Search

To investigate the role of fetal brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detecting associated anomalies in fetuses with congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and normal neurosonography.This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients examined between 2012 and 2021 in 11 referral fetal medicine centers in Italy. Inclusion criteria were fetuses with congenital CMV infection diagnosed by polymerase chain reaction analysis of amniotic fluid, pregnancies that underwent detailed multiplanar ultrasound assessment of the fetal brain as recommended by the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, maternal age ≥ 18 years, normal fetal karyotype and MRI performed within 3 weeks after the last ultrasound examination. The primary outcome was the rate of central nervous system (CNS) anomalies detected exclusively on MRI and confirmed after birth or autopsy in fetuses with a prenatal diagnosis of congenital CMV infection and normal neurosonography at diagnosis. Additional CNS anomalies were classified into anomalies of the ventricular and the periventricular zone, intracranial calcifications in the basal ganglia or germinal matrix, destructive encephalopathy in the white matter, malformations of cortical development, midline anomalies, posterior fossa anomalies and complex brain anomalies. We evaluated the relationship between the incidence of structural CNS malformations diagnosed exclusively on fetal MRI and a number of maternal and gestational characteristics. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify and adjust for potential independent predictors of the MRI diagnosis of fetal anomalies.The analysis included 95 fetuses with a prenatal diagnosis of congenital CMV infection and normal neurosonography referred for prenatal MRI. The rate of structural anomalies detected exclusively at fetal MRI was 10.5% (10/95). When considering the type of anomaly, malformations of cortical development were detected on MRI in 40.0% (4/10) of fetuses, destructive encephalopathy in 20.0% (2/10), intracranial calcifications in the germinal matrix in 10.0% (1/10) and complex CNS anomalies in 30.0% (3/10). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, only CMV viral load in the amniotic fluid, expressed as a continuous variable (odds ratio (OR), 1.16 (95% CI, 1.02-1.21); P = 0.02) or categorical variable ( 100 000 copies/mL) (OR, 12.0 (95% CI, 1.2-124.7); P = 0.04), was independently associated with the likelihood of detecting fetal anomalies on MRI. Associated anomalies were detected exclusively at birth and missed by both prenatal neurosonography and fetal MRI in 3.8% (3/80) of fetuses with congenital CMV infection.Fetal brain MRI can detect additional anomalies in a significant proportion of fetuses with congenital CMV infection and negative neurosonography. Viral load in the amniotic fluid was an independent predictor of the risk of associated anomalies in these fetuses. The findings of this study support a longitudinal evaluation using fetal MRI in congenital CMV infection, even in cases with negative neurosonography at diagnosis. © 2022 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the role of fetal brain MRI in detecting anomalies in fetuses with congenital CMV infection undergoing neurosonography. METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective, cohort study involving 11 referral fetal medicine centers in Italy from 2012. The inclusion criteria were fetuses with congenital CMV infection diagnosed by PCR analysis of amniotic fluid, detailed multiplanar assessment of the fetal brain as recommended by the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG), normal karyotype and MRI performed within 3 weeks from the last ultrasound examination. The primary outcome was the rate of central nervous system (CNS) anomalies detected exclusively on MRI and confirmed after birth or autopsy in fetuses with a prenatal diagnosis of congenital CMV infection and normal neurosonographic assessment at diagnosis. Additional CNS anomalies were classified into anomalies of the ventricular and the periventricular zone, intra-cranial calcifications in the basal ganglia or geminal matrix, destructive encephalopathy in the white matter, malformations of cortical development, delayed myelinization, midline, posterior and complex brain anomalies. