학술논문
Assessing the multidisciplinary team approaches to placenta accreta spectrum across five institutions within the University of California fetal Consortium (UCfC).
Document Type
Academic Journal
Author
Fratto VM; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.; Conturie CL; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.; Ballas J; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.; Pettit KE; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.; Stephenson ML; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.; Truong YN; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA.; Henry D; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.; Afshar Y; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.; Murphy A; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.; Kim L; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.; Field N; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA.; Wing DA; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.; Norton ME; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.; Ramos GA; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
Source
Publisher: Informa Healthcare Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101136916 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1476-4954 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 14764954 NLM ISO Abbreviation: J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med Subsets: MEDLINE
Subject
Language
English
Abstract
Purpose: To describe the multidisciplinary approaches to placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) across five tertiary care centers that comprise the University of California fetal Consortium (UCfC) and to identify potential best practices.
Materials and Methods: Retrospective review of all cases of pathologically confirmed invasive placenta delivered from 2009 to 2014 at UCfC. Differences in intraoperative management and outcomes based on prenatal suspicion were compared. Interventions assessed included ureteral stent use, intravascular balloon use, anesthetic type, gynecologic oncology (Gyn Onc) involvement, and cell saver use. Intervention variation by institution was also assessed. Analyses were adjusted for final pathologic diagnosis. Chi-square, Fisher's exact, Student's t -test, and Mann-Whitney's U -test were used as appropriate. Binary logistic regression and multivariable linear regression were used to adjust for confounders.
Results: One hundred and fifty-one cases of pathologically confirmed invasive placenta were identified, of which 82% (123) were suspected prenatally. There was no correlation between the degree of invasion on prenatal imaging and use of each intervention. Ureteral stents were placed in 33% (41) of cases and did not reduce GU injury. Intravascular balloons were placed in 29% (36) of cases and were associated with shorter OR time (161 versus 236 min, p < .01) and lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (1800 versus 2500 ml, p < .01). General endotracheal anesthesia (GETA) was used in 70% (86). EBL did not differ between GETA and regional anesthesia. Gyn Onc was involved in 58% (71) of cases and EBL adjusted for final pathology was reduced with their involvement (2200 versus 2250 ml, p = .02) while OR time and intraoperative complications did not differ. Cell saver was used in 20% (24) and was associated with longer OR time (296 versus 200 min, p < .01). Use of cell saver was not associated with a difference in EBL or number of units of packed red cells transfused. All analyses were adjusted for pathologic severity of invasion.
Conclusions: Intravascular interventions such as uterine artery balloons and the inclusion of Gynecologic Oncologists as part of a multidisciplinary approach to treating PAS reduce EBL. Additionally, the placement of intravascular balloons may reduce OR time. No significant differences were seen in outcomes when comparing the use of ureteral stents, general anesthesia, or institutions. A team of experienced operators with a standard approach may be more significant than specific practices.
Materials and Methods: Retrospective review of all cases of pathologically confirmed invasive placenta delivered from 2009 to 2014 at UCfC. Differences in intraoperative management and outcomes based on prenatal suspicion were compared. Interventions assessed included ureteral stent use, intravascular balloon use, anesthetic type, gynecologic oncology (Gyn Onc) involvement, and cell saver use. Intervention variation by institution was also assessed. Analyses were adjusted for final pathologic diagnosis. Chi-square, Fisher's exact, Student's t -test, and Mann-Whitney's U -test were used as appropriate. Binary logistic regression and multivariable linear regression were used to adjust for confounders.
Results: One hundred and fifty-one cases of pathologically confirmed invasive placenta were identified, of which 82% (123) were suspected prenatally. There was no correlation between the degree of invasion on prenatal imaging and use of each intervention. Ureteral stents were placed in 33% (41) of cases and did not reduce GU injury. Intravascular balloons were placed in 29% (36) of cases and were associated with shorter OR time (161 versus 236 min, p < .01) and lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (1800 versus 2500 ml, p < .01). General endotracheal anesthesia (GETA) was used in 70% (86). EBL did not differ between GETA and regional anesthesia. Gyn Onc was involved in 58% (71) of cases and EBL adjusted for final pathology was reduced with their involvement (2200 versus 2250 ml, p = .02) while OR time and intraoperative complications did not differ. Cell saver was used in 20% (24) and was associated with longer OR time (296 versus 200 min, p < .01). Use of cell saver was not associated with a difference in EBL or number of units of packed red cells transfused. All analyses were adjusted for pathologic severity of invasion.
Conclusions: Intravascular interventions such as uterine artery balloons and the inclusion of Gynecologic Oncologists as part of a multidisciplinary approach to treating PAS reduce EBL. Additionally, the placement of intravascular balloons may reduce OR time. No significant differences were seen in outcomes when comparing the use of ureteral stents, general anesthesia, or institutions. A team of experienced operators with a standard approach may be more significant than specific practices.