4.5 Article

A survey of opinion and practice regarding prenatal diagnosis of vasa previa among obstetricians from Australia and New Zealand

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS
Volume 144, Issue 3, Pages 252-259

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.12747

Keywords

Content validation; Placenta previa; Prenatal diagnosis; Screen; Survey; Ultrasound imaging; Vasa previa; Velamentous cord insertion

Funding

  1. Australian Government Research Training Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To define current obstetric opinion and clinical practice regarding the prenatal diagnosis of vasa previa in Australia and New Zealand. Methods A population-based cross-sectional survey of Fellows of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists was conducted from April to May, 2016. Descriptive analysis was used to define factors influencing opinion and practice regarding definition of vasa previa, attributable risk factors, and the value of screening. Results Overall, 453 respondents were included in the study. Two-thirds (304/453; 67.1%) defined vasa previa as exposed fetal vessel(s) running over or within 2 cm of the internal os. A higher proportion of ultrasound specialists (30/65; 46.2%) preferred a broader definition as compared with generalists (115/388; 29.6%; P<0.001). Overall, Fellows were supportive (342/430; 79.5%) of both reporting ultrasound-based risk factors at the 20-week anomaly scan and targeted screening (298/430; 69.3%). Only 77/453 (17.0%) respondents recognized all five known risk factors for vasa previa. Conclusions There was a lack of consensus regarding the definition and diagnosis process for vasa previa. There was also a knowledge gap in risk factors for vasa previa that would inform a targeted screening policy. Nevertheless, support for targeted screening was strong from obstetricians who responded.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available