The ward technique for anterior placenta previa

Non-invasive continuous blood pressure monitoring using the ClearSight system for pregnant women at high risks of post-partum hemorrhage: comparison with invasive blood pressure monitoring during cesarean section

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the accuracy and precision of continuous, non-invasive blood pressure obtained using the ClearSight system by comparing it with invasive arterial blood pressure, and to assess the hemodynamic changes using the ClearSight system in patients undergoing cesarean section.

Methods

Arterial pressure was measured invasively with an intra-arterial catheter and non-invasively using the ClearSight system during cesarean section in patients with placenta previa or placenta accreta. Blood pressure measurements obtained using these two means were then compared.

Results

Total 1,277 blood pressure measurement pairs were collected from 21 patients. Under Bland-Altman analysis, the ClearSight system demonstrated an acceptable accuracy with a bias and standard deviation of 8.8±13.4 mmHg for systolic blood pressure, -6.3±7.1 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure, and -2.7±8.0 mmHg for median blood pressure. Cardiac index levels were significantly elevated during fetal delivery and 5 minutes after placental removal, and systemic vascular resistance index levels were significantly decreased during fetal delivery and 40 minutes after placental removal.

Conclusion

In patients undergoing cesarean section, the ClearSight system showed excellent accuracy and precision compared to that of the currently used invasive monitoring system.

Placental Types and Effective Perinatal Management of Vasa Previa: Lessons from 55 Cases in a Single Institution

BACKGROUND

We aimed to identify clinical characteristics and outcomes for each placental type of vasa previa (VP).

METHODS

Placental types of vasa previa were defined as follows: Type 1, vasa previa with velamentous cord insertion and non-type 1, vasa previa with a multilobed or succenturiate placenta and vasa previa with vessels branching out from the placental surface and returning to the placental cotyledons.

RESULTS

A total of 55 cases of vasa previa were included in this study, with 35 cases of type 1 and 20 cases of non-type 1. Vasa previa with type 1 showed a significantly higher association with assisted reproductive technology, compared with non-type 1 (p = 0.024, 60.0% and 25.0%, respectively). The diagnosis was significantly earlier in the type 1 group than in the non-Type 1 group (p = 0.027, 21.4 weeks and 28.6 weeks, respectively). Moreover, the Ward technique for anterior placentation to avoid injury of the placenta and/or fetal vessels was more frequently required in non-type 1 cases (p < 0.001, 60.0%, compared with 14.3% for type 1).

CONCLUSION

The concept of defining placental types of vasa previa will provide useful information for the screening of this serious complication, improve its clinical management and operative strategy, and achieve more preferable perinatal outcomes.