11/15/2017
1
Can we predict the behavior of a desired CSP? Over the Scar? Into the Scar/niche?
Can we link US features to prognosis yet?
Ilan E Timor-Tritsch MD
New York University Department of OB/Gyn
26th Annual Advanced US for the Practicing Ob/Gyn 2017
Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: Update 2017
I have no conflicts of interest
Cesarean Rates (per 1,000 births),
Industrialized Countries,1990-2004
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Italy
U.S.
Germany
Netherlands
Denmark
UK
Source: OECD Health Data 2006
AbnornallyImplanted Placenta
1994-2002: 1 in 2000-2500
0.8 /1000
3 /1000
SMFM Clinical Opinion. Placenta accreta. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203:430–9.
• True incidence is not known
• ≈1 in 2000-2500 cesarean deliveries
• Rate closely related C/D rates
• 52% of CSPs had only one prior C/D
• The more previous C/D, the more CSP, the more placenta previa and accreta
Rotas MA et al, Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107: 1373-7.Jurkovic D et al, Obstet Gynecol 2003; 21: 220-7. Lin EP et et al, RadioGraphics 2008; 28:1661–1671Wu S et al, Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:1458-61Miller DA et al, Am J Obstet gynecol 1997; 177:210
CSP is a man made disease
Timor-Tritsch & Monteagudo
P l a c e n t a a c c r e t a or C/S scar pregnancy
Histological slide: courtesy:of Dr. Mittal, Dept Path NYU
Let us examine the faulty implantation in a more detailed
fashion
What is the trophoblast and what does it accomplish?
11/15/2017
2
Trophoblasts (from Greek trephein: to feed, and blastos: germinator) are cells forming the outer layer of a
blastocyst, which provide nutrients to the embryo develop into a large part of the placenta. They are formed during
the first stage of pregnancy and are the first cells to differentiate from the fertilized egg
Sequence of events after fertilization
• Normal implantation involves invasion of the uterine wall by two subgroups of extravilloustrophoblast:
- the interstitial trophoblast invades through the endometrium and the superficial one-third of the myometrium.
- the endovascular trophoblast invades and remodels the maternal spiral arterioles *.
The Extravillous Trophoblasts appear, differentiate and start invading the decidua
*Tantbirojn et al, Placenta 2008; 29:639
In early pregnancy, trophoblast cells invade the the uterus, where they transform spiral arteries to ensure the enhanced delivery of
blood to the developing fetus at a low pressure
Carolin Melati OefnerResearch Email: [email protected]
E. Jauniaux, D. Jurkovic / Placenta 33 (2012) 244e251Fetomaternal immune cross-talk and its consequences for maternal and offspring's healthPetra C Arck & Kurt Hecher Nature Medicine 2013
N I t a b u c h’s F i b r I n o I d L a y e r
11/15/2017
3
• Propose that the extent of uterine wall ‘‘invasion’’ by placental villi (and resulting accreta vs. increta and percreta) may be dependent on the depth of the scar.
And that “placenta increta and percreta are not due to a further invasion of extravillous trophoblast in the uterine wall, rather they likely arise secondary to
dehiscence of a scar, leading to the presence of
chorionic villi deep within the uterine wall, and thus give extravillous trophoblast greater access to the deep myometrium”.
Is there an entity, such as placenta accreta/percreta in the
1st ∆ of the pregnancy?
• In the 1st trimester placental invasion can be identified if the sac is implanted in the anterior lower uterine segment*and suggests the possibility of placenta accreta.
*Comstock CH, Lee W, IM Vettraino , RiA Bronsteen; The Early SonographicAppearance of Placenta Accreta. Ultrasound Med 2003; 22:19–23
7w3d
Cx
Is there an entity, such as placenta accreta/percreta in the
2nd ∆ of the pregnancy?
*Comstock CH et al, Sonographic detection of placenta accreta in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. AJOG 2004;190: 1135–40.**Timor-Trisch IE, Monteagudo A, Santos R, Tsymbal T, Pineda G, Arslan AA. The diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of cesarean scar pregnancy. AJO G 2012;207:44. e1–13.