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to identify and adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: The analysis included 95 fetuses with a prenatal diagnosis of congenital CMV infection and normal neurosonography at first examination. The rate of structural anomalies detected exclusively at fetal MRI was 10.5% (10/95). When considering the type of anomaly, malformations of cortical development were detected at MRI in 40% (4/10) of fetuses, destructive encephalopathy in 20% (2/10), intracranial calcifications in the germinal matrix in 10% (1/10), and complex anomalies in 30% (3/10). At the multivariate logistic regression analysis, only CMV viral load in the amniotic fluid >100,000 copies/ml (OR: 12.0, 95% CI 1.2-124.7, p=0.04) was independently associated with the likelihood of detecting fetal anomalies at MRI, while maternal age (p=0.62), maternal body mass index (BMI) (p=0.73), maternal primary CMV infection (p=0.31), first trimester infection (p=0.685), prenatal therapy (p=0.11), or the interval between ultrasound and MRI (p=0.27) were not. Associated anomalies were detected exclusively at birth and missed at both types of prenatal imaging in 3.8% (3/80) of fetuses with congenital CMV infection. CONCLUSIONS: Fetal brain MRI can detect additional anomalies in a significant proportion of fetuses with congenital CMV infection and negative neurosonography. Viral load in the amniotic fluid was an independent predictor of the risk of associated anomalies in these fetuses. The findings from the study support a longitudinal evaluation using fetal MRI in congenital CMV infection even in cases with negative neurosonography at diagnosis. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Due to a technical error, the author list at the end of this article is unfortunately incorrect. Elif Gül Yapar Eyi is not a co-author, and therefore, his name and affiliation should not appear in the list. The correct author list and affiliations read as follows: Daniele Di Mascio, Cihat Sen, Gabriele Saccone, Alberto Galindo, Amos Grünebaum, Jun Yoshimatsu, Milan Stanojevic, AsimKurjak, Frank Chervenak, María Jos´e Rodríguez Suárez, Zita Maria Gambacorti-Passerini, María de los Angeles Anaya Baz, Esther Vanessa Aguilar Galán, Yolanda Cuñarro López, Juan Antonio De León Luis, Ignacio Cueto Hernández, Ignacio Herraiz, Cecilia Villalain, Roberta Venturella, Giuseppe Rizzo, Ilenia Mappa, Giovanni Gerosolima, Lars Hellmeyer, Josefine Königbauer, Giada Ameli, Tiziana Frusca, Nicola Volpe, Giovanni Battista Luca Schera, Stefania Fieni, Eutalia Esposito, Giuliana Simonazzi, Gaetana Di Donna, Aly Youssef, Anna Nunzia Della Gatta, Mariano Catello Di Donna, Vito Chiantera, Natalina Buono, Giulio Sozzi, Pantaleo Greco, Danila Morano, Beatrice Bianchi, Maria Giulia Lombana Marino, Federica Laraud, Arianna Ramone, Angelo Cagnacci, Fabio Barra, Claudio Gustavino, Simone Ferrero, Fabio Ghezzi, Antonella Cromi, Antonio Simone Laganá, Valentina Laurita Longo, Francesca Stollagli, Angelo Sirico, Antonio Lanzone, Lorenza Driul, Fabiana Cecchini D, Serena Xodo, Brian Rodriguez, Felipe Mercado-Olivares, Deena Elkafrawi, Giovanni Sisti, Rosanna Esposito, Antonio Coviello, Marco Cerbone, Maddalena Morlando, Antonio Schiattarella, Nicola Colacurci, Pasquale De Franciscis, Ilaria Cataneo, Marinella Lenzi, Fabrizio Sandri, Riccardo Buscemi, Giorgia Gattei, Francesca della Sala, Eleonora Valori, Maria Cristina Rovellotti, Elisa Done, Gilles Faron, Leonardo Gucciardo, Valentina Esposito, Flaminia Vena, Antonella Giancotti, Roberto Brunelli, Ludovico Muzii, Luigi Nappi, Felice Sorrentino, Lorenzo Vasciaveo, Marco Liberati, Danilo Buca, Martina Leombroni, Francesca Di Sebastiano, Luciano Di Tizio, Diego Gazzolo, Massimo Franchi, Quintino Cesare Ianniciello, Simone Garzon, Giuliano Petriglia, Leonardo Borrello, Albaro Jos´e Nieto-Calvache, Juan Manuel Burgos-Luna, Caroline Kadji, Andrew Carlin, Elisa Bevilacqua, Marina Moucho, Pedro Viana Pinto, Rita Figueiredo, Jos´e Morales Roselló, Gabriela Loscalzo, Alicia Martinez-Varea, Vincente Diago, Jesús S Jimenez Lopez, Alicia Yeliz Aykanat, Stefano Cosma, Andrea