Case report: a rapid review approach used by the UK National Screening Committee to inform recommendations on general population screening for vasa praevia

Incorporation of vasa previa screening into a routine anomaly scan: A single center cohort study

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.

Vasa previa in singleton pregnancies: diagnosis and clinical management based on an international expert consensus

BACKGROUND

There are limited data to guide the diagnosis and management of vasa previa. Currently, what is known is largely based on case reports or series and cohort studies.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically collect and classify expert opinions and achieve consensus on the diagnosis and clinical management of vasa previa using focus group discussions and a Delphi technique.

STUDY DESIGN

A 4-round focus group discussion and a 3-round Delphi survey of an international panel of experts on vasa previa were conducted. Experts were selected on the basis of their publication record on vasa previa. First, we convened a focus group discussion panel of 20 experts and agreed on which issues were unresolved in the diagnosis and management of vasa previa. A 3-round anonymous electronic survey was then sent to the full expert panel. Survey questions were presented on the diagnosis and management of vasa previa, which the experts were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale (from "strongly disagree"=1 to "strongly agree"=5). Consensus was defined as a median score of 5. Following responses to each round, any statements that had median scores of ≤3 were deemed to have had no consensus and were excluded. Statements with a median score of 4 were revised and re-presented to the experts in the next round. Consensus and nonconsensus statements were then aggregated.

RESULTS

A total of 68 international experts were invited to participate in the study, of which 57 participated. Experts were from 13 countries on 5 continents and have contributed to >80% of published cohort studies on vasa previa, as well as national and international society guidelines. Completion rates were 84%, 93%, and 91% for the first, second, and third rounds, respectively, and 71% completed all 3 rounds. The panel reached a consensus on 26 statements regarding the diagnosis and key points of management of vasa previa, including the following: (1) although there is no agreement on the distance between the fetal vessels and the cervical internal os to define vasa previa, the definition should not be limited to a 2-cm distance; (2) all pregnancies should be screened for vasa previa with routine examination for placental cord insertion and a color Doppler sweep of the region over the cervix at the second-trimester anatomy scan; (3) when a low-lying placenta or placenta previa is found in the second trimester, a transvaginal ultrasound with Doppler should be performed at approximately 32 weeks to rule out vasa previa; (4) outpatient management of asymptomatic patients without risk factors for preterm birth is reasonable; (5) asymptomatic patients with vasa previa should be delivered by scheduled cesarean delivery between 35 and 37 weeks of gestation; and (6) there was no agreement on routine hospitalization, avoidance of intercourse, or use of 3-dimensional ultrasound for diagnosis of vasa previa.

CONCLUSION

Through focus group discussion and a Delphi process, an international expert panel reached consensus on the definition, screening, clinical management, and timing of delivery in vasa previa, which could inform the development of new clinical guidelines.

Does screening or routine enquiry for adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) meet criteria for a screening programme? A rapid evidence summary

BACKGROUND

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are traumatic events in childhood that can have impacts throughout life. It has been suggested that ACEs should be 'screened' for, or routinely enquired about, in childhood or adulthood. The aim of this work is to review evidence for this against the United Kingdom National Screening Committee (UKNSC) programme criteria.

METHODS

A rapid review of evidence on ACEs screening was conducted using the approach of the UKNSC.

RESULTS

Good quality evidence was identified from meta-analyses for associations between ACEs and a wide range of adverse outcomes. There was no consistent evidence on the most suitable screening tool, setting of administration, and time or frequency of use. Routine enquiry among adults was feasible and acceptable to service users and professionals in various settings. A wide range of potentially effective interventions was identified. Limited evidence was available on the potential for screening or routine enquiry to reduce morbidity and mortality or possible harms of screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the application of available evidence to UKNSC screening criteria, there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend the implementation of a screening programme for ACEs. Further research is needed to determine whether routine enquiry can improve morbidity, mortality, health and wellbeing.

Velamentous cord insertion: results from a rapid review of incidence, risk factors, adverse outcomes and screening

BACKGROUND

Velamentous cord insertion (VCI) is an umbilical cord attachment to the membranes surrounding the placenta instead of the central mass. VCI is strongly associated with vasa praevia (VP), where umbilical vessels lie in close proximity to the internal cervical os. VP leaves the vessels vulnerable to rupture, which can lead to fatal fetal exsanguination. Screening for VP using second-trimester transabdominal sonography (TAS) to detect VCI has been proposed. We conducted a rapid review investigating the quality, quantity and direction of evidence available on the epidemiology, screening test accuracy and post-screening management pathways for VCI.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched on 5 July 2016 and again on 11 October 2019, using general search terms for VP and VCI. Only peer-reviewed articles reporting on the epidemiology of VCI, the accuracy of the screening test and/or downstream management pathways for VCI pregnancies were included. Quality and risk of bias of each included study were assessed using pre-specified tools.

RESULTS

Forty-one relevant publications were identified; all but one were based on non-UK pregnancy cohorts, and most included relatively few VCI cases. The estimated incidence of VCI was 0.4-11% in singleton pregnancies, with higher incidence in twin pregnancies (1.6-40%). VCI incidence was also increased among pregnancies with one or more other risk factors, including in vitro fertilisation pregnancies or nulliparity. VCI incidence among women without any known risk factors was unclear. VCI was associated with adverse perinatal outcomes, most notably pre-term birth and emergency caesarean section in singleton pregnancies, and perinatal mortality in twins; however, associations varied across studies and the increased risk was typically low or moderate compared with pregnancies without VCI. In studies on limited numbers of cases, screening for VCI using TAS had good overall accuracy, driven by high specificity. No studies on post-screening management of VCI were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Literature on VCI epidemiology and outcomes is limited and low-quality. The accuracy of second-trimester TAS and the benefits and harms of screening cannot be determined without prospective studies in large cohorts. Modelling studies may indicate the feasibility and value of studying the epidemiology of VCI and the potential impact of detecting VCI as part of a population screening programme for VP.