Image at 14weeks.
Ruptured several weeks later.
Histology: Percreta
• In the early 2nd trimester US findings may be seen as early as 13-18 weeks**
In the second trimester there is high risk for complications
11/15/2017
4
Bl
Bl
15w2d
Bl
17w 2d 20 w
9w2d
6
Bl
Ilan Timor-Tritsch and Anthony Vintzileos MD Courtesy Dr Anthony Vintzileos
17 weeks. C/S x3. Placenta previa, placenta percreta, large fundal hematoma.
Courtesy Dr Mark Rebolo NYU Ob/Gyn Resident
Therefore the answer to the two questions is: YES! Placenta accreta and percreta can occur
in the 1st and early 2nd trimester
These observations are based upon:
• -- Reports of massive hemorrhage during D&C
• -- Histology of MAP in the involved uteri*
• -- Reports of proven 1st ∆ US and subsequent histology of MAP in the near term placenta
--Wolcot RJ et al 1987; Ecker JL et al 1992; Walter AJ et al 1999; Gherman RB et al 1999--Comstock CH et al . JUM 2003--Ballas J et al . JUM 2012--Timor-Trisch IE, Monteagudo A, Santos R, Tsymbal T, Pineda G, Arslan AA. The diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of cesarean scar pregnancy. AJO G 2012;207:44. --Timor-Tritsch & Monteagudo
• CSP is a precursor of MAP,
• There is now ample evidence that can be used to counsel patients with CSP, to enable them to make an informed choice between a 1st∆ TOP and continuation of the pregnancy, with its risk of premature delivery and loss of uterus and fertility.
• The question is: how accurate can we be?
The conclusion in the literature is that :
Timor-Tritsch, Monteagudo, Cali et al UOG 2014
Additional literature support for the fact that CSP is one of the precursors of placenta accreta
:46:367-375
Timor-Tritsch & Monteagudo
J Ultrasound Med 2016; 35:263–269 |
• Ten patient with CSP progressed to attempt delivery of a live neonat
• 9 succeeded
• All then had hysterectomies
• All ten had AIP
11/15/2017
5
Over the last several years it became obvious, that not all CSPs
resulted in MAP • Ten patients diagnosed with CSP
• All ten delivered live neonates
• Only 5 resulted in MAP leading to hysterectomy
The next question is: can we predict which CSPs will become MAP and
which will not
And if we can predict MAP, at what point (GA) can we diagnose
a placenta that will be pathologically adherent
First: the correct diagnosis has to be established
• Use mainly high frequency TVS!
• Transabdominal US may help
• Contrary to all the publications of using MRI, please disregard them and trust your transvaginal US!
“3. Triangular” shaped gestational sac*
1. No fetal parts in the uterine cavity or cervix 2. Thin myometrial layer between the bladder and & gestational sac
4. Gestational sac close to the bladder and anterior uterine wall
5. Rarely: A-V malformation at the site of a CS
Step 1A: For the correct diagnosis apply the sonodefinition of scar pregnancy
11/15/2017
6
Step 1B. For the correct diagnosis determine the location of the gestational
sac in the uterus
If the gestational sac is below it: suspect a CSP or a cervical
pregnancy. Counsel accordingly
If the gestational sac is above it: it is mostly a normal implantation
Sensitivity = 93.0%,
Specificity = 98.9%,
PPV = 96.4%,
NPV = 97.9%.
On a panoramic, longitudinal, sagittal scan determine the locationof the gestational sac. Divide the uterus in half by an imaginary line
Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;215:225
UOG 2017
CSO2+
CSO2-
CSO1
If you combine the two methods to diagnose CSP…….
• Antero-Inferior Uterine ‘CSP risk’ Triangle
‘Timor line’ ‘Cali line’
Not published!
Step #2 : measure bladder-to-sac distance
Measure bladder-to-sac distance
• Rarely is there information about bladder-to-sac distance or overlying myometrial thickness
• The literature is not only confusing as to the sac location, but…..
