Velamentous cord insertions in singleton pregnancies and the association with intrauterine fetal death: A retrospective case-control study and systematic review with meta-analysis

Objectives: To quantify the risk of intrauterine fetal death (IUFD) associated with isolated velamentous cord insertion (VCI) and identify subgroups at increased risk to guide clinical management. Methods: We conducted a retrospective case-control study and a systematic review with meta-analysis. The case-control study included singleton pregnancies with VCI and no fetal anomalies diagnosed at Amsterdam UMC (2007–2024), matched 1:2 to controls without VCI or anomalies, based on year of detection and scan type. VCI cases underwent vasa previa screening and third-trimester growth scans. The primary outcome was IUFD; secondary outcomes included SGA and FGR. Rates were compared to matched controls and a regional reference population. Associations between vasa previa, FGR, insertion site, vessel trajectory, and outcomes were explored. The systematic review included studies from 2007 to 2024, supplemented by our data. Pooled IUFD proportions were analyzed overall and stratified by timing and method of VCI detection. Three predefined subgroup analyses excluded studies with: (1) fetal anomalies or vasa previa; (2) pathology examination diagnosed VCI; (3) both. Results: In VCI cases, IUFD occurred in 1/199 (0.5 %), not significantly different from 3/398 in controls (0.8 %, p = 1.0) or regional reference population (0.3 %, p = 0.4). SGA (29.1 % vs. 18.1 %, p = 0.002) and FGR (23.1 % vs. 10.3 %, p < 0.001) were more frequent in VCI cases. No specific high-risk subgroup could be identified. In the meta-analysis, the pooled IUFD rate in VCI cases was 1.5 %, significantly higher than in controls (0.3 %, p < 0.001). This association persisted in the subgroup analyses. However, IUFD rates varied significantly by timing and method of VCI diagnosis. Inconsistent reporting precluded identification of IUFD determinants. Conclusion: IUFD rates in VCI cases were not elevated at our center but were in the pooled analyses. Ascertainment bias and differences in surveillance and management may explain this discrepancy. Current evidence does not support precise IUFD risk stratification in VCI.