The Evolution of Management Strategies for Placenta Accreta Spectrum
Jingmei Ma,Huixia Yang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/fm9.0000000000000211
2024-01-01
Maternal-Fetal Medicine
Abstract:To editor: The disorders associated with placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) are potentially severe obstetric complications that should be managed by expert centers with substantial resources to provide both preoperative and intraoperative assessments and then prearrange a multidisciplinary team with an appropriate delivery plan. Placenta accreta spectrum was first described in 1937 as “attempts to remove the placenta led to major postpartum hemorrhage that required emergency or secondary hysterectomy to control bleeding.”1 In 1966, Luke et al2 classified this condition into placenta creta (or vera, adherenta), increta, and perceta based on the depth of placenta villi adhesion or invasion, as determined by pathological features. Although infrequent, there have been significant advances in the global evolution of the strategies used to manage PAS, especially over the last decade. From epidemiological variance to diagnostic standardization Previous research identified a correlation between an increasing trend of PAS with previous cesarean section, as well as repeated surgical abortion.3,4 A study carried out in the United States reported that by the end of 2017, 1 of 313 cesarean deliveries had PAS.3 Ming et al4 analyzed data from the China Labor and Delivery Survey in 2015 and 2016 and identified a higher prevalence of PAS than in other countries, with a substantial variance by geographic regions. These authors showed that the highest prevalence of PAS was recorded in the northwest of China (3.93%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.51%–5.51%), followed by the southwest (3.63%; 95% CI: 2.22%–5.05%) and the south (3.24%; 95% CI: 1.93%–4.67%); the northeast of China had the lowest prevalence of PAS (0.99%; 95% CI: 0.55%–1.48%). The elevated global prevalence of PAS has become a significant cause for concern.4,5 Although the variable characteristics of PAS could potentially be explained by differences in maternal characteristics, it became very evident that there was an urgent need to develop consistent terminology and diagnostic criteria that are essential for study bias analysis. In 2018, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) classified PAS disorders by different pathological forms, considering both clinical and pathological standards.6 This consensus underlined the importance of histopathological examination in PAS disorders if we are to improve screening, diagnosis, and management.7 In alignment with the recommendations provided by a group of Chinese experts, adhering to the FIGO guidelines is emphasized for maintaining consistency in terminology, including the grading system. Furthermore, endorsing the pathological examination of each PAS placenta is essential to mitigate heterogeneity and methodological bias. The three categories of PAS are illustrated as follows8: Grade 1: Abnormally adherent placenta; characterized by villi adhering directly to the myometrium without a decidual interface Grade 2: Abnormally invasive placentation; involves villi invading into the myometrium Grade 3: Abnormally invasive placentation; entails villi invading the entire thickness of the uterine wall, either reaching the serosa or extending beyond. Cases within this category are further classified into: grade 3a, confined to and including the uterine serosa; grade 3b, involving urinary bladder invasion; and grade 3c, featuring invasion of other pelvic tissues/organs As with other obstetric complications, the management of PAS could be improved by applying high-quality prenatal assessments by ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging; the application of this strategy could identify high-risk pregnancies. Expert opinions from China recommended scoring systems that integrate maternal risk factors with ultrasound features to further stratify the severity of PAS.9 In 2019, the International Society for Placenta Accreta Spectrum (IS-PAS) delivered its own “evidence-based guidelines.” Together with Peking University First Hospital, the IS-PAS organized the 2020 Online International Workshop on PAS; the published minutes arising from this meeting emphasized the need for consistency for each classification of PAS. In particular, this meeting highlighted the need to consider the underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis of PAS, even when applying standard descriptors from two-dimensional and color Doppler ultrasound manifestations.10 Combined with the information provided by prenatal imaging, a pathological diagnosis could be used as the gold standard for diagnosis PAS, thus avoiding confirmation bias by the surgeon. Considering that undergoing multiple cesarean sections can lead to a lasting impairment of the lower uterine segment wall and the formation of dense pelvic adhesions, it is important to be mindful of potential false-positive diagnoses of PAS. This includes considering features commonly found in pregnancies with a history of previous cesarean sections. A prospective study was conducted to assess the influence of cesarean scarring on the perinatal diagnosis of PAS. The study11 used a 1:1 ratio for prenatally diagnosed PAS and non-PAS cases, aiming to identify a distinctive ultrasound descriptor for accurate pathological diagnosis. During surgery, distinctive features such as large areas of uterine