AC Portal
Document Navigator

Placenta Accreta Spectrum Disorder

Variant: 1   Low risk for placenta accreta spectrum disorder. No known clinical risk factors. Initial Imaging.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
US pregnant uterus transabdominal Usually Appropriate O
US duplex Doppler pregnant uterus May Be Appropriate O
US pregnant uterus transvaginal May Be Appropriate O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O

Variant: 2   High risk for placenta accreta spectrum disorder. Initial Imaging.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
US duplex Doppler pregnant uterus Usually Appropriate O
US pregnant uterus transabdominal Usually Appropriate O
US pregnant uterus transvaginal Usually Appropriate O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O

Variant: 3   Follow-up of placenta accreta spectrum disorder.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
US duplex Doppler pregnant uterus Usually Appropriate O
US pregnant uterus transabdominal Usually Appropriate O
US pregnant uterus transvaginal Usually Appropriate O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O

Panel Members
Summary of Literature Review
Introduction/Background
Discussion of Procedures by Variant
Variant 1: Low risk for placenta accreta spectrum disorder. No known clinical risk factors. Initial Imaging.
Variant 1: Low risk for placenta accreta spectrum disorder. No known clinical risk factors. Initial Imaging.
A. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis (Without and With IV Contrast)
Variant 1: Low risk for placenta accreta spectrum disorder. No known clinical risk factors. Initial Imaging.
B. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis (Without IV Contrast)
Variant 1: Low risk for placenta accreta spectrum disorder. No known clinical risk factors. Initial Imaging.
C. US Duplex Doppler Pregnant Uterus
Variant 1: Low risk for placenta accreta spectrum disorder. No known clinical risk factors. Initial Imaging.
D. US Pregnant Uterus Transabdominal
Variant 1: Low risk for placenta accreta spectrum disorder. No known clinical risk factors. Initial Imaging.
E. US Pregnant Uterus Transvaginal
Variant 2: High risk for placenta accreta spectrum disorder. Initial Imaging.
Variant 2: High risk for placenta accreta spectrum disorder. Initial Imaging.
A. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis (Without and With IV Contrast)
Variant 2: High risk for placenta accreta spectrum disorder. Initial Imaging.
B. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis (Without IV Contrast)
Variant 2: High risk for placenta accreta spectrum disorder. Initial Imaging.
C. US Duplex Doppler Pregnant Uterus
Variant 2: High risk for placenta accreta spectrum disorder. Initial Imaging.
D. US Pregnant Uterus Transabdominal
Variant 2: High risk for placenta accreta spectrum disorder. Initial Imaging.
E. US Pregnant Uterus Transvaginal
Variant 3: Follow-up of placenta accreta spectrum disorder.
Variant 3: Follow-up of placenta accreta spectrum disorder.
A. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis (Without and With IV Contrast)
Variant 3: Follow-up of placenta accreta spectrum disorder.
B. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis (Without IV Contrast)
Variant 3: Follow-up of placenta accreta spectrum disorder.
C. US Duplex Doppler Pregnant Uterus
Variant 3: Follow-up of placenta accreta spectrum disorder.
D. US Pregnant Uterus Transabdominal
Variant 3: Follow-up of placenta accreta spectrum disorder.
E. US Pregnant Uterus Transvaginal
Summary of Recommendations
Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Safety Considerations in Pregnant Patients

Imaging of the pregnant patient can be challenging, particularly with respect to minimizing radiation exposure and risk. For further information and guidance, see the following ACR documents:

·        ACR–SPR Practice Parameter for the Safe and Optimal Performance of Fetal Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)

·        ACR-SPR Practice Parameter for Imaging Pregnant or Potentially Pregnant Patients with Ionizing Radiation

·        ACR-ACOG-AIUM-SMFM-SRU Practice Parameter for the Performance of Standard Diagnostic Obstetrical Ultrasound

·        ACR Manual on Contrast Media

·        ACR Manual on MR Safety

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name

Appropriateness Rating

Appropriateness Category Definition

Usually Appropriate

7, 8, or 9

The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.

May Be Appropriate

4, 5, or 6

The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.

May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)

5

The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.

