Prenatal ultrasound staging system for placenta accreta spectrum disorders.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a prenatal ultrasound staging system for placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) disorders in women with placenta previa and to evaluate its association with surgical outcome, placental invasion and the clinical staging system for PAS disorders proposed by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO). METHODS: This was a secondary retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from women with placenta previa. We classified women according to the following staging system for PAS disorders, based upon the presence of ultrasound signs of PAS in women with placenta previa: PAS0, placenta previa with no ultrasound signs of invasion or with placental lacunae but no evidence of abnormal uterus-bladder interface; PAS1, presence of at least two of placental lacunae, loss of the clear zone or bladder wall interruption; PAS2, PAS1 plus uterovescical hypervascularity; PAS3, PAS1 or PAS2 plus evidence of increased vascularity in the inferior part of the lower uterine segment potentially extending into the parametrial region. We explored whether this ultrasound staging system correlates with surgical outcome (estimated blood loss (EBL, mL), units of packed red blood cells (PRBC), fresh frozen plasma (FFP) and platelets (PLT) transfused, operation time (min), surgical complications defined as the occurrence of any damage to the bladder, ureters or bowel, length of hospital stay (days) and admission to intensive care unit (ICU)) and depth of placental invasion. The correlation between the present ultrasound staging system and the clinical grading system proposed by FIGO was assessed. Prenatal and surgical management were not based on the proposed prenatal ultrasound staging system. Linear and multiple regression models were used. RESULTS: Two-hundred and fifty-nine women were included in the analysis. Mean EBL was 516 ± 151 mL in women with PAS0, 609 ± 146 mL in those with PAS1, 950 ± 190 mL in those with PAS2 and 1323 ± 533 mL in those with PAS3, and increased significantly with increasing severity of PAS ultrasound stage. Mean units of PRBC transfused were 0.05 ± 0.21 in PAS0, 0.10 ± 0.45 in PAS1, 1.19 ± 1.11 in PAS2 and 4.48 ± 2.06 in PAS3, and increased significantly with PAS stage. Similarly, there was a progressive increase in the mean units of FFP transfused from PAS1 to PAS3 (0.0 ± 0.0 in PAS1, 0.25 ± 1.0 in PAS2 and 3.63 ± 2.67 in PAS3). Women presenting with PAS3 on ultrasound had significantly more units of PLT transfused (2.37 ± 2.40) compared with those with PAS0 (0.03 ± 0.18), PAS1 (0.0 ± 0.0) or PAS2 (0.0 ± 0.0). Mean operation time was longer in women with PAS3 (184 ± 32 min) compared with those with PAS1 (153 ± 38 min) or PAS2 (161 ± 28 min). Similarly, women with PAS3 had longer hospital stay (7.4 ± 2.1 days) compared with those with PAS0 (3.4 ± 0.6 days), PAS1 (6.4 ± 1.3 days) or PAS2 (5.9 ± 0.8 days). On linear regression analysis, after adjusting for all potential confounders, higher PAS stage was associated independently with a significant increase in EBL (314 (95% CI, 230-399) mL per one-stage increase; P < 0.001), units of PRBC transfused (1.74 (95% CI, 1.33-2.15) per one-stage increase; P < 0.001), units of FFP transfused (1.19 (95% CI, 0.61-1.77) per one-stage increase; P < 0.001), units of PLT transfused (1.03 (95% CI, 0.59-1.47) per one-stage increase; P < 0.001), operation time (38.8 (95% CI, 31.6-46.1) min per one-stage increase; P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (0.83 (95% CI, 0.46-1.27) days per one-stage increase; P < 0.001). On logistic regression analysis, increased severity of PAS was associated independently with surgical complications (odds ratio, 3.14 (95% CI, 1.36-7.25); P = 0.007), while only PAS3 was associated with admission to the ICU (P < 0.001). All women with PAS0 on ultrasound were classified as having Grade-1 PAS disorder according to the FIGO grading system. Conversely, of the women presenting with PAS1 on ultrasound, 64.1% (95% CI, 48.4-77.3%) were classified as having Grade-3, while 35.9% (95% CI, 22.7-51.6%) were classified as having Grade-4 PAS disorder, according to the FIGO grading system. All women with PAS2 were categorized as having Grade-5 and all those with PAS3 as having Grade-6 PAS disorder according to the FIGO system. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound staging of PAS disorders is feasible and correlates with surgical outcome, depth of invasion and the FIGO clinical grading system. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

First-trimester or second-trimester screening, or both, for Down's syndrome

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain how best to screen pregnant women for the presence of fetal Down's syndrome: to perform first-trimester screening, to perform second-trimester screening, or to use strategies incorporating measurements in both trimesters.METHODS: Women with singleton pregnancies underwent first-trimester combined screening (measurement of nuchal translucency, pregnancy-associated plasma protein A [PAPP-A], and the free beta subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin at 10 weeks 3 days through 13 weeks 6 days of gestation) and second-trimester quadruple screening (measurement of alpha-fetoprotein, total human chorionic gonadotropin, unconjugated estriol, and inhibin A at 15 through 18 weeks of gestation). We compared the results of stepwise sequential screening (risk results provided after each test), fully integrated screening (single risk result provided), and serum integrated screening (identical to fully integrated screening, but without nuchal translucency).RESULTS: First-trimester screening was performed in 38,167 patients; 117 had a fetus with Down's syndrome. At a 5 percent false positive rate, the rates of detection of Down's syndrome were as follows: with first-trimester combined screening, 87 percent, 85 percent, and 82 percent for measurements performed at 11, 12, and 13 weeks, respectively; with second-trimester quadruple screening, 81 percent; with stepwise sequential screening, 95 percent; with serum integrated screening, 88 percent; and with fully integrated screening with first-trimester measurements performed at 11 weeks, 96 percent. Paired comparisons found significant differences between the tests, except for the comparison between serum integrated screening and combined screening.CONCLUSIONS: First-trimester combined screening at 11 weeks of gestation is better than second-trimester quadruple screening but at 13 weeks has results similar to second-trimester quadruple screening. Both stepwise sequential screening and fully integrated screening have high rates of detection of Down's syndrome, with low false positive rates