dehiscence, a densely tangled bed of vessels, and multiple vessels running laterally and craniocaudally in the uterine serosa were not identified as specific to PAS. Unsurprisingly, the authors also reported that a loss of the clear zone and myometrial thinning were common features observed in cases without PAS. A more specific presentation includes a higher placental lacunae grade, hypervascularity of the uterovesical/subplacental area, as well as the presence of bridging vessels and lacunae feeder vessels. Following the publication of the FIGO guidelines in 2018, an expert panel then recommended specific classification and reporting guidelines for the pathological diagnosis of PAS disorders.12 These pathological guidelines focused on the delivered placenta, total or partial hysterectomy, curettage to retain the products of conception, terminology, and reporting elements, as well as distinct nomenclature for hysterectomy and delivered placentas, thus providing detailed guidance for PAS. The role of clinical evaluation in the selection of surgical strategy In terms of surgical options, both nonconservative (hysterectomy) and conservative strategies7 should be considered on an individual basis. Given the fact that there is a low probability of detecting PAS during prenatal assessments, it can only be diagnosed fully at delivery. However, taking into account clinical and pathological evidence, in many cases, the approach taken for surgical treatment could be determined by an experienced surgeon. From a public health perspective, the diagnosis of relatively rare disorders represents a significant challenge as these conditions are associated with a high frequency of missed diagnoses and multiple treatment options; this situation calls for individualized management, especially in middle- or low-income countries or regions. In a previous study, Aryananda et al13 described the outcomes of 29 unexpected cases of PAS in resource-poor hospitals; of these cases, some did not undergo cesarean delivery; in other cases, the placenta was left in situ or partially removed following cesarean delivery, and some cases underwent postcesarean hysterectomy. Patients who experienced deferred or delayed cesarean delivery were associated with lower rates of maternal morbidity; in addition, five maternal deaths were recorded that were attributed to the lack of accessibility to telemedicine.13 The authors stated that access to telemedicine in these low-resource countries could have avoided maternal death and led to a far better prognosis. Considering that PAS cases may be identified during cesarean delivery, operating teams could benefit from a telemedicine approach. This approach allows for the assessment of options such as “open-close abdominal surgery or leaving the placenta in situ” with experienced teams. In 2023, the Colombian consensus of the PAS development group14 released a “treatment consensus in a resource-limited setting,” addressing six dimensions: the pathway for PAS care, roles at different levels of care, organization of interdisciplinary teams at reference hospitals, training teams, surgical treatment, and management without prenatal diagnosis. This document emphasizes the significance of developing a training program and therapeutic options based on the insights of local experts. It addresses specific challenges that may be encountered in such settings and outlines potential solutions, including collaboration between different hospitals and the utilization of telemedicine. Simultaneously, overcoming administrative barriers in the health system is crucial for facilitating communication between patients and physicians. Subsequently, the same group developed a training system for conservative surgeries that aimed to reduce transfusion and vascular intervention.15 Based on a unique intraoperative staging and PAS topography classification, it was possible to select cases that were suitable for one-step conservative surgery. The three main selection criteria were developed for one-step conservative surgery: (1) the absence of vesicouterine fibrosis, (2) the presence of at least 2 cm of healthy myometrium above the cervix, and (3) more than 50% of the axial uterine circumference. The second criterion, relating to patients with cervix or uterine segment involvement, was in accordance with our own study in which we identified an association between PAS complicated with placenta previa and severe maternal morbidity.16 With 3793 PAS cases recorded in the National Inpatient Sample Database, it is clear that we need to develop specific interventions to alleviate maternal and surgical morbidities for this particular subgroup of PAS patients. With further investigation and validation, it should be possible for surgeons to stratify cases of PAS in an objective manner while also protecting fertility requirements. The program is inspiring as the feasibility of conservative treatment has been a hot topic given the inconsistency of guidelines worldwide.17 In China, the PAS Referral Center applies a range of different surgical procedures.18–20 For individuals desiring fertility preservation, a conservative strategy involving block resection with subsequent reconstruction should be contemplated. In addition to the surgical procedure outlined in the FIGO 2018 guideline, modifications to Chandraharan's Triple P procedure have been proposed by Wei et al.18 In this adaptation, adherence to “perioperative placental localization” and “placental nonseparation” is maintained. However, the second step involving “pelvic