Cargando…

Incidence of vasa praevia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES: To derive accurate estimates of the incidence of vasa praevia (VP) in a routine population of unselected pregnancies. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane database was performed to review relevant citations report...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Weiyu, Giacchino, Tara, Chanyarungrojn, Pannapat Amy, Ionescu, Olivia, Akolekar, Ranjit
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10514663/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37730391
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075245
_version_ 1785108772305240064
author Zhang, Weiyu
Giacchino, Tara
Chanyarungrojn, Pannapat Amy
Ionescu, Olivia
Akolekar, Ranjit
author_facet Zhang, Weiyu
Giacchino, Tara
Chanyarungrojn, Pannapat Amy
Ionescu, Olivia
Akolekar, Ranjit
author_sort Zhang, Weiyu
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To derive accurate estimates of the incidence of vasa praevia (VP) in a routine population of unselected pregnancies. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane database was performed to review relevant citations reporting outcomes in pregnancies with VP from January 2000 until 5 April 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF STUDIES: Prospective or retrospective cohort or population studies that provided data regarding VP cases in routine unselected pregnancies during the study period. We included studies published in the English language after the year 2000 to reflect contemporary obstetric and neonatal practice. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved citations and extracted data. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses was used to ensure standardised reporting of studies. RESULTS: A total of 3847 citations were screened and 82 full-text manuscripts were retrieved for analysis. There were 24 studies that met the inclusion criteria, of which 12 studies reported prenatal diagnosis with a systematic protocol of screening. There were 1320 pregnancies with VP in a total population of 2 278 561 pregnancies; the weighted pooled incidence of VP was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.59 to 1.01) per 1000 pregnancies, corresponding to 1 case of VP per 1271 (95% CI: 990 to 1692) pregnancies. Nested subanalysis of studies reporting screening for VP based on a specific protocol identified 395 pregnancies with VP in a population of 732 654 pregnancies with weighted pooled incidence of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.53 to 1.18) per 1000 pregnancies (1 case of VP per 1218 (95% CI: 847 to 1901) pregnancies). CONCLUSION: The incidence of VP in unselected pregnancies is 1 in 1218 pregnancies. This is higher than is previously reported and can be used as a basis to assess whether screening for this condition should be part of routine clinical practice. Incorporation of strategies to screen for VP in routine clinical practice is likely to prevent 5% of stillbirths. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020125495.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10514663
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105146632023-09-23 Incidence of vasa praevia: a systematic review and meta-analysis Zhang, Weiyu Giacchino, Tara Chanyarungrojn, Pannapat Amy Ionescu, Olivia Akolekar, Ranjit BMJ Open Obstetrics and Gynaecology OBJECTIVES: To derive accurate estimates of the incidence of vasa praevia (VP) in a routine population of unselected pregnancies. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane database was performed to review relevant citations reporting outcomes in pregnancies with VP from January 2000 until 5 April 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF STUDIES: Prospective or retrospective cohort or population studies that provided data regarding VP cases in routine unselected pregnancies during the study period. We included studies published in the English language after the year 2000 to reflect contemporary obstetric and neonatal practice. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved citations and extracted data. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses was used to ensure standardised reporting of studies. RESULTS: A total of 3847 citations were screened and 82 full-text manuscripts were retrieved for analysis. There were 24 studies that met the inclusion criteria, of which 12 studies reported prenatal diagnosis with a systematic protocol of screening. There were 1320 pregnancies with VP in a total population of 2 278 561 pregnancies; the weighted pooled incidence of VP was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.59 to 1.01) per 1000 pregnancies, corresponding to 1 case of VP per 1271 (95% CI: 990 to 1692) pregnancies. Nested subanalysis of studies reporting screening for VP based on a specific protocol identified 395 pregnancies with VP in a population of 732 654 pregnancies with weighted pooled incidence of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.53 to 1.18) per 1000 pregnancies (1 case of VP per 1218 (95% CI: 847 to 1901) pregnancies). CONCLUSION: The incidence of VP in unselected pregnancies is 1 in 1218 pregnancies. This is higher than is previously reported and can be used as a basis to assess whether screening for this condition should be part of routine clinical practice. Incorporation of strategies to screen for VP in routine clinical practice is likely to prevent 5% of stillbirths. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020125495. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-09-20 /pmc/articles/PMC10514663/ /pubmed/37730391 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075245 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Zhang, Weiyu
Giacchino, Tara
Chanyarungrojn, Pannapat Amy
Ionescu, Olivia
Akolekar, Ranjit
Incidence of vasa praevia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Incidence of vasa praevia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Incidence of vasa praevia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Incidence of vasa praevia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Incidence of vasa praevia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Incidence of vasa praevia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort incidence of vasa praevia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Obstetrics and Gynaecology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10514663/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37730391
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075245
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangweiyu incidenceofvasapraeviaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT giacchinotara incidenceofvasapraeviaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT chanyarungrojnpannapatamy incidenceofvasapraeviaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT ionescuolivia incidenceofvasapraeviaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT akolekarranjit incidenceofvasapraeviaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis