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

K E Fitzpatrick, S Sellers, P Spark, J J Kurinczuk, P Brocklehurst, M Knight, K E Fitzpatrick, S Sellers, P Spark, J J Kurinczuk, P Brocklehurst, M Knight

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 Obstetric Surveillance System (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.

Keywords: Abnormal placental adherence; haemorrhage; placenta accreta/increta/percreta.

© 2013 RCOG.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Placenta accreta, increta, or percreta cases, according to whether they were suspected of having this condition antenatally, whether an attempt was made to remove any of the placenta around the time of delivery, and whether a hysterectomy was subsequently performed. *Does not add up to total number of cases—data on whether placenta accreta/increta/percreta suspected antenatally missing for one woman. This woman had an attempt to remove her placenta around the time of delivery and did not have a hysterectomy performed.

References

    1. Oyelese Y, Smulian JC. Placenta previa, placenta accreta, and vasa previa. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:927–41.
    1. Bauer ST, Bonanno C. Abnormal placentation. Semin Perinatol. 2009;33:88–96.
    1. Timmermans S, van Hof AC, Duvekot JJ. Conservative management of abnormally invasive placentation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2007;62:529–39.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. Eller AG, Porter TF, Soisson P, Silver RM. Optimal management strategies for placenta accreta. BJOG. 2009;116:648–54.
    1. Knight M, Kurinczuk JJ, Tuffnell D, Brocklehurst P. The UK Obstetric Surveillance System for rare disorders of pregnancy. BJOG. 2005;112:263–5.
    1. Office for National Statistics. Birth Summary Tables, England and Wales 2010. Newport: Office for National Statistics; 2011.
    1. General Register Office for Scotland. Vital Events Reference Tables 2010. Edinburgh: General Register Office for Scotland; 2011.
    1. Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. Registrar General Annual Report 2010. Belfast: Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency; 2011.
    1. 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.
    1. Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries. Perinatal Mortality 2008. London: Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries; 2010.
    1. Knight M, Kurinczuk JJ, Spark P, Brocklehurst P. Cesarean delivery and peripartum hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:97–105.
    1. 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.
    1. Comstock CH. Antenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;26:89–96.
    1. Fitzpatrick KE, Sellers S, Spark P, Kurinczuk JJ, Brocklehurst P, Knight M. Incidence and risk factors for placenta accreta/increta/percreta in the UK: a national case-control study. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e52893.
    1. 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.
    1. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Green-top Guideline No. 27: Placenta Praevia, Placenta Praevia Accreta and Vasa Praevia: Diagnosis and Management. London: RCOG; 2011.
    1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice Bulletin: Clinical Management Guidelines for Obstetrician-Gynecologists Number 76, October 2006: postpartum hemorrhage. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:1039–47.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever