Download PDF
Am J Perinatol
DOI: 10.1055/a-2620-7780
Original Article

Vasa Previa: Factors Associated with Inpatient versus Outpatient Antepartum Management

Sarah Heaps
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York Presbyterian Weill Cornell, New York, New York
,
Stephen Chasen
2   Department of Obstetrics, Maternal Fetal Medicine, New York Presbyterian Weill Cornell, New York, New York
› Author Affiliations
Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective

When vasa previa is diagnosed, guidelines support recommendations about timing and route of delivery, as well as steroid administration. While elective admission to ensure proximity to care is common, the evidence does not support a clear recommendation. Our objective was to compare patients with vasa previa managed as inpatients versus outpatients.

Study Design

This is a single-institution cohort study of patients with a prenatal diagnosis of vasa previa from 2013 to 2023. Decisions about inpatient versus outpatient management and delivery planning were made by physicians and patients. Data was obtained through chart review. Cohorts managed with elective admission for vasa previa were compared with those managed as outpatients. Mann–Whitney U and Fisher's Exact test were used for statistical comparison.

Results

Eighty-nine patients were included, including 72 (80.9%) electively admitted versus 17 (19.1%) managed as outpatients. The groups were of similar age and parity. A higher proportion of patients managed as outpatients had public insurance. There were no differences in the rate of short cervix or vaginal bleeding between the cohorts, and the rates of nonscheduled cesarean delivery were similar. Betamethasone was administered at a median gestational age of 32 to 33 weeks in both groups. Elective admission was associated with earlier delivery overall, as well as earlier scheduled delivery. There were no stillbirths or neonatal deaths, and the rates of NICU admission were not significantly different.

Conclusion

Patients electively admitted for vasa previa do not appear to have been at higher risk for emergent delivery, though admission was associated with earlier delivery, including scheduled deliveries. The lower rate of admission in those with public insurance could indicate a disparity in management, though further study is necessary. While our data do not rule out a benefit to routine admission, the benefits remain unproven.

Key Points

  • Inpatient admission was associated with earlier gestational age at delivery.

  • Inpatient versus outpatient management showed no difference in neonatal morbidity.

  • Rates of unscheduled (urgent or emergent) delivery were not significantly different between groups.

Keywords

vasa previa - management - delivery timing - antepartum


Publication History

Received: 16 April 2025

Accepted: 23 May 2025

Accepted Manuscript online:
26 May 2025

Article published online:
16 June 2025

© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Jain V, Gagnon R. Guideline no. 439: diagnosis and management of vasa previa. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2023; 45 (07) 506-518
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Tsakiridis I, Mamopoulos A, Athanasiadis A, Dagklis T. Diagnosis and management of vasa previa: a comparison of 4 national guidelines. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2019; 74 (07) 436-442
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Oyelese Y, Javinani A, Shamshirsaz AA. Vasa previa. Obstet Gynecol 2023; 142 (03) 503-518
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 4 Bronsteen R, Whitten A, Balasubramanian M. et al. Vasa previa: clinical presentations, outcomes, and implications for management. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122 (2 Pt 1): 352-357
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 5 Swank ML, Garite TJ, Maurel K. et al; Obstetrix Collaborative Research Network. Vasa previa: diagnosis and management. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 215 (02) 223.e1-223.e6
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 6 Oyelese Y, Smulian JC. Placenta previa, placenta accreta, and vasa previa. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107 (04) 927-941
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 7 Robert JA, Sepulveda W. Fetal exsanguination from ruptured vasa previa: still a catastrophic event in modern obstetrics. J Obstet Gynaecol 2003; 23 (05) 574
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Sinkey RG, Odibo AO, Dashe JS. #37: Diagnosis and management of vasa previa. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213 (05) 615-619
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 9 Laiu S, McMahon C, Rolnik DL. Inpatient versus outpatient management of prenatally diagnosed vasa praevia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2024; 293: 156-166
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Fishel Bartal M, Sibai BM, Ilan H. et al. Prenatal diagnosis of vasa previa: outpatient versus inpatient management. Am J Perinatol 2019; 36 (04) 422-427
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 11 Sullivan EA, Javid N, Duncombe G. et al. Vasa previa diagnosis, clinical practice, and outcomes in Australia. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 130 (03) 591-598
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 Villani LA, Al-Torshi R, Shah PS, Kingdom JC, D'Souza R, Keunen J. Inpatient vs outpatient management of pregnancies with vasa previa: a historical cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2023; 102 (11) 1558-1565
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 13 Droste S, Keil K. Expectant management of placenta previa: cost-benefit analysis of outpatient treatment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 170 (5 Pt 1): 1254-1257
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 14 Wing DA, Paul RH, Millar LK. Management of the symptomatic placenta previa: a randomized, controlled trial of inpatient versus outpatient expectant management. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175 (4 Pt 1): 806-811
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Hesson AM, Davuluri K, Corbin CK, Rujan AM, Berman DR. There's no place like home: optimizing the antepartum inpatient experience. Matern Health Neonatol Perinatol 2024; 10 (01) 15
    Search in Google Scholar