Carosso, Chiara Benedetto, Amanda Bermejo, Otto Henrique May Feuerschuette, Ozlem Uyaniklar, Sakine Rahimli Ocakouglu, Zeliha Atak, Reyhan Gündüz, Esra Tustas Haberal, Bernd Froessler, Anupam Parange, Peter Palm, Igor Samardjiski, Chiara Taccaliti, Erhan Okuyan, George Daskalakis, Renato Augusto Moreira de Sa, Alejandro Pittaro, Maria Luisa Gonzalez-Duran, Ana Concheiro Guisan, Serife Özlem Genç, Blanka Zlatohlávková, Anna Luengo Piqueras, Dolores Esteban Oliva, Aylin Pelin Cil, Olus Api, Panos Antsaklis, Liana Ples, Ioannis Kyvernitakis, Holger Maul, Marcel Malan, Albert Lila, Roberta Granese, Alfredo Ercoli, Giuseppe Zoccali, Andrea Villasco, Nicoletta Biglia, Ciuhodaru Madalina, Elena Costa, Caroline Daelemans, Axelle Pintiaux, Elisa Cueto, Eran Hadar, Sarah Dollinger, Noa A. Brzezinski Sinai, Erasmo Huertas, Pedro Arango, Amadeo Sanchez, Javier Alfonso Schvartzman, Liviu Cojocaru, Sifa Turan, Ozhan Turan, Maria Carmela Di Dedda, Rebeca Garrote Molpeceres, Snezana Zdjelar, Tanja Premru-Srsen, Lilijana Kornhauser Cerar, Mirjam Druškovic, Valentina De Robertis, Vedran Stefanovic, Irmeli Nupponen, Kaisa Nelskylä, Zulfiya Khodjaeva, Ksenia A. Gorina, Gennady T. Sukhikh, Giuseppe Maria Maruotti, Silvia Visentin, Erich Cosmi, Jacopo Ferrari, Alessandra Gatti, Daniela Luvero, Roberto Angioli, Ludovica Puri, Marco Palumbo, Giusella D’Urso, Francesco Colaleo, Agnese Maria Chiara Rapisarda, Ilma Floriana Carbone, Antonio Mollo, Giovanni Nazzaro, Mariavittoria Locci, Maurizio Guida, Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo, Pierluigi Benedetti Panici, Vincenzo Berghella, Maria Elena Flacco, Lamberto Manzoli, Giuseppe Bifulco, Giovanni Scambia, Fulvio Zullo and Francesco D’Antonio Flaminia Vena, Antonella Giancotti, Roberto Brunelli, Ludovico Muzii and Pierluigi Benedetti Panici, Department of Maternal and Child Health and Urological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy Rosanna Esposito, Antonio Coviello, Marco Cerbone, Giuseppe Maria Maruotti, Giovanni Nazzaro, Mariavittoria Locci, Maurizio Guida, Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo, Giuseppe Bifulco and Fulvio Zullo, Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy Ignacio Herraiz and Cecilia Villalain, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fetal Medicine Unit, Maternal and Child Health and Development Network, University Hospital 12 de Octubre, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain María Jos´e Rodríguez Suárez, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Asturias, Spain Zita Maria Gambacorti-Passerini, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ciudad Real University General Hospital, Ciudad Real, Spain María de los Angeles Anaya Baz and Esther Vanessa Aguilar Galán, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ciudad Real University General Hospital, Ciudad Real, Spain; University of Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain Yolanda Cuñarro López, Juan Antonio De León Luis and Ignacio Cueto Hernández, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fetal Medicine Unit, Maternal and Child Health and Development Network, Gregorio Marañón Hospital, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain Roberta Venturella, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, Magna Graecia University of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italy Giuseppe Rizzo, University of Roma Tor Vergata, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Ospedale Cristo Re Roma, Rome, Italy; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The First I.M. Sechenov Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia Ilenia Mappa, University of Roma Tor Vergata, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Ospedale Cristo Re Roma, Rome, Italy Giovanni Gerosolima, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ospedale AOSG Moscati, Avellino, Italy Lars Hellmeyer, Josefine Königbauer and Giada Ameli, Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Vivantes Klinikum im Friedrichshain, Berlin, Germany Tiziana Frusca, Nicola Volpe, Giovanni Battista Luca Schera and Stefania Fieni, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Parma, Parma, Italy Eutalia Esposito, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ospedale