Vasa previa in singleton pregnancies: Diagnosis and clinical management based on an international expert consensus

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. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Consortium for the Study of Pregnancy Treatments (Co-OPT) : An international birth cohort to study the effects of antenatal corticosteroids

Acknowledgments We are grateful to the Co-OPT collaborators from Finland, Iceland, Israel, Nova Scotia, and Scotland, who have provided high-quality patient data, without which the Co-OPT ACS cohort would not have been possible. We acknowledge Public Health Scotland for providing us with a secure data analytical platform in which to undertake this research and are particularly grateful to Anna Schneider who has been the data controller for this project. Co-OPT collaborators: Karel Allegaert (Belgium), Jasper Been (Netherlands), David Burgner (Australia), Sohinee Bhattacharya (UK), Kate Duhig (UK), Kristjana Einarsdóttir (Iceland), John Fahey (Canada), Lani Florian (UK), Abigail Fraser (UK), Mika Gissler (Finland), Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman (USA), Bo Jacobsson (Sweden), Eyal Krispin (Israel), Stefan Kuhle (Canada), Marius Lahti-Pulkkinen (Finland), Jessica Miller (Australia), Ben Mol (Australia), Sarah Murray (UK), Jane Norman (UK), Lars Henning Pedersen (Denmark), Richard Riley (UK), Devender Roberts (UK), Ewoud Schuit (Netherlands), Aziz Sheikh (UK), Ting Shi (UK), Joshua Vogel (Australia), Rachael Wood (UK), John Wright (UK), Helga Zoega (Australia). Funding Information: The Co-OPT ACS study is funded through a Wellcome Trust Clinical Career Development Fellowship grant (Funding Reference number 209560/Z/17) awarded to Sarah J Stock. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The Sponsor of the study is the University of Edinburgh (www.ed.ac. uk), Sponsor reference AC19119. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Consortium for the Study of Pregnancy Treatments (Co-OPT): An international birth cohort to study the effects of antenatal corticosteroids

BACKGROUND: Antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) are widely prescribed to improve outcomes following preterm birth. Significant knowledge gaps surround their safety, long-term effects, optimal timing and dosage. Almost half of women given ACS give birth outside the "therapeutic window" and have not delivered over 7 days later. Overtreatment with ACS is a concern, as evidence accumulates of risks of unnecessary ACS exposure. METHODS: The Consortium for the Study of Pregnancy Treatments (Co-OPT) was established to address research questions surrounding safety of medications in pregnancy. We created an international birth cohort containing information on ACS exposure and pregnancy and neonatal outcomes by combining data from four national/provincial birth registers and one hospital database, and follow-up through linked population-level data from death registers and electronic health records. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The Co-OPT ACS cohort contains 2.28 million pregnancies and babies, born in Finland, Iceland, Israel, Canada and Scotland, between 1990 and 2019. Births from 22 to 45 weeks' gestation were included; 92.9% were at term (≥ 37 completed weeks). 3.6% of babies were exposed to ACS (67.0% and 77.9% of singleton and multiple births before 34 weeks, respectively). Rates of ACS exposure increased across the study period. Of all ACS-exposed babies, 26.8% were born at term. Longitudinal childhood data were available for 1.64 million live births. Follow-up includes diagnoses of a range of physical and mental disorders from the Finnish Hospital Register, diagnoses of mental, behavioural, and neurodevelopmental disorders from the Icelandic Patient Registers, and preschool reviews from the Scottish Child Health Surveillance Programme. The Co-OPT ACS cohort is the largest international birth cohort to date with data on ACS exposure and maternal, perinatal and childhood outcomes. Its large scale will enable assessment of important rare outcomes such as perinatal mortality, and comprehensive evaluation of the short- and long-term safety and efficacy of ACS

Association between progesterone treatment and neonatal outcome in preterm births: a retrospective analysis

This retrospective study was conducted to determine if infants born prematurely despite prophylactic maternal progesterone treatment during pregnancy may still benefit from its adjunct properties and have decreased neonatal complications. 248 women treated with vaginal/intramuscular progesterone during pregnancy and 2519 controls who gave birth to a preterm newborn (24 + 0–36 + 6 gestational weeks) at a tertiary medical centre in 2012–2019. The primary outcome measure was neonatal infectious composite outcome. Secondary outcome measures were other maternal and neonatal complications. Compared to controls, the study group was characterised by lower gestational age at birth (35.0 ± 2.66 vs. 36.0 ± 2.23 weeks, p < .001), lower birth weight (2294 vs. 2485 g, p < .001), higher rates of neonatal infectious composite outcome (27.82 vs. 21.36%, p = 0.024), NICU admission, periventricular leukomalacia, and mechanical ventilation. The higher neonatal infectious composite outcome is likely associated with the lower gestational age at birth in this high-risk group and not the progesterone treatment per se.IMPACT STATEMENT What is already known on this subject? Several randomised controlled trials have shown that progesterone administration in pregnancy significantly reduced the rate and complications of preterm birth. A recent study reported that vaginal administration of progesterone during pregnancy was more effective than intramuscular administration in decreasing vaginal group B Streptococcus (GBS) colonisation. This finding raises the question of whether progesterone treatment may have additional benefits besides preventing preterm birth and may reduce neonatal complication rate in preterm infants. What do the results of this study add? This is the first study examining the impact of gestational progesterone exposure on outcomes of preterm infants. The primary objective was a composite measure of infectious neonatal outcomes. Newborns who had progesterone exposure on average had lower gestational age, lower birth weight and higher neonatal infectious composite outcome. The significant difference is explained by lower gestational age. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Progesterone is widely used to prevent preterm birth, and may have important additive effects even when prematurity is not avoided. Although the findings did not support our initial hypothesis, they warrant further examination with larger cohorts