Incorporation of vasa previa screening into a routine anomaly scan: A single center cohort study
Millicent Nwandison,Elizabeth Daly‐Jones,Alexandra Drought,Lisa Story,Philippe De‐Rosnay,Neil Sebire,David Nyberg,Yinka Oyelese
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14839
2024-04-11
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica
Abstract:Routine screening for vasa previa yielded a 100% detection rate. We suggest the inclusion of structured vasa previa assessment in standard fetal anomaly screening programs. Introduction Vasa previa (VP), defined as unprotected fetal vessels traversing the membranes over the cervix, is associated with a high perinatal mortality when undiagnosed prenatally. Conversely, prenatal diagnosis with ultrasound and cesarean delivery before the membranes rupture is associated with excellent outcomes. However, controversy exists regarding screening for VP. In the UK, routine screening for VP is not recommended. The objective of this study was to report the incidence of VP and our experience in the detection of VP with a universal screening protocol at the time of the second‐trimester fetal anomaly scan with third‐trimester confirmation in an unselected population of pregnancies. Material and methods We performed a single‐center historical cohort study of all pregnant women who underwent routine second‐trimester anomaly screening scans at West Middlesex University Hospital, London, UK, between 2012 and 2016. Over 5 years, every patient undergoing routine anomaly screening was evaluated for VP using a systematic protocol during their 20‐week anomaly scan. Suspected cases of VP were rescanned in the third trimester by specialist sonographers with an interest in VP. The primary outcomes were the incidence and detection of VP. Results During the study period, 24 690 anatomy scans were performed. A total of 64 patients were identified as having potential VP at the second‐trimester anomaly screening scan, of which 19 were confirmed by the specialist sonographer in the third trimester and at delivery. The screen positive rate was 0.26% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20%–0.32%). VP at birth was found in 19/24690 births (1:1299 [95% CI: 1:832–1:2030] births). Universal screening for VP using our protocol had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 99.78% (95% CI: 99.72%–99.84%). The false‐positive rate of the second‐trimester screen was 0.18% (95% CI: 0.13–0.24). There were no false positives or false negatives at delivery. Of the 19 patients with confirmed VP, 17 had scheduled cesarean deliveries, and two required emergency deliveries due to antepartum hemorrhage. One baby died, giving a perinatal mortality of 5%. Conclusions VP complicates approximately 1:1300 pregnancies. Routine screening for VP yielded a 100% detection rate. We suggest the inclusion of structured VP assessment in standard fetal anomaly screening programs.
obstetrics & gynecology