devascularization” with interventional radiology has been replaced by bundling the lower uterine segment with a Foley catheter because of the absence of radiological services. Etiological investigations have shed new light on the prediction and prevention of severe outcomes in PAS patients Jauniaux et al1 described how the combined analysis of ultrasound imaging and pathological features can provide new insight into PAS. By analyzing histopathological features, these authors showed how extravillous trophoblast (EVT) cells can reach the large uterine artery and that the placental villi can separate from the scarred myometrium by thick fibrinoid deposition at the level of the Rohr layer within and around the cesarean scar; this condition presents as edema and myofiber disarray.21 These authors further hypothesized that deep EVT invasion was unlike the metastasis of a tumor; rather, such invasion related to the high-velocity maternal blood flow entering the intervillous space directly from the radial artery, and that this process could represent the main driver of PAS pathogenesis. The thick deposition of fibrinoids in PAS may be indicative of abnormal fibrinolysis functionality. Guo et al investigated the feasibility of routine coagulation testing prior to delivery and verified the association between prothrombin time, d-dimer, and fibrin degradation product with blood loss volume in severe PAS cases, which is the most common form of severe maternal morbidity.22 The IS-PAS referred to these findings in their review of hemostatic considerations in PAS23 and recommended the provision of prepartum and intrapartum coagulation testing, including complete blood count, fibrinogen levels, standard coagulation parameters, and d-dimers. In contrast, conservative management strategies may leave the placenta untouched; however, the coagulation activity induced by local trophoblasts may increase the consumption of fibrinogen and increase the levels of d-dimer, thus increasing the risk of secondary hemorrhage. With our growing understanding of the placenta, PAS etiology, and prenatal imaging, it has become clear that biomarkers may have potential value for predicting PAS. However, to date, there are no established biomarkers for PAS that are available for clinical practice24; this is due to the involvement of multiple biological processes, including placental function, angiogenesis, coagulation, oxidative stress, and inflammation. To identify specific biomarkers, it is critical that we acquire accurate clinicopathological evidence for patients with PAS. Although challenging, cohort studies could trace the dynamic trends of PAS subgroups associated with severe morbidity. Our current ability to diagnose PAS could be further improved by applying the advantages afforded by new technologies.25,26 For example, Afshar et al25 reported a nanostructure-embedded microchip that was able to enrich clustered circulating trophoblasts from the maternal blood during early pregnancy to distinguish PAS from non-PAS with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.924. In another study, Shainker et al26 used an aptamer-based proteomics platform to identify a unique plasma protein signature for PAS; this signature was confirmed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. In vivo and in vitro verifications are also important, as single-cell sequencing27 and placenta villi organoids28 provide the opportunity in the field. Although there is a need to identify noninvasive biomarkers for the severity of PAS, the current clinical screening modalities for PAS are not conclusive. Besides the proteomic analysis with maternal plasma, the molecular and cellular investigations to reveal the mechanism underlining the topographic classification of PAS presented during operation could be realized with single-cell sequencing and placenta villi organoids. With accumulative data of single-cell sequencing on both healthy and pathological placenta, clues of the injured or dysfunctional cells could be yielded, including preeclampsia, preterm birth, and PAS. In the PAS placenta, in the absence of normal decidual cells, the abrupt differentiation of progenitor cytotrophoblast interacted with ADIRF+ (adipogenesis regulatory factor) and DES+ (desmin) maternal stromal cells. The pathway from healthy to injured could be further verified with in vitro models. The placental villi organoids from early, late, or diseased pregnancies contain cytotrophoblasts with capabilities to differentiate into EVTs, along with the stromal and immune cells. Taking advantage of the findings from cell atlases, a deeper investigation of the pathogenesis and therapeutics of PAS could be achieved. Conclusion As PAS is a high-risk obstetric complication with a wide range of clinical presentations, its management is challenging for the crucial demand of multidisciplinary expert team. With the new insights in understanding the pathogenesis, the management of PAS has been standardized according to the stratification of individual condition. Taking consideration of all perspectives of the stakeholders, including the patients and physicians from referral centers or a lower level of hospitals, the academic society should update the recommendations with a standardized prospective study design with sustainable evidence. Editor Note Huixia Yang and Jingmei Ma are editorial board members of Maternal-Fetal Medicine. The article was subject to the journal's standard procedures, with peer review handled independently of the editors and the associated research groups.