• Furthermore , usually there is no distinction between “gestational sac” and “placenta”
• Lastly, there is rarely any mention about location of placental vascularization
11/15/2017
7
To correctly measure the sac-to-bladder distance, we need a precise
definition of implantation, since it may determine outcome
Sporadically, but increasingly, we hear and read that there may be a
distinction between implantation “on the scar tissue” and “in the niche
(dehiscence)”
On the scar or in the “niche”….??• The literature is confusing as to location of the sac:
– ON the scar with a chance to proceed to 3rd ∆ (so called “low lying sacs”)
– IN the niche, SURROUNDED by myometrium, seldomproceeds to term (so called “true” CSPs)
• Confusing??……….TRUE: Differentiation at time is very hard
• Recent reviews of ‘scar pregnancies’ include both types because both were managed by injection & D&C.
--Surapanini K, Silberzweig JE. Cesarean section scar diverticulum: appearance on hysterosalpingography. Am J Roentgenol 2008;190:870–4.--Jurkovic D, Hillaby K, Woelfer B, Lawrence A, Salim R, Elson CJ. First-trimester diagnosis and management of pregnancies implanted into the lower uterine segment Cesarean section scar. UOG 2003;21:220–7.-- Comstock CH, Bronsteen RA. The antenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta. BJOG 2014;121:171–182--Timor-Trisch IE, Monteagudo A, Santos R, Tsymbal T, Pineda G, Arslan AA. The diagnosis, treatment and
follow-up of cesarean scar pregnancy. AJOG 2012;207:44. e1–13.
Hard to detect any organization • Comstock: “Low lying: versus--surrounded
by myometrium”
-- Comstock CH, Bronsteen RA. The antenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta. BJOG 2014;121:171–182-- Twickler DM, Lucas MJ, Balis AB, et al. Color flow mapping for myometrial invasion in women with a prior cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Med2000; 9:330–335.Does the presence of a Caesarean section scar affect implantation site and early pregnancy outcome in women attending an early pregnancy assessment unit?--Naji O, Wynants L, Smith A, Abdallah Y, Saso S, Stalder C, Van Huffel S, Ghaem-Maghami S, Van Calster B, Timmerman D, Bourne T.Hum Reprod. 2013 Jun;28(6):1489-96.Sonographic Findings of Morbidly Adherent Placenta in the First Trimester--Rac MW, Moschos E, Wells CE, McIntire DD, Dashe JS, Twickler DM.J Ultrasound Med. 2016 Feb;35(2):263-9
• Twickler: < 1mm predicted MAP
• Naji: away from scar, close to scar, crossing the scar, inside the scar (CSP)
• Rac: smallest anterior myometrial thickness
on 1st ∆ sonography significantly improved detection of morbidly adherent placenta.
Here is my understanding of the issue of implantation after years of observations
of adherence disorders and cesarean scar pregnancies:
It is clear that there is no uniform and agreed upon definition of the type
and depth of implantation placental and its correlation to outcome
My definition of EARLY sonographic appearance: Placenta implanted …”on the scar”…
7w4d
} Scar CxCavity
Gest sac
The relevant thickness has yet to be determined
8w2d
My definition of EARLY sonographic appearance: Placenta implanted ..…”in the niche”…
11/15/2017
8
ALWAYSstay focused upon the proximity of theplacenta to the anterior uterine surface
or the bladder
Have you ever looked at the location of the SAC in CSPs mainly after 7-8 weeks being half-way
in the uterine cavity?
7w4d 8w2d
Rely on the patient’s Hx, location of the placentaand its vascular supply!!
At times (mostly after 7 weeks) the location of the sac may be misleading.
It is still a scar pregnancy!!
