Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A survey of opinion and practice regarding prenatal diagnosis of vasa previa among obstetricians from Australia and New Zealand.
Javid, Nasrin; Hyett, Jonathan A; Walker, Susan P; Sullivan, Elizabeth A; Homer, Caroline S E.
Affiliation
  • Javid N; Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
  • Hyett JA; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
  • Walker SP; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Mercy Hospital for Women, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.
  • Sullivan EA; Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
  • Homer CSE; Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Int J Gynaecol Obstet ; 144(3): 252-259, 2019 Mar.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30575020
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.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Practice Patterns, Physicians' / Vasa Previa / Obstetrics Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Prevalence_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Limits: Adult / Female / Humans / Middle aged / Pregnancy Country/Region as subject: Oceania Language: En Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Year: 2019 Type: Article Affiliation country: Australia

Full text: 1 Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Practice Patterns, Physicians' / Vasa Previa / Obstetrics Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Prevalence_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Limits: Adult / Female / Humans / Middle aged / Pregnancy Country/Region as subject: Oceania Language: En Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Year: 2019 Type: Article Affiliation country: Australia