-
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Aug 2022The ideal time for birth in pregnancies diagnosed with vasa previa remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review aiming to identify the gestational age at delivery... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The ideal time for birth in pregnancies diagnosed with vasa previa remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review aiming to identify the gestational age at delivery that best balances the risks for prematurity with that of pregnancy prolongation in cases with prenatally diagnosed vasa previa.
DATA SOURCES
Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception to January 2022.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
The intervention analyzed was delivery at various gestational ages in pregnancies prenatally diagnosed with vasa previa. Cohort studies, case series, and case reports were included in the qualitative synthesis. When summary figures could not be obtained directly from the studies for the quantitative synthesis, authors were contacted and asked to provide a breakdown of perinatal outcomes by gestational age at birth.
METHODS
Study appraisal was completed using the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool for the respective study types. Statistical analysis was performed using a random-effects meta-analysis of proportions.
RESULTS
The search identified 3435 studies of which 1264 were duplicates. After screening 2171 titles and abstracts, 140 studies proceeded to the full-text screen. A total of 37 studies were included for analysis, 14 of which were included in a quantitative synthesis. Among 490 neonates, there were 2 perinatal deaths (0.4%), both of which were neonatal deaths before 32 weeks' gestation. In general, the rate of neonatal complications decreased steadily from <32 weeks' gestation (4.6% rate of perinatal death, 91.2% respiratory distress, 11.4% 5-minute Apgar score <7, 23.3% neonatal blood transfusion, 100% neonatal intensive care unit admission, and 100% low birthweight) to 36 weeks' gestation (0% perinatal death, 5.3% respiratory distress, 0% 5-minute Apgar score <7, 2.9% neonatal blood transfusion, 29.2% neonatal intensive care unit admission, and 30.9% low birthweight). Complications then increased slightly at 37 weeks' gestation before decreasing again at 38 weeks' gestation.
CONCLUSION
Prolonging pregnancies until 36 weeks' gestation seems to be safe and beneficial in otherwise uncomplicated pregnancies with antenatally diagnosed vasa previa.
Topics: Birth Weight; Female; Gestational Age; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Perinatal Death; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Respiratory Distress Syndrome; Vasa Previa
PubMed: 35283090
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.03.006 -
American Journal of Obstetrics &... Aug 2020To systematically review published literature and calculate the prevalence of vasa previa and its known risk factors. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review published literature and calculate the prevalence of vasa previa and its known risk factors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, PubMed (non-MEDLINE and in process), and www.clinicaltrials.gov were searched from inception to March 2018 using indexing terms "vasa previa," "placenta previa," "low lying placenta," "succenturiate lobe," "bilobate placenta," "bilobed placenta," and "velamentous insertion." All original research studies reporting on 5 or more pregnancies with vasa previa were included. The search was limited to studies on human data and those published in the English language. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, completed data extraction, and assessed reporting quality using the Study Quality Assessment Tool for Case Series Studies of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Disagreements were discussed and resolved at each step of the process.
RESULTS
We included 21 studies that reported 428 pregnancies with vasa previa of 1,027,918 deliveries (0.46 cases of vasa previa per 1000 deliveries). These studies fared well on risk of bias assessment using the Study Quality Assessment Tool for Case Series Studies of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The prevalence and 95% confidence intervals of known risk factors for vasa previa included a low-lying placenta (61.5%, 53.0%-70.0%), velamentous cord insertion (52.2%, 39.6%-64.7%), bilobed or succenturiate lobed placenta (33.3%, 20.9%-45.7%), use of in vitro fertilization (26.4%, 16.0%-36.8%), and multiple gestation (8.92%, 5.33%-12.5%).
CONCLUSION
Vasa previa affects 0.46 cases per 1000 pregnancies. Given the high prevalence of prenatally detectable risk factors in affected pregnancies, the cost-effectiveness of screening strategies for vasa previa either in isolation, using a risk factor-based approach, or universally, in tandem with cervical-length screening using transvaginal ultrasound, should be revisited.
Topics: Female; Humans; Placenta; Placenta Previa; Pregnancy; Risk Factors; Ultrasonography, Prenatal; Vasa Previa
PubMed: 33345868
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100117 -
American Journal of Obstetrics &... Aug 2020To evaluate reported outcomes of published studies on the diagnosis and management of vasa previa in pregnancy. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate reported outcomes of published studies on the diagnosis and management of vasa previa in pregnancy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Databases such as MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to March 2018 for all published studies on vasa previa using combinations of the following medical subject headings and key words: vasa previa, placenta previa, low-lying placenta, succenturiate lobe or placenta, bilobed or bilobate placenta, and velamentous insertion. All original human research that described maternal, obstetric, placental, fetal or neonatal outcomes relating to pregnancies with vasa previa were included for analysis. Title and abstract screening and data extraction was conducted independently and in duplicate by 2 reviewers for all studies until total agreement for eligibility was achieved. Data extraction was also conducted in duplicate in approximately 50% of studies reviewed.
RESULTS
A total of 160 published studies (1004 pregnancies) were included. There was a wide range of reported outcomes, many of which were sparingly reported. The most commonly reported maternal outcomes included mode of delivery, presence of antepartum hemorrhage, time of diagnosis, and rupture of membranes. The presence of known risk factors for vasa previa such as a low-lying placenta, succenturiate or bilobed placenta, and (velamentous) cord insertion was incorrectly reported as "outcomes" in many studies. The most commonly reported fetal/neonatal outcomes included fetal heart rate, gestational age at delivery, birthweight, Apgar score, presence of neonatal anemia, cord blood gas measurements, need for blood transfusion, and death. Of note, only 3 studies reported outcomes related to life impact, maternal social and emotional functioning, perceived delivery of care, or resource utilization.
