4.6 Article

Ultrasound predictors of placental invasion: the Placenta Accreta Index

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.10.022

关键词

accreta; invasion; ultrasound

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: We sought to apply a standardized evaluation of ultrasound parameters for the prediction of placental invasion in a high-risk population. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective review of gravidas with >= 1 prior cesarean delivery who received an ultrasound diagnosis of placenta previa or low-lying placenta in the third trimester at our institution from 1997 through 2011. Sonographic images were reviewed by an investigator blinded to pregnancy outcome and sonography reports. Parameters assessed included loss of retroplacental clear zone, irregularity and width of uterine-bladder interface, smallest myometrial thickness, presence of lacunar spaces, and bridging vessels. Diagnosis of placental invasion was based on histologic confirmation. Statistical analyses were performed using linear logistic regression and multiparametric analyses to generate a predictive equation evaluated using a receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: Of 184 gravidas who met inclusion criteria, 54 (29%) had invasion confirmed on hysterectomy specimen. All sonographic parameters were associated with placental invasion (P < .001). Constructing a receiver operating characteristic curve, the combination of smallest sagittal myometrial thickness, lacunae, and bridging vessels, in addition to number of cesarean deliveries and placental location, yielded an area under the curve of 0.87 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.95). Using logistic regression, a predictive equation was generated, termed the Placenta Accreta Index. Each parameter was weighted to create a 9-point scale in which a score of 0-9 provided a probability of invasion that ranged from 2-96%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Assignment of the Placenta Accreta Index may be helpful in predicting individual patient risk for morbidly adherent placenta.

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

4.6
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