The management and outcomes of placenta accreta, increta, and percreta in the UK : a population‐based descriptive study

Abstract

Objective To describe the management and outcomes of placenta accreta, increta, and percreta in the UK . Design A population‐based descriptive study using the UK O bstetric S urveillance S ystem ( UKOSS ). Setting All 221 UK hospitals with obstetrician‐led maternity units. Population All women diagnosed with placenta accreta, increta, and percreta in the UK between May 2010 and April 2011. Methods Prospective case identification through the monthly mailing of UKOSS . Main outcome measures Median estimated blood loss, transfusion requirements. Results A cohort of 134 women were identified with placenta accreta, increta, or percreta: 50% (66/133) were suspected to have this condition antenatally. In women with a final diagnosis of placenta increta or percreta, antenatal diagnosis was associated with reduced levels of haemorrhage (median estimated blood loss 2750 versus 6100 ml, P = 0.008) and a reduced need for blood transfusion (59 versus 94%, P = 0.014), possibly because antenatally diagnosed women were more likely to have preventative therapies for haemorrhage (74 versus 52%, P = 0.007), and were less likely to have an attempt made to remove their placenta (59 versus 93%, P < 0.001). Making no attempt to remove any of the placenta, in an attempt to conserve the uterus or prior to hysterectomy, was associated with reduced levels of haemorrhage (median estimated blood loss 1750 versus 3700 ml, P = 0.001) and a reduced need for blood transfusion (57 versus 86%, P < 0.001). Conclusions Women with placenta accreta, increta, or percreta who have no attempt to remove any of their placenta, with the aim of conserving their uterus, or prior to hysterectomy, have reduced levels of haemorrhage and a reduced need for blood transfusion, supporting the recommendation of this practice.

Shown for reading. Its publisher allows quoting it, not republishing it.

References 21

1. 1.

   Oyelese Y, Smulian JC. Placenta previa, placenta accreta, and vasa previa. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:927-41.

   Not in our library10.1097/01.aog.0000207559.15715.98

2. 2.

   Bauer ST, Bonanno C. Abnormal placentation. Semin Perinatol. 2009;33:88-96.

   Not in our library10.1053/j.semperi.2008.12.003

3. 3.

   Timmermans S, van Hof AC, Duvekot JJ. Conservative management of abnormally invasive placentation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2007;62:529-39.

   Not in our library10.1097/01.ogx.0000271133.27011.05

4. 4.

   Kayem G, Davy C, Goffinet F, Thomas C, Clement D, Cabrol D. Conservative versus extirpative management in cases of placenta accreta. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:531-6.

   Not in our library10.1097/01.aog.0000136086.78099.0f

5. 5.

   Bretelle F, Courbiere B, Mazouni C, Agostini A, Cravello L, Boubli L, et al. Management of placenta accreta: morbidity and outcome. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007;133:34-9.

   Not in our library10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.07.050

6. 6.

   Eller AG, Porter TF, Soisson P, Silver RM. Optimal management strategies for placenta accreta. BJOG. 2009;116:648-54.

   Not in our library10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.02037.x

7. 7.

   Knight M, Kurinczuk JJ, Tuffnell D, Brocklehurst P. The UK Obstetric Surveillance System for rare disorders of pregnancy. BJOG. 2005;112:263-5.

   Not in our library10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00609.x

8. 8.

   Birth Summary Tables, England and Wales 2010. 2011.

   Not in our library

9. 9.

   Vital Events Reference Tables 2010. 2011.

   Not in our library

10. 10.

    Registrar General Annual Report 2010. 2011.

    Not in our library

11. 11.

    Lucas DN, Yentis SM, Kinsella SM, Holdcroft A, May AE, Wee M, et al. Urgency of caesarean section: a new classification. J R Soc Med. 2000;93:346-50.

    Not in our library10.1177/014107680009300703

12. 12.

    Perinatal Mortality 2008. 2010.

    Not in our library

13. 13.

    Knight M, Kurinczuk JJ, Spark P, Brocklehurst P. Cesarean delivery and peripartum hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:97-105.

    Not in our library10.1097/01.aog.0000296658.83240.6d

14. 14.

    Knight M, Nelson-Piercy C, Kurinczuk JJ, Spark P, Brocklehurst P. A prospective national study of acute fatty liver of pregnancy in the UK. Gut. 2008;57:951-6.

    Not in our library10.1136/gut.2008.148676

15. 15.

    Comstock CH. Antenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;26:89-96.

    Not in our library10.1002/uog.1926

16. 16.
    Incidence and Risk Factors for Placenta Accreta/Increta/Percreta in the UK: A National Case-Control Study · 2012

    No notice
17. 17.

    Lax A, Prince MR, Mennitt KW, Schwebach JR, Budorick NE. The value of specific MRI features in the evaluation of suspected placental invasion. Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25:87-93.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.mri.2006.10.007

18. 18.

    Green-top Guideline No. 27: Placenta Praevia, Placenta Praevia Accreta and Vasa Praevia: Diagnosis and Management. 2011.

    Not in our library

19. 19.

    Practice Bulletin: Clinical Management Guidelines for Obstetrician-Gynecologists Number 76, October 2006: postpartum hemorrhage. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:1039-47.

    Not in our library10.1097/00006250-200610000-00046

20. 20.

    Sentilhes L, Ambroselli C, Kayem G, Provansal M, Fernandez H, Perrotin F, et al. Maternal outcome after conservative treatment of placenta accreta. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115:526-34.

    Not in our library10.1097/aog.0b013e3181d066d4

21. 21.

    Sentilhes L, Kayem G, Ambroselli C, Provansal M, Fernandez H, Perrotin F, et al. Fertility and pregnancy outcomes following conservative treatment for placenta accreta. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:2803-10.

    Not in our library10.1093/humrep/deq239

Cited by papers we hold 3

• Placenta Accreta Spectrum Disorder in a Patient with Six Previous Caesarean Deliveries: Step by Step Management · 2021
  Not checked
• Placenta Accreta Spectrum: A Review of Pathology, Molecular Biology, and Biomarkers · 2018
  No notice
• Clinical Analysis of Postpartum Hemorrhage Requiring Massive Transfusions at a Tertiary Center · 2017
  Not checked

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.