Pregnancy with placenta implanted in the niche of the previous C/S
Bladder
6 weeks7 weeks9 weeks
Cervix
Pregnancy growing with sac moving towards the uterine cavity
Pregnancy growing fully into uterine cavity. Placenta with vessels stays anchored within the niche
We tried to learn if there is a difference in pregnancy outcome as a function of the distance between the
gestational sac and the anterior uterine surface/bladder
Prognostic signs based upon the depth of implantation
It is suspected that CSPs implanted within a dehiscent scar (“niche”) behave differently compared to CSPs implanted on top of a thick fibrous scar.
No such studies are available
We assessed the natural development and pregnancy outcomes of CSP implanted either “on the scar” or “in the niche”.
Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;215:510
• Retrospective, multi-center study of 17 CSP patients between 5-9 wks
• Group A: “on the scar” = 6 patients
• Group B: “in the niche” = 11 patients
• Measured: Myometrial thickness overlying the placenta
• Compared: gestational age and mode of delivery, blood loss at delivery, neonate weight and
placental histopathology.
11/15/2017
9
Cesarean scar pregnancy implanted “on the scar”
KAELIN AGTEN A., CALI G., MONTEAGUDO A., OVIEDO J. TIMOR-TRITSCH I.E. he clinical outcome of cesarean scar pregnancies implanted “on the scar” versus “in the niche. AJOG 2016
Cesarean scar pregnancies implanted “in the niche”.
KAELIN AGTEN A., CALI G., MONTEAGUDO A., OVIEDO J. TIMOR-TITSCH I.E. he clinical outcome of cesarean scar pregnancies implanted “on the scar” versus “in the niche. AJOG 2016
Example of a patient with CSP implanted “on the scar” with a normal placenta at delivery.
10 weeks 14 weeks
22 weeks 28 weeks 32 weeks
Example of a patient with CSP implanted “in the niche” with placenta percreta at delivery.
9 weeks 22 weeks
28 weeks
Parameter
Group A‘On scar’
Group B‘In niche’
P value
n 6 11
GA @ delivery (wks) 38 34 0.001
Mode of delivery 6 CD 1 with
MAP
10 CD all with
MAP
Cesarean hysterectomy
1 C-Hyst for
Morbidly Adhrent Plac
10 C-Hyst MAP
1 gravid hyst @ 20 weeks for bleeding
Est blood loss (ML) 700 1200 NS
Myometrial thickness @ the scar
5mm (range 4-9) 1mm (0-2) 0.001
MAP=Morbidly adherent placenta
Results
17 CSPs
KAELIN AGTEN A., CALI G., MONTEAGUDO A., OVIEDO J. TIMOR-TrITSCH I.E. he clinical outcome of cesarean scar pregnancies implanted “on the scar” versus “in the niche. AJOG 2016
What did we learn?
• Patients with CSP implanted “on the scar” had a substantial better outcome compared to patients with CSP “in the niche”.
• Myometrial thickness below 2mm in the 1st trimester US was associated with Morbidly Adherent Placenta at delivery.
11/15/2017
10
We tried to learn if there is a difference in pregnancy outcome as a
function of presence or absence detecting known and “classical”
sonographic characteristics of AIP
Prognostic ultrasound features based upon the “classical” US signs
of AIP
Are there classical US signs of AIP present already in the 1st trimester?
• First-- What are the “classical” signs of MAP/AIP in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters?:
– Low* anterior** implantation
– Lacunae
–No clear anechoic space
– Increased vascularity
–Altered bladder line
*Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Cali G, El Refaey H, Kaelin Agten A, Arslan AA.Easy sonographic differential diagnosis between intrauterine pregnancy and cesarean delivery scar pregnancy in the early first trimesterAm J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:225**Cali G, Forlani F, Timor-Tritsch IE, Palacios-Jaraquemada J, Minneci G, D'Antonio F.Natural history of Cesarean scar pregnancy on prenatal ultrasound: the crossover sign.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50:100-104.
Are there classical US signs of AIP present already in the 1st trimester?
