Premium
A survey of opinion and practice regarding prenatal diagnosis of vasa previa among obstetricians from Australia and New Zealand
Author(s) -
Javid Nasrin,
Hyett Jonathan A.,
Walker Susan P.,
Sullivan Elizabeth A.,
Homer Caroline S.E.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
international journal of gynecology and obstetrics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.895
H-Index - 97
eISSN - 1879-3479
pISSN - 0020-7292
DOI - 10.1002/ijgo.12747
Subject(s) - medicine , family medicine , obstetrics , prenatal diagnosis , gynecology , pregnancy , fetus , biology , genetics
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.