MFCC), Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Brittany Gudanowski (B)

Maternal Fetal Care Center (MFCC), Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

Eyal Krispin (E)

Maternal Fetal Care Center (MFCC), Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

Andrei Rebarber (A)

Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Mount Sinai West, NY, USA; Icahn School of Medicine, Mt. Sinai University, NY, USA; Carnegie Imaging for Women, PLLC, NY, USA.

Ranjit Akolekar (R)

Medway Fetal and Maternal Medicine Centre, Medway NHS Foundation Trust, Gillingham, UK; Institute of Medical Sciences, Canterbury Christ Church University, Chatham, Kent, UK.

Val Catanzarite (V)

Maternal Fetal Medicine, Rady Childrens Specialists of San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.

Rohan D'Souza (R)

Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Richard Bronsteen (R)

Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, William Beaumont University Hospital/Corewell Health, Royal Oak, MI, USA.

Anthony Odibo (A)

Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.

Matthias A Scheier (MA)

Ambulatorium für Fetalmedizin, Feldkirch, Austria.

Junichi Hasegawa (J)

Department of Perinatal Development Pathophysiology, St. Marianna University Graduate School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Japan.

Eric Jauniaux (E)

EGA Institute for Women's Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, UK.

Christoph Lees (C)

Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, UK; Institute of Reproductive and Developmental Biology, Imperial College London, UK; Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Belgium.

Deepa Srinivasan (D)

Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, UK.

Elizabeth Daly-Jones (E)

Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, UK.

Gregory Duncombe (G)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Logan Hospital, Metro South Health, Meadowbrook, Australia.

Yaacov Melcer (Y)

Department of OB/GYN, Shamir Medical Centre, Zrifin, Israel; Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel.

Ron Maymon (R)

Department of OB/GYN, Shamir Medical Centre, Zrifin, Israel; Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel.

Robert Silver (R)

University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

Federico Prefumo (F)

Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini, Genoa, Italy.

Daisuke Tachibana (D)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka City University, Osaka, Japan.

Wolfgang Henrich (W)

Department of Obstetrics, Campus Virchow Klinikum, Campus Mitte Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany; Charité - University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany.

Robert Cincotta (R)

Department of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Mater Mother's Hospital, South Brisbane, Australia.

Scott A Shainker (SA)

Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA; Maternal Fetal Care Center (MFCC), Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Angela C Ranzini (AC)

Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The MetroHealth System/Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Ashley S Roman (AS)

Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY.

Ramen Chmait (R)

Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Keck School of Medicine, University of South California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Edgar A Hernandez-Andrade (EA)

Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.

Daniel L Rolnik (DL)

Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Monash University, Australia.

Waldo Sepulveda (W)

FETALMED--Maternal-fetal Diagnostic Center, Fetal Imaging Unit, Santiago, Chile.

Alireza A Shamshirsaz (AA)

Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA; Maternal Fetal Care Center (MFCC), Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: Alireza.shamshirsaz@childrens.harvard.edu.

Classifications MeSH