First-Trimester or Second-Trimester Screening, or Both, for Down's Syndrome

BACKGROUND It is uncertain how best to screen pregnant women for the presence of fetal Down's syndrome: to perform first-trimester screening, to perform second-trimester screening, or to use strategies incorporating measurements in both trimesters. METHODS Women with singleton pregnancies underwent first-trimester combined screening (measurement of nuchal translucency, pregnancy-associated plasma protein A [PAPP-A], and the free beta subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin at 10 weeks 3 days through 13 weeks 6 days of gestation) and second-trimester quadruple screening (measurement ofalpha-fetoprotein, total human chorionic gonadotropin, unconjugated estriol, and inhibin A at 15 through 18 weeks of gestation). We compared the results of stepwise sequential screening (risk results provided after each test), fully integrated screening (single risk result provided), and serum integrated screening (identical to fully integrated screening, but without nuchal translucency). RESULTS First-trimester screening was performed in 38,167 patients; 117 had a fetus with Down's syndrome. At a 5 percent false positive rate, the rates of detection of Down's syndrome were as follows: with first-trimester combined screening, 87 percent, 85 percent, and 82 percent for measurements performed at 11, 12, and 13 weeks, respectively; with second-trimester quadruple screening, 81 percent; with stepwise sequential screening, 95 percent; with serum integrated screening, 88 percent; and with fully integrated screening with first-trimester measurements performed at 11 weeks, 96 percent. Paired comparisons found significant differences between the tests, except for the comparison between serum integrated screening and combined screening. CONCLUSIONS First-trimester combined screening at 11 weeks of gestation is better than second-trimester quadruple screening but at 13 weeks has results similar to second-trimester quadruple screening. Both stepwise sequential screening and fully integrated screening have high rates of detection ofDown's syndrome, with low false positive rates

The clinical diagnosis of pelvic inflammatory disease – reuse of electronic medical record data from 189 patients visiting a Swedish university hospital emergency department

BACKGROUND: The pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) diagnosis is mostly based on clinical findings. However, few studies have examined the clinical basis for the diagnostics of PID, which was the aim of this study. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of 189 out-patients diagnosed as having PID at the obstetric and gynecological emergency department of a Swedish university hospital. Data on symptoms, signs, pelvic examination and laboratory tests were extracted from the electronic medical records in comparison with the diagnostic criteria of the PID Guideline of the US Center of Disease Control from 2002 (CDC 2002 Guidelines). RESULTS: Eight symptoms in varying combinations were associated with the PID diagnosis. Most of them are mentioned in the CDC 2002 Guidelines. Detected rates of C. Trachomatis (CT) and N. Gonorrhoeae (NG) were 5% and 0%, respectively, among the tested patients (CT = 52% and NG = 12%). The C-reactive protein was normal in the majority of tested patients. CONCLUSION: The clinical basis for the diagnostics of PID was largely in accordance with the criteria in the CDC 2002 Guidelines. The limited number of CT tests performed is somewhat disappointing, considering the fact that effective disease prevention includes widespread CT screening. Further studies in different settings are needed in order to analyze how the testing rate for CT can be improved in clinical praxis

Optimising the use of caesarean section: a generic formative research protocol for implementation preparation

BACKGROUND: Caesarean section rates are rising across all geographical regions. Very high rates for some groups of women co-occur with very low rates for others. Both extremes are associated with short and longer term harms. This is a major public health concern. Making the most effective use of caesarean section is a critical component of good quality, sustainable maternity care. In 2018, the World Health Organization published evidence-based recommendations on non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section. The guideline identified critical research gaps and called for formative research to be conducted ahead of any interventional research to define locally relevant determinants of caesarean birth and factors that may affect implementation of multifaceted optimisation strategies. This generic formative research protocol is designed as a guide for contextual assessment and understanding for anyone planning to take action to optimise the use of caesarean section. METHODS: This formative protocol has three main components: (1) document review; (2) readiness assessment; and (3) primary qualitative research with women, healthcare providers and administrators. The document review and readiness assessment include tools for local mapping of policies, protocols, practices and organisation of care to describe and assess the service context ahead of implementation. The qualitative research is organized according to twelve identified interventions that may optimise use of caesarean section. Each intervention is designed as a "module" and includes a description of the intervention, supporting evidence, theory of change, and in-depth interview/focus group discussion guides. All study instruments are included in this protocol. DISCUSSION: This generic protocol is designed to underpin the formative stage of implementation research relating to optimal use of caesarean section. We encourage researchers, policy-makers and ministries of health to adapt and adopt this design to their context, and share their findings as a catalyst for rapid uptake of what works