A 2-cm Distance Should Not Be Used to Define Vasa Previa

Fetoscopic Laser Surgery for Vasa Previa: Feasibility, Safety, and Future Directions

Vasa previa is an uncommon, potentially life-threatening condition where fetal vessels traverse the membranes over the cervix without Wharton jelly protection, risking fetal exsanguination if undiagnosed. Prenatal ultrasound and planned preterm cesarean reduce perinatal mortality to under 1%, though concerns about prematurity persist. Fetoscopic laser photocoagulation, initially used for twin-twin transfusion syndrome, shows promise in select cases, potentially allowing vaginal delivery at term. This review examines vasa previa management, the feasibility of laser therapy, and its risks. While early data are promising, further studies, including the FLUMEN trial, are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of this intervention.

Vasa Previa: Prenatal Diagnosis and the Rationale Behind Using a 5 cm Distance from Internal Os

In pregnancies with vasa previa, prenatal diagnosis and pre-labor cesarean delivery are associated with significantly improved perinatal outcomes compared to undetected cases. However, a universally accepted ultrasonographic definition of vasa previa is lacking. Specifically, the distance from the cervical internal os beyond which vaginal delivery can be safely recommended remains to be determined. Field experts and recently published societal guidelines agree that a 2 cm cut-off is suboptimal, given that complete cervical dilation during labor risks unprotected fetal vessels within a 5 cm radius from the internal os. Thus, in the setting of a scarcity of evidence and case reports of perinatal death with unprotected fetal vessels beyond 2 cm from the internal os, a more conservative definition that includes unprotected fetal vessels located within 5 cm of the internal os is imperative to improve outcomes.

Vasa previa in singleton pregnancies: diagnosis and clinical management based on an international expert consensus

BACKGROUND

There are limited data to guide the diagnosis and management of vasa previa. Currently, what is known is largely based on case reports or series and cohort studies.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically collect and classify expert opinions and achieve consensus on the diagnosis and clinical management of vasa previa using focus group discussions and a Delphi technique.

STUDY DESIGN

A 4-round focus group discussion and a 3-round Delphi survey of an international panel of experts on vasa previa were conducted. Experts were selected on the basis of their publication record on vasa previa. First, we convened a focus group discussion panel of 20 experts and agreed on which issues were unresolved in the diagnosis and management of vasa previa. A 3-round anonymous electronic survey was then sent to the full expert panel. Survey questions were presented on the diagnosis and management of vasa previa, which the experts were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale (from "strongly disagree"=1 to "strongly agree"=5). Consensus was defined as a median score of 5. Following responses to each round, any statements that had median scores of ≤3 were deemed to have had no consensus and were excluded. Statements with a median score of 4 were revised and re-presented to the experts in the next round. Consensus and nonconsensus statements were then aggregated.

RESULTS

A total of 68 international experts were invited to participate in the study, of which 57 participated. Experts were from 13 countries on 5 continents and have contributed to >80% of published cohort studies on vasa previa, as well as national and international society guidelines. Completion rates were 84%, 93%, and 91% for the first, second, and third rounds, respectively, and 71% completed all 3 rounds. The panel reached a consensus on 26 statements regarding the diagnosis and key points of management of vasa previa, including the following: (1) although there is no agreement on the distance between the fetal vessels and the cervical internal os to define vasa previa, the definition should not be limited to a 2-cm distance; (2) all pregnancies should be screened for vasa previa with routine examination for placental cord insertion and a color Doppler sweep of the region over the cervix at the second-trimester anatomy scan; (3) when a low-lying placenta or placenta previa is found in the second trimester, a transvaginal ultrasound with Doppler should be performed at approximately 32 weeks to rule out vasa previa; (4) outpatient management of asymptomatic patients without risk factors for preterm birth is reasonable; (5) asymptomatic patients with vasa previa should be delivered by scheduled cesarean delivery between 35 and 37 weeks of gestation; and (6) there was no agreement on routine hospitalization, avoidance of intercourse, or use of 3-dimensional ultrasound for diagnosis of vasa previa.

CONCLUSION

Through focus group discussion and a Delphi process, an international expert panel reached consensus on the definition, screening, clinical management, and timing of delivery in vasa previa, which could inform the development of new clinical guidelines.

Incorporation of vasa previa screening into a routine anomaly scan: A single center cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Vasa previa (VP), defined as unprotected fetal vessels traversing the membranes over the cervix, is associated with a high perinatal mortality when undiagnosed prenatally. Conversely, prenatal diagnosis with ultrasound and cesarean delivery before the membranes rupture is associated with excellent outcomes. However, controversy exists regarding screening for VP. In the UK, routine screening for VP is not recommended. The objective of this study was to report the incidence of VP and our experience in the detection of VP with a universal screening protocol at the time of the second-trimester fetal anomaly scan with third-trimester confirmation in an unselected population of pregnancies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a single-center historical cohort study of all pregnant women who underwent routine second-trimester anomaly screening scans at West Middlesex University Hospital, London, UK, between 2012 and 2016. Over 5 years, every patient undergoing routine anomaly screening was evaluated for VP using a systematic protocol during their 20-week anomaly scan. Suspected cases of VP were rescanned in the third trimester by specialist sonographers with an interest in VP. The primary outcomes were the incidence and detection of VP.

RESULTS

During the study period, 24 690 anatomy scans were performed. A total of 64 patients were identified as having potential VP at the second-trimester anomaly screening scan, of which 19 were confirmed by the specialist sonographer in the third trimester and at delivery. The screen positive rate was 0.26% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20%-0.32%). VP at birth was found in 19/24690 births (1:1299 [95% CI: 1:832-1:2030] births). Universal screening for VP using our protocol had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 99.78% (95% CI: 99.72%-99.84%). The false-positive rate of the second-trimester screen was 0.18% (95% CI: 0.13-0.24). There were no false positives or false negatives at delivery. Of the 19 patients with confirmed VP, 17 had scheduled cesarean deliveries, and two required emergency deliveries due to antepartum hemorrhage. One baby died, giving a perinatal mortality of 5%.

CONCLUSIONS

VP complicates approximately 1:1300 pregnancies. Routine screening for VP yielded a 100% detection rate. We suggest the inclusion of structured VP assessment in standard fetal anomaly screening programs.