CONCLUSION
Despite the profound effect the diagnosis of vasa previa has on pregnant women, families, and healthcare systems, studies on vasa previa seldom report outcomes related to life impact and resource utilization. There is a need for the development of a core outcome set-a minimum standard set of outcomes deemed important by pregnant women and other stakeholders involved in their care-to standardize outcome reporting in future studies on vasa previa.
Topics: Female; Gestational Age; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Placenta; Placenta Previa; Pregnancy; Vasa Previa
PubMed: 33345867
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100116 -
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology :... May 2021To derive accurate estimates of perinatal survival in pregnancies with and without a prenatal diagnosis of vasa previa based on a systematic review of the literature and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To derive accurate estimates of perinatal survival in pregnancies with and without a prenatal diagnosis of vasa previa based on a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.
METHODS
A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library was performed to review relevant citations reporting on the perinatal outcomes of pregnancies with vasa previa. We included prospective and retrospective cohort and population studies that provided data on pregnancies with a prenatal diagnosis of vasa previa or cases diagnosed at birth or following postnatal placental examination. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model was performed to derive weighted pooled estimates of perinatal survival (excluding stillbirths and neonatal deaths) and intact perinatal survival (additionally excluding hypoxic morbidity). Incidence rate difference (IRD) meta-analysis was used to estimate the significance of differences in pooled proportions between cases of vasa previa with and those without a prenatal diagnosis. Heterogeneity between studies was estimated using Cochran's Q and the I statistic.
RESULTS
We included 21 studies reporting on the perinatal outcomes of 683 pregnancies with a prenatal diagnosis of vasa previa. There were three stillbirths (1.01% (95% CI, 0.40-1.87%)), five neonatal deaths (1.19% (95% CI, 0.52-2.12%)) and 675 surviving neonates, resulting in a pooled estimate for perinatal survival of 98.6% (95% CI, 97.6-99.3%). Based on seven studies that included cases of vasa previa with and without a prenatal diagnosis, the pooled perinatal survival in pregnancies without a prenatal diagnosis (61/118) was 72.1% (95% CI, 50.6-89.4%) vs 98.6% (95% CI, 96.7-99.7%) in cases with a prenatal diagnosis (224/226). Therefore, the risk of perinatal death was 25-fold higher when a diagnosis of vasa previa was not made antenatally, compared with when it was (odds ratio (OR), 25.39 (95% CI, 7.93-81.31); P < 0.0001). Similarly, the risk of hypoxic morbidity was increased 50-fold in cases with vasa previa without a prenatal diagnosis compared with those with a prenatal diagnosis (36/61 vs 5/224; OR, 50.09 (95% CI, 17.33-144.79)). The intact perinatal survival rate in cases of vasa previa without a prenatal diagnosis was significantly lower than in those with a prenatal diagnosis (28.1% (95% CI, 14.1-44.7%) vs 96.7% (95% CI, 93.6-98.8%)) (IRD, 73.4% (95% CI, 53.9-92.7%); Z = -7.4066, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Prenatal diagnosis of vasa previa is associated with a high rate of perinatal survival, whereas lack of an antenatal diagnosis significantly increases the risk of perinatal death and hypoxic morbidity. Further research should be undertaken to investigate strategies for incorporating prenatal screening for vasa previa into routine clinical practice. © 2020 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Perinatal Mortality; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Prenatal Diagnosis; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Vasa Previa
PubMed: 32735754
DOI: 10.1002/uog.22166 -
British Journal of Sports Medicine Dec 2020Clinical guidelines recommend pregnant women without contraindication engage in regular physical activity. This is based on extensive evidence demonstrating the safety...
BACKGROUND
Clinical guidelines recommend pregnant women without contraindication engage in regular physical activity. This is based on extensive evidence demonstrating the safety and benefits of prenatal exercise. However, certain medical conditions or contraindications warrant a reduction, modification or cessation of activity due to potential health risks.
AIM
To review and evaluate the evidence related to medical disorders which may warrant contraindication to prenatal exercise.
METHODS
Online databases were searched up to 5 April 2019. Forty-four unique studies that reported data on our Population (pregnant women with contraindication to exercise), Intervention (subjective/objective measures of acute or chronic exercise), Comparator (not essential) and Outcomes (adverse maternal or fetal outcomes) were included in the review.
KEY FINDINGS
We found that the majority of medical conditions listed as contraindications were based on expert opinion; there is minimal empirical evidence to demonstrate harm of exercise and benefit of activity restriction. We identified 11 complications (eg, gestational hypertension, twin pregnancy) previously classified as contraindications where women may in fact benefit from regular prenatal physical activity with or without modifications. However, the evidence suggests that severe cardiorespiratory disease, placental abruption, vasa previa, uncontrolled type 1 diabetes, intrauterine growth restriction, active preterm labour, severe pre-eclampsia and cervical insufficiency are associated with strong potential for maternal/fetal harm and warrant classification as absolute contraindications.
CONCLUSION
Based on empirical evidence, we provide a call to re-evaluate clinical guidelines related to medical disorders that have previously been considered contraindications to prenatal exercise. Removing barriers to physical activity during pregnancy for women with certain medical conditions may in fact be beneficial for maternal-fetal health outcomes.
Topics: Contraindications; Exercise; Female; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Prenatal Care
PubMed: 32513676
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102042