• Look at the “classical” signs of MAP/AIP!:
*Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Cali G, El Refaey H, Kaelin Agten A, Arslan AA.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:225**Cali G, Forlani F, Timor-TritschIE, Palacios-Jaraquemada J, Minneci G, D'Antonio F. UO G. 2017;50:100-104.
Low* anterior** implantation
Lacunae
Altered bladder line
No clear anechoic space
Increased vascularity
10 weeks 1 day
Disappearance of the clear myometrial line
Large number of Lacunae
Unusually increased vascularity at the
placental insertion
Are there classical US signs of AIP present already in the 1st trimester?
Answer: Yes they are:
First trimester diagnosis of abnormally invasive placenta:a systematic review and meta-analysis• Objectives: to ascertain whether US signs suggestive of MAP
are present in the 1st Δ and they predict MAP
• Results: Nine studies (578 pregnancies at risk for MAP)
• At least one US sign suggestive of MAP was detected in 83.7% (95% CI 61.3-97.5) of cases with confirmed MAP
• Conclusions: US signs of MAP are already present during the 1st Δ, especially before 11 weeks of gestation and are those typical of a caesarean scar pregnancy (CPS).
• Low implantation of the sac was the most common US sign associated with MAP in the 1st Δ of pregnancy
D’Antonio1, Timor-Tritsch, Palacios-Jaraquemada, Monteagudo, Buca, Forlani, Minneci, Foti, Manzoli, Acharya, Calì. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2017 In Press
Are the classical US signs of AIP present already in the 1st trimester?
• In the first trimester :
Cali G, Forlani F, Timor-Tritsch IE, Palacios-Jaraquemada J, Minneci G, D'Antonio F.: Accepted UOG 2017.
Seen in 75-85%at 11-14w:
No clear anechoic space
Increased vascularity
Altered bladder line
Lacunae
Low, anterior implantation: seen in 100% at ≤10w
Cx
11/15/2017
11
Gray scale and color Doppler. Evolution of the placenta from CSP to MAP
10w 1d
16w 5d
23w 5d 24w 5d 36w 3d
Lacunae Vascularity
Conclusion
Over the last several years an increasing number of authors gathered significant experience that allows to provide evidence based counseling to patients presenting with a CSP
We are not yet at a point where we can translate the gained experience into reliable risk assessment
More research & clinical observations are needed in the form of an international CSP registry
We need to introduce routine US scanning at 6-8 weeks for all patients with a history of previous CS
Suggested management of CSPCSP
No FHFH +
Recheck q 3 days
No FH after 3 scans or at 7
wks by reliable dating
Follow by US and by hCGuntil zero!
Select aproprate Rx Stop heart without
delay: Inject; Double balloon:Hysterotomy or
Gravid hysterectomy?
Monitor hCG& US weekly. Watch for
possible EMV
Determine if placenta/ gestational sac is on the scar or in
the niche. MEASURE MYOMETRIAL THICKESS
Patientrequests
TOP
Patient interested in continuing pregnancy
Available evidence based counseling
“on the scar” or ≥ 5mm: low risk for MAP (accreta) and
cesarean hysterectomy
“in the niche” or ≤ 5mm: high risk for
MAP (increta, percreta) and
cesarean hysterectomy
Last Suggestion:
Early recognition of CSP starts with Patient and Physician education:
When discharging patients from the hospital after a C/D make sure to tell
her to present to the Ob/Gyn the day after the first positive pregnancy
test for an US scan between 6-7 weeks.
If I have time I would like to show you our new, minimally invasive
treatment method of CSP
The use of a double, cervical ripening balloon catheter as a single, minimally
invasive treatment of CSP and CxP
Timor-Tritsch & Monteagudo Am J Obstet Gynecol March 2016
Ilan E. Timor-Tritsch, Ana Monteagudo, Terri-Ann Bennett, Christine Foley, Joanne Ramos, Andrea Kaelin
AgtenAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Volume 215, Issue 3, 2016, pp. 351.e1-351.e8
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Sep;215(3):351.
