Frequency of Maternal Morbidities in Patients with Placenta Previa - A Prospective Single-Centered Study in Hazara Division.
Keywords:
Antepartum Hemorrhage, Pregnancy Complication, Obstetric Trauma, Placenta Previa, Maternal MortalityAbstract
OBJECTIVES
The study aimed to determine the maternal morbidities in patients with placenta previa in a tertiary care hospital. Moreover, patients’ risk factors and outcomes will also be accessed as secondary outcomes.
METHODOLOGY
This prospective cross-sectional study was undertaken at Ayub Teaching Hospital Abbottabad from January 2022 to July 2024. Any pregnant patients carrying the ultrasound diagnosis of placenta previa in an emergency or the ward were included in the study. A non-randomized convenience technique was applied for sample collection. Patients with other placental anomalies, such as placenta accreta, were excluded from the current study. The data was analyzed in SPSS version 21, and significance was kept below 0.005.
RESULTS
In the present study, 104 cases of placenta previa were recruited, among which 76(73%) patients fall in the age range between 24 and 34 years. The incidence of major placenta previa was observed in 76/104 cases. In 86% of cases, obstetric trauma was observed, and in 54 (52%) cases, purpureal sepsis was recorded. The purpureal sepsis was 10/36(28%) in patients with tamponade placement and 8/36(22%) in APH patients with a significance of 0.001. Presentation with antepartum hemorrhage was seen in 67% of cases (8/12) in the age group < 20 years. The maternal mortality was 2%.
CONCLUSION
The complication rate was relatively higher than reported in previous studies. The rate of morbidity can be minimized by following a multi-disciplinary approach. The cases should be managed in settings with ICU care and blood bank facilities.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Kim JJ, Gean AD: Imaging for the diagnosis and management of traumatic brain injury. Neurotherapeutics. 2011, 8:39-53
Ganeshan D, Duong PA, Probyn L, et al.: Structured reporting in radiology. Academic radiology. 20181, 25:66-73
Carney E, Kempf J, DeCarvalho V, Yudd A, Nosher J: Preliminary interpretations of after-hours CT and sonography by radiology residents versus final interpretations by body imaging radiologists at a level 1 trauma center. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2003, 181:367-73
Guérin G, Jamali S, Soto CA, Guilbert F, Raymond J: Interobserver agreement in the interpretation of outpatient head CT scans in an academic neuroradiology practice. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 20151, 36:24-9
Erly WK, Berger WG, Krupinski E, Seeger JF, Guisto JA: Radiology resident evaluation of head CT scan orders in the emergency department. American journal of neuroradiology. 2002, 23:103-7
Wu MZ, McInnes MD, Blair Macdonald D, Kielar AZ, Duigenan S: CT in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of interpretation discrepancy rates. Radiology. 2014, 270:717-35
Babiarz LS, Yousem DM: Quality control in neuroradiology: discrepancies in image interpretation among academic neuroradiologists. American journal of neuroradiology. 20121, 33:37-42
McCoubrie P, FitzGerald R: Commentary on discrepancies in discrepancy meetings. Clinical Radiology. 20141, 69:11-2
Tamjeedi B, Correa J, Semionov A, Mesurolle B: Interobserver agreement between on-call radiology resident and general radiologist interpretations of CT pulmonary angiograms and CT venograms. PLoS One. 2015, 4:0126116.
Khorasani R, Bates DW, Teeger S, et al.: Is terminology used effectively to convey diagnostic certainty in radiology reports?. Acad Radiol. 2000, 7:1091-8
Vaattovaara E, Nikki M, Nevalainen M, Ilmarinen M, Tervonen O: Discrepancies in interpretation of nighttime emergency computed tomography scans by radiology residents. Acta Radiologica Open. 2018, 7:2058460118807234
Waite S, Grigorian A, Alexander RG, Macknik SL, Carrasco M, Heeger DJ, Martinez-Conde S: Analysis of perceptual expertise in radiology-Current knowledge and a new perspective. Frontiers in human neuroscience. 2019, 25:213
Geijer H, Geijer M: Added value of double reading in diagnostic radiology, a systematic review. Insights into imaging. 2018, 9:287-301
Zwaan L, Kok EM, van der Gijp A: Radiology education: a radiology curriculum for all medical students?. Diagnosis. 20171, 4:185-9
Johnson AJ, Chen MY, Swan JS, Applegate KE, Littenberg B: Cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation. Radiology. 2009, 253:74-80
Goldberg-Stein S, Chernyak V: Adding value in radiology reporting. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 20191, 16:1292-8
Richardson ML, Garwood ER, Lee Y, Li MD, Lo HS, Nagaraju A, Nguyen XV: Probyn L, Rajiah P, Sin J, Wasnik AP. Noninterpretive uses of artificial intelligence in radiology. Academic Radiology. 2021, 1:1225-35
Mutasa S, Sun S, Ha R. Understanding artificial intelligence based radiology studies: What is overfitting?. Clinical imaging. 2020 Sep 1;65:96-9
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Mohsin Khan, Naima Khan, Shehla Noor, Ahtezaz Hussain, Hameed Ur Rahman, Sadia Irshad, Faiza Khan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
