4.5 Article

Are women antenatally diagnosed with abnormally invasive placenta receiving optimal management in England? An observational study of planned place of delivery

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13487

关键词

abnormally invasive placenta; obstetrics; placenta accreta

资金

  1. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Human Placenta Project of the National Institutes of Health [UO1-HD087209]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction The aim of this study was to investigate the planned place of delivery for women antenatally diagnosed with abnormally invasive placenta (AIP) in England and identify how many units regard themselves to be specialist centers for the management of AIP. Material and methods Observational study of obstetric-led units in England. An anonymous survey was sent to the delivery suite lead clinician in all 154 consultant-led units throughout England. The main outcome measures were whether each unit planned to manage AIP in-house, the estimated number of AIP cases delivered in the previous 5 years and whether the unit considered itself a specialist center for AIP management. Results In all, 114 of 154 units responded (74%): 80 (70%) manage AIP cases in-house, 23 (29%) of these report that they regard themselves specialist centers for AIP. The 23 specialist centers managed significantly more cases than non-specialist centers (5.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.3-7.3 vs 2.3, 95% CI 1.5-3.1 cases/unit/year; P < .001); nearly one-third of non-specialist centers manage less than 1 case per year. Extrapolating the reported number of cases to all 154 obstetrician-led delivery units produces an estimate of 5.2 cases per 10 000 births over the last 5 years. Conclusions Most units plan to manage AIP in-house despite encountering few cases each year. Centralizing care would allow the multidisciplinary team in each specialist center to develop significant experience in the management of this rare condition, leading to improved outcomes for the women.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据