Pekar Zlotin Marina, Sharabi-Nov Adi, Meiri Hamutal, Revivo Perry Eliassi, Melcer Yakkov, Maymon Ron, Jauniaux Eric
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Yitzhak Shamir Medical Center, Be'er Ya'akov, Israel (Dr Pekar Zlotin, Dr Eliassi Revivo, and Dr Maymon); School of Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel (Dr Pekar Zlotin, Dr Eliassi Revivo, and Dr Maymon).
Department of Statistics, Tel-Hai Academic College, Tel Hai, Israel (Dr Sharabi-Nov); Ziv Medical Center, Safed, Israel (Dr Sharabi-Nov).
Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2024 Aug;6(8):101369. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101369. Epub 2024 Apr 16.
Clinical-sonographic scoring systems combining clinical features and ultrasound imaging markers have been proposed for the screening of placenta accreta spectrum, but their usefulness in different settings remains limited. This study aimed to assess and compare different clinical-sonographic score systems applied from mid-pregnancy for the prenatal evaluation of patients at risk of placenta accreta spectrum at birth.
PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Embase were searched between October 1982 and October 2022 to identify eligible studies.
Observational studies providing data on the use of a combined clinical-ultrasound score system applied from mid-pregnancy for the prenatal evaluation of placenta accreta spectrum were included.
Study characteristics were evaluated by 2 independent reviewers using a predesigned protocol registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022332486). Heterogeneity among studies was analyzed with Cochran's Q-test and I statistics. Statistical heterogeneity was quantified by estimating the variance between the studies using I statistics. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of each score and their summary receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated with sensitivity and specificity, and the integrated score of the summaries of the receiver operating characteristic curves of all sonographic markers was calculated. Forest plots were used to develop the meta-analysis of each sonographic marker and for the integrated sonographic score.
Of 1028 articles reviewed, 12 cohorts and 2 case-control studies including 1630 patients screened for placenta accreta spectrum by clinical-ultrasound scores met the eligibility criteria. A diagnosis of placenta accreta spectrum was reported in 602 (36.9%) cases, for which 547 (90.9%) intraoperative findings and/or histopathologic data were described. A wide variation was observed among the studies in reported sensitivities and specificities and in thresholds used for the identification of patients with a high probability of placenta accreta spectrum at birth. The summaries of the areas under the curve of the individual sonographic scores ranged from 0.85 (the lowest) for subplacental hypervascularity to 0.91 for placental location in the lower uterine segment, myometrial thinning, and placental lacunae and 0.95 for the loss of clear zone. Only 4 studies included placental bulging in their sonographic score system, and therefore no meta-analysis for this score was performed. The integrated summary of the areas under the curve was 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 79-0.86). Forest plot analysis revealed integrated sensitivities and specificities of 0.68 (95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.80) and 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.96), respectively.
Clinical-sonographic score systems can contribute to the prenatal screening of patients at risk of placenta accreta spectrum at birth. Although we included multiple sonographic studies conducted during the mid-pregnancy period, standardized evaluation should be performed not only with strict ultrasound criteria for the placental position, mid third trimester gestational age at examination, and sonographic markers associated with PAS. Numeric sensitivities, specificities, NPVs, PPV, LR-, and LR+ should be recorded prospectively to assess their accuracy in different set-ups and PTP should be verified at delivery. The variables recommended for most predictive screening are: loss of clear zone underneath the placental bed, placentation in the LUS, and placenta lacunae.
已提出结合临床特征和超声成像标志物的临床超声评分系统用于胎盘植入谱系的筛查,但其在不同情况下的实用性仍然有限。本研究旨在评估和比较从孕中期开始应用的不同临床超声评分系统,用于对出生时存在胎盘植入谱系风险的患者进行产前评估。
在1982年10月至2022年10月期间检索了PubMed/MEDLINE、谷歌学术和Embase,以确定符合条件的研究。
纳入观察性研究,这些研究提供了关于从孕中期开始应用的临床-超声联合评分系统用于胎盘植入谱系产前评估的数据。
研究特征由2名独立评审员使用在PROSPERO(CRD42022332486)上注册的预先设计的方案进行评估。研究间的异质性用Cochran's Q检验和I统计量进行分析。通过使用I统计量估计研究间的方差来量化统计异质性。用敏感性和特异性计算每个评分的受试者操作特征曲线下面积及其汇总受试者操作特征曲线,并计算所有超声标志物的受试者操作特征曲线汇总的综合评分。森林图用于对每个超声标志物和综合超声评分进行荟萃分析。
在审查的1028篇文章中,12个队列研究和2个病例对照研究(包括1630例通过临床-超声评分筛查胎盘植入谱系的患者)符合纳入标准。602例(36.9%)病例报告了胎盘植入谱系的诊断,其中547例(90.9%)描述了术中发现和/或组织病理学数据。在报告的敏感性、特异性以及用于识别出生时胎盘植入谱系高概率患者的阈值方面,研究之间存在很大差异。各个超声评分的曲线下面积汇总范围从胎盘下血管增多的0.85(最低)到子宫下段胎盘位置、子宫肌层变薄、胎盘腔隙的0.91以及清晰区消失的0.95。只有4项研究在其超声评分系统中纳入了胎盘隆起,因此未对该评分进行荟萃分析。曲线下面积的综合汇总为0.83(95%置信区间,0.79 - 0.86)。森林图分析显示综合敏感性和特异性分别为0.68(95%置信区间,0.53 - 0.80)和0.88(95%置信区间,0.68 - 0.96)。
临床超声评分系统有助于对出生时存在胎盘植入谱系风险的患者进行产前筛查。尽管我们纳入了多项在孕中期进行的超声研究,但不仅应根据严格的超声标准对胎盘位置、孕晚期检查时的孕周以及与胎盘植入谱系相关的超声标志物进行标准化评估。应前瞻性记录数值敏感性、特异性、阴性预测值、阳性预测值、似然比 - 和似然比 +,以评估它们在不同情况下的准确性,并且应在分娩时验证预测值阳性率。大多数预测性筛查推荐的变量是:胎盘床下方清晰区消失、子宫下段胎盘植入以及胎盘腔隙。