Usually Not Appropriate

1, 2, or 3

The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations

Relative Radiation Level*

Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range

Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range

O

0 mSv

 0 mSv

<0.1 mSv

<0.03 mSv

☢☢

0.1-1 mSv

0.03-0.3 mSv

☢☢☢

1-10 mSv

0.3-3 mSv

☢☢☢☢

10-30 mSv

3-10 mSv

☢☢☢☢☢

30-100 mSv

10-30 mSv

*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References
1. Jauniaux E, Chantraine F, Silver RM, Langhoff-Roos J, Diagnosis FPA, Management Expert Consensus P. FIGO consensus guidelines on placenta accreta spectrum disorders: Epidemiology. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2018;140:265-73.
2. Abuhamad A. Morbidly adherent placenta. Semin Perinatol. 2013;37(5):359-364.
3. D'Antonio F, Iacovella C, Bhide A. Prenatal identification of invasive placentation using ultrasound: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42(5):509-517.
4. Practice Bulletin No. 175: Ultrasound in Pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(6):e241-e256.
5. Belfort MA. Placenta accreta. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 203(5):430-439.
6. Stirnemann JJ, Mousty E, Chalouhi G, Salomon LJ, Bernard JP, Ville Y. Screening for placenta accreta at 11-14 weeks of gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(6):547 e541-546.
7. Thurn L, Lindqvist PG, Jakobsson M, et al. Abnormally invasive placenta-prevalence, risk factors and antenatal suspicion: results from a large population-based pregnancy cohort study in the Nordic countries. BJOG. 123(8):1348-55, 2016 Jul.
8. Clark SL, Koonings PP, Phelan JP. Placenta previa/accreta and prior cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol. 1985;66(1):89-92.
9. Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ, et al. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 107(6):1226-1232.
10. Vintzileos AM, Ananth CV, Smulian JC. Using ultrasound in the clinical management of placental implantation abnormalities. [Review]. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 213(4 Suppl):S70-7, 2015 Oct.
11. Jauniaux E, Bhide A, Kennedy A, et al. FIGO consensus guidelines on placenta accreta spectrum disorders: Prenatal diagnosis and screening. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2018;140:274-80.
12. Allen L, Jauniaux E, Hobson S, et al. FIGO consensus guidelines on placenta accreta spectrum disorders: Nonconservative surgical management. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2018;140:281-90.
13. Society of Gynecologic O, American College of O, Gynecologists, et al. Placenta Accreta Spectrum. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2018;219:B2-B16.
14. Baughman WC, Corteville JE, Shah RR. Placenta accreta: spectrum of US and MR imaging findings. Radiographics. 2008; 28(7):1905-1916.
15. American College of Radiology. ACR-ACOG-AIUM-SMFM-SRU Practice Parameter for the Performance of Standard Diagnostic Obstetrical Ultrasound. Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=28+&releaseId=2.
16. Chou MM, Ho ES, Lee YH. Prenatal diagnosis of placenta previa accreta by transabdominal color Doppler ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 15(1):28-35.
17. Dwyer BK, Belogolovkin V, Tran L, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta: sonography or magnetic resonance imaging? J Ultrasound Med. 2008; 27(9):1275-1281.
18. Esakoff TF, Sparks TN, Kaimal AJ, et al. Diagnosis and morbidity of placenta accreta. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37(3):324-327.
19. Shih JC, Palacios Jaraquemada JM, Su YN, et al. Role of three-dimensional power Doppler in the antenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta: comparison with gray-scale and color Doppler techniques. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 33(2):193-203.
20. Warshak CR, Eskander R, Hull AD, et al. Accuracy of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of placenta accreta. Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 108(3 Pt 1):573-581.
21. Wong HS, Cheung YK, Zuccollo J, Tait J, Pringle KC. Evaluation of sonographic diagnostic criteria for placenta accreta. J Clin Ultrasound. 2008; 36(9):551-559.
22. Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Cali G, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy is a precursor of morbidly adherent placenta. Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2014;44:346-53.
23. Chen YJ, Wang PH, Liu WM, Lai CR, Shu LP, Hung JH. Placenta accreta diagnosed at 9 weeks' gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002;19(6):620-622.
24. Hopker M, Fleckenstein G, Heyl W, Sattler B, Emons G. Placenta percreta in week 10 of pregnancy with consecutive hysterectomy: case report. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(3):817-820.
25. Yang JI, Kim HY, Kim HS, Ryu HS. Diagnosis in the first trimester of placenta accreta with previous Cesarean section. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34(1):116-118.