11/15/2017
12
Reasons for its use:
– Simultaneously terminates pregnancy and prevents bleeding
– Simplify treatment; Minimize patient discomfort
– Adapt a catheter familiar to Ob in the L&D to treat CSP
– Also effective for cervical pregnancies
The double balloon
catheter
The balloons inflated
Lately: New, minimally invasive treatment: Placing a double cervical ripening balloon
Timor-Tritsch, Monteagudo, Bennett, Foley, Kaelin Agten. A new minimally invasive
treatment for cesarean scar and cervical pregnancy. Article accepted for publication by AJOGTimor-Tritsch & Monteagudo Timor-Tritsch & MonteagudoTimor-Tritsch et al AJOG 2016
Anchor balloon
Pressure
balloon
Gestational sac of
CSP
Timor-Tritsch & Monteagudo Timor-Tritsch et al AJOG 2016
• 32 CSPs & 3 CxPs 35 patients were treated (6-8wks)
• Catheter placement & balloon inflation tolerated well.
• Oral pain medication and antibiotics. IM MTX were given
• Last 12 patients received paracervical block (1% Lidocaine)
• Balloons deflated, catheter removed 1-3 days
• Minimal, “old”, dark blood was seen after removal of the catheters from intra-cavitary accumulation of blood
• In all cases almost total resolution of the hCG, the sac site & its vascularity was seen within 20 -60 days
The NEW experience: 5 centers*
Timor-Tritsch & Monteagudo
• Nyu/Bellevue Medical centers: 21cases• Carnegie Imaging (Drs Rebarber and Monteagudo): 4 cases• Lenox Hill, MFH (Dr Bornstein) 3 case• Einstein Medical college 2 cases• Michigan Stae university 3 cases• Texas Medical center 1 case
11/15/2017
13
Extra slides
Reasons for its use:
– Simultaneously terminates pregnancy and prevents bleeding
– Simplify treatment; Minimize patient discomfort
– Adapt a catheter familiar to Ob in the L&D to treat CSP
– Also effective for cervical pregnancies
The double balloon
catheter
The balloons inflated
Lately: New, minimally invasive treatment: Placing a double cervical ripening balloon
Timor-Tritsch, Monteagudo, Bennett, Foley, Kaelin Agten. A new minimally invasive
treatment for cesarean scar and cervical pregnancy. Article accepted for publication by AJOGTimor-Tritsch & Monteagudo Timor-Tritsch & MonteagudoTimor-Tritsch et al AJOG 2016
11/15/2017
14
Results
• Pts discharged home within 2 hours
• Balloons remained in place mean 2 days
• hCG dropped in a mean 49 days
• No significant bleeding
• No further Rx needed
Timor-Tritsch, Monteagudo, Bennett, Foley,,Kaelin Agten. A new minimally invasive treatment for cesarean scar and cervical pregnancy. Article accepted for publication by the AJOG
Timor-Tritsch & Monteagudo
Timor-Tritsch et al AJOG 2016
Anchor balloon
Pressure
balloon
Gestational sac of
CSP
Timor-Tritsch & Monteagudo Timor-Tritsch et al AJOG 2016
• 32 CSPs & 3 CxPs 35 patients were treated (6-8wks)
• Catheter placement & balloon inflation tolerated well.
• Oral pain medication and antibiotics were given
• Last 12 patients received paracervical block (1% Lidocaine)
• Balloons deflated, catheter removed 1-3 days
• Minimal, “old”, dark blood was seen after removal of the catheters from intra-cavitary accumulation of blood
• In all cases almost total resolution of the hCG, the sac site & its vascularity was seen within 20 -60 days
• In the last 21 cases we used adjuvant systemic MTX
The New York experience: 6 centers*
Timor-Tritsch & Monteagudo
• *Nyu/Bellevue Medical centers: 25 cases• *Carnegie Imaging (Drs Rebarber and Monteagudo): 5 cases• *Lenox Hill, MFH (Dr Bornstein) 1 case• * Dr . M. (Michigan) 2 cases• * Einstein Dr, P. Dar 2 cases