Literature DB >> 29572089

Magnetic resonance imaging is often misleading when used as an adjunct to ultrasound in the management of placenta accreta spectrum disorders.

Brett D Einerson1, Christina E Rodriguez2, Anne M Kennedy3, Paula J Woodward3, Meghan A Donnelly2, Robert M Silver4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging is reported to have good sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of placenta accreta spectrum disorders, and is often used as an adjunct to ultrasound. But the additional utility of obtaining magnetic resonance imaging to assist in the clinical management of patients with placenta accreta spectrum disorders, above and beyond the information provided by ultrasound, is unknown.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether magnetic resonance imaging provides data that may inform clinical management by changing the sonographic diagnosis of placenta accreta spectrum disorders. STUDY
DESIGN: In all, 78 patients with sonographic evidence or clinical suspicion of placenta accreta spectrum underwent magnetic resonance imaging of the abdomen and pelvis in orthogonal planes through the uterus utilizing T1- and T2-weighted imaging sequences at the University of Utah and the University of Colorado from 1997 through 2017. The magnetic resonance imaging was interpreted by radiologists with expertise in diagnosis of placenta accreta spectrum who had knowledge of the sonographic interpretation and clinical risk factors for placenta accreta spectrum disorders. The primary outcome was a change in diagnosis from sonographic interpretation that could alter clinical management, which was defined a priori. Diagnostic accuracy was verified by surgical and histopathologic diagnosis at the time of delivery.
RESULTS: A change in diagnosis that could potentially alter clinical management occurred in 28 (36%) cases. Magnetic resonance imaging correctly changed the diagnosis in 15 (19%), and correctly confirmed the diagnosis in 34 (44%), but resulted in an incorrect change in diagnosis in 13 (17%), and an incorrect confirmation of ultrasound diagnosis in 15 (21%). Magnetic resonance imaging was not more likely to change a diagnosis in the 24 cases of posterior and lateral placental location compared to anterior location (33% vs 37%, P = .84). Magnetic resonance imaging resulted in overdiagnosis in 23% and in underdiagnosis in 14% of all cases. When ultrasound suspected severe disease (percreta) in 14 cases, magnetic resonance imaging changed the diagnosis in only 2 cases. Lastly, the proportion of accurate diagnosis with magnetic resonance imaging did not improve over time (61-65%, P = .96 for trend) despite increasing volume and increasing numbers of changed diagnoses.
CONCLUSION: Magnetic resonance imaging resulted in a change in diagnosis that could alter clinical management of placenta accreta spectrum disorders in more than one third of cases, but when changed, the diagnosis was often incorrect. Given its high cost and limited clinical value, magnetic resonance imaging should not be used routinely as an adjunct to ultrasound in the diagnosis of placenta accreta spectrum until evidence for utility is clearly demonstrated by more definitive prospective studies.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  abnormal placentation; accreta; diagnosis; magnetic resonance imaging

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29572089     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.03.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  9 in total

1.  Magnetic resonance imaging for placenta accreta: hope for the future.

Authors:  Grace Lim; Marc Lim; Jeanne M Horowitz
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2019-07-24       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Diagnostic performance of radiologists with different levels of experience in the interpretation of MRI of the placenta accreta spectrum disorder.

Authors:  Caroline Lorenzoni Almeida Ghezzi; Cristiano Kohler Silva; Aline Spader Casagrande; Stephanie Sander Westphalen; Cristiano Caetano Salazar; Janete Vettorazzi
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-09-24       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Performance of antenatal imaging to predict placenta accreta spectrum degree of severity.

Authors:  Olivier Morel; Heleen J van Beekhuizen; Thorsten Braun; Sally Collins; Petra Pateisky; Pavel Calda; Wolfgang Henrich; Ammar Al Naimi; Lone Nikoline Norgaardt; Kinga M Chalubinski; Loic Sentilhes; Boris Tutschek; Alexander Schwickert; Vedran Stefanovic; Charline Bertholdt
Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 4.544

Review 4.  A Literature Review of Placenta Accreta Spectrum Disorder: The Place of Expectant Management in Ethiopian Setup.

Authors:  Yifru Berhan; Tadesse Urgie
Journal:  Ethiop J Health Sci       Date:  2020-03

5.  Performance comparison of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in their diagnostic accuracy of placenta accreta spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Shibin Hong; Yiping Le; Ka U Lio; Ting Zhang; Yu Zhang; Ning Zhang
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2022-03-22

Review 6.  Pregnancy-Related Hysterectomy for Peripartum Hemorrhage: A Literature Narrative Review of the Diagnosis, Management, and Techniques.

Authors:  Dimitrios Tsolakidis; Dimitrios Zouzoulas; George Pados
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 3.411

7.  Protrusion of placental tissue through the cervical os as an unusual presentation of placenta accreta: A case report.

Authors:  Anna Marie Pacheco Young; Katelyn Uribe; Angela K Shaddeau
Journal:  Case Rep Womens Health       Date:  2021-06-10

8.  Comparison between abdominal ultrasound and nuclear magnetic resonance imaging detection of placenta accreta in the second and third trimester of pregnancy.

Authors:  Hui Xia; Shu-Cheng Ke; Rong-Rong Qian; Ji-Guang Lin; Yang Li; Xia Zhang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 1.817

9.  Circulating trophoblast cell clusters for early detection of placenta accreta spectrum disorders.

Authors:  Yalda Afshar; Jiantong Dong; Pan Zhao; Lei Li; Shan Wang; Ryan Y Zhang; Ceng Zhang; Ophelia Yin; Christina S Han; Brett D Einerson; Tania L Gonzalez; Huirong Zhang; Anqi Zhou; Zhuo Yang; Shih-Jie Chou; Na Sun; Ju Cheng; Henan Zhu; Jing Wang; Tiffany X Zhang; Yi-Te Lee; Jasmine J Wang; Pai-Chi Teng; Peng Yang; Dongping Qi; Meiping Zhao; Myung-Shin Sim; Ruilian Zhe; Jeffrey D Goldstein; John Williams; Xietong Wang; Qingying Zhang; Lawrence D Platt; Chang Zou; Margareta D Pisarska; Hsian-Rong Tseng; Yazhen Zhu
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2021-08-03       Impact factor: 17.694

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.