26. Welsh AW, Ellwood D, Carter J, Peduto AJ, Vedelago J, Bennett M. Opinion: integration of diagnostic and management perspectives for placenta accreta. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;49(6):578-587.
27. American College of Radiology. ACR–SPR Practice Parameter for the Safe and Optimal Performance of Fetal Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=89+&releaseId=2.
28. Alamo L, Anaye A, Rey J, et al. Detection of suspected placental invasion by MRI: do the results depend on observer' experience? Eur J Radiol. 2013;82(2):e51-57.
29. Allen BC, Leyendecker JR. Placental evaluation with magnetic resonance. Radiol Clin North Am. 2013;51(6):955-966.
30. Derman AY, Nikac V, Haberman S, Zelenko N, Opsha O, Flyer M. MRI of placenta accreta: a new imaging perspective. AJR. 2011; 197(6):1514-1521.
31. Elhawary TM, Dabees NL, Youssef MA. Diagnostic value of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in pregnant women at risk for placenta accreta. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013;26(14):1443-1449.
32. Horowitz JM, Berggruen S, McCarthy RJ, et al. When Timing Is Everything: Are Placental MRI Examinations Performed Before 24 Weeks' Gestational Age Reliable? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205(3):685-692.
33. 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(1):87-93.
34. Leyendecker JR, DuBose M, Hosseinzadeh K, et al. MRI of pregnancy-related issues: abnormal placentation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(2):311-320.
35. Palacios-Jaraquemada JM, Bruno CH, Martin E. MRI in the diagnosis and surgical management of abnormal placentation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(4):392-397.
36. McLean LA, Heilbrun ME, Eller AG, Kennedy AM, Woodward PJ. Assessing the role of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of gravid patients at risk for placenta accreta. Acad Radiol. 2011;18(9):1175-1180.
37. Comstock CH, Love JJ, Jr., Bronsteen RA, et al. Sonographic detection of placenta accreta in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 190(4):1135-1140.
38. Levine D, Hulka CA, Ludmir J, Li W, Edelman RR. Placenta accreta: evaluation with color Doppler US, power Doppler US, and MR imaging. Radiology. 1997; 205(3):773-776.
39. Meng X, Xie L, Song W. Comparing the diagnostic value of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging for placenta accreta: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2013;39(11):1958-1965.
40. Peker N, Turan V, Ergenoglu M, et al. Assessment of total placenta previa by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography to detect placenta accreta and its variants. Ginekol Pol. 2013;84(3):186-192.
41. Oyelese Y, Smulian JC. Placenta previa, placenta accreta, and vasa previa. Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 107(4):927-941.
42. Lim PS, Greenberg M, Edelson MI, Bell KA, Edmonds PR, Mackey AM. Utility of ultrasound and MRI in prenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta: a pilot study. AJR. 2011; 197(6):1506-1513.
43. Sato T, Mori N, Hasegawa O, et al. Placental recess accompanied by a T2 dark band: a new finding for diagnosing placental invasion. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017;42(8):2146-2153.
44. Tanimura K, Yamasaki Y, Ebina Y, et al. Prediction of adherent placenta in pregnancy with placenta previa using ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 187:41-4, 2015 Apr.
45. Shih JC, Cheng WF, Shyu MK, Lee CN, Hsieh FJ. Power Doppler evidence of placenta accreta appearing in the first trimester. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002;19(6):623-625.
46. Finberg HJ, Williams JW. Placenta accreta: prospective sonographic diagnosis in patients with placenta previa and prior cesarean section. J Ultrasound Med. 1992; 11(7):333-343.
47. Gielchinsky Y, Mankuta D, Rojansky N, Laufer N, Gielchinsky I, Ezra Y. Perinatal outcome of pregnancies complicated by placenta accreta. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(3):527-530.
48. Hudon L, Belfort MA, Broome DR. Diagnosis and management of placenta percreta: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1998;53(8):509-517.
49. D'Antonio F, Palacios-Jaraquemada J, Lim PS, et al. Counseling in fetal medicine: evidence-based answers to clinical questions on morbidly adherent placenta. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;47(3):290-301.
50. American College of Radiology. ACR-SPR Practice Parameter for Imaging Pregnant or Potentially Pregnant Patients with Ionizing Radiation.  Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=23+&releaseId=2.
51. American College of Radiology. Manual on Contrast Media. Available at: https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Contrast-Manual.
52. Expert Panel on MR Safety, Kanal E, Barkovich AJ, et al. ACR guidance document on MR safe practices: 2013. J Magn Reson Imaging. 37(3):501-30, 2013 Mar.
53. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.
Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked.  Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.