di San Leonardo, Castellammare di Stabia, Italy Giuliana Simonazzi, Gaetana Di Donna, Aly Youssef and Anna Nunzia Della Gatta, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Bologna, Sant’Orsola- Malpighi University Hospital, Bologna, Italy Mariano Catello Di Donna, Vito Chiantera, Natalina Buono and Giulio Sozzi, Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, University of Palermo, Palermo, Sicilia, Italy Pantaleo Greco, Danila Morano, Beatrice Bianchi and Maria Giulia Lombana Marino, Department ofMedical Sciences, Section of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria Sant’Anna, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy Federica Laraud, Arianna Ramone, Angelo Cagnacci, Fabio Barra, Claudio Gustavino and Simone Ferrero, Academic Unit of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico, San Martino, Genova, Italy Fabio Ghezzi, Antonella Cromi and Antonio Simone Laganà, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, “Filippo Del Ponte” Hospita University of Insubria, Varese, Italy Valentina Laurita Longo, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS – Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy; Istituto di Clinica Ostetrica e Ginecologica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy; and Queen Margaret University, Institute for Global Health and Development, Edinburgh, UK Francesca Stollagli and Ludovica Puri, Istituto di Clinica Ostetrica e Ginecologica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy Angelo Sirico and Giovanni Scambia, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS – Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy Antonio Lanzone, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS – Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy; Istituto di Clinica Ostetrica e Ginecologica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy Lorenza Driul, Fabiana Cecchini D and Serena Xodo, Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Udine, Udine, Italy Brian Rodriguez, Felipe Mercado-Olivares, Deena Elkafrawi and Giovanni Sisti, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, New York Health and Hospitals/Lincoln Bronx, The Bronx, NY, USA Maddalena Morlando, Antonio Schiattarella, Nicola Colacurci and Pasquale De Franciscis, Department of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy Ilaria Cataneo, Marinella Lenzi and Fabrizio Sandri, Unit of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ospedale Maggiore, Bologna, Italy Riccardo Buscemi, Giorgia Gattei, Francesca della Sala and Maria Cristina Rovellotti, Department of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy Eleonora Valori, Department of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy; Hospital Castelli, Verbania, Italy Elisa Done, Gilles Faron and Leonardo Gucciardo, UZ Brussel, Universitair Ziekenhuis, Brussel, Belgium Valentina Esposito, University of Milan, Milan, Italy Luigi Nappi, Felice Sorrentino and Lorenzo Vasciaveo, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.

Objective To assess the performance of fetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detecting associated anomalies in fetuses diagnosed with isolated corpus callosal (CC) anomaly on multiplanar ultrasound evaluation of the fetal brain (neurosonography). Methods This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study involving 14 fetal medicine centers in Italy, UK, Portugal, Canada, Austria and Spain. Inclusion criteria were fetuses with an apparently isolated CC anomaly, defined as an anomaly of the CC and no other additional central nervous system (CNS) or extra-CNS abnormality detected on expert ultrasound, including multiplanar neurosonography; normal karyotype; maternal age >= 18 years; and gestational age at diagnosis >= 18 weeks. The primary outcome was the rate of additional CNS abnormalities detected exclusively on fetal MRI within 2 weeks following neurosonography. The secondary outcomes were the rate of additional abnormalities according to the type of CC abnormality (complete (cACC) or partial (pACC) agenesis of the CC) and the rate of additional anomalies detected only on postnatal imaging or at postmortem examination. Results A total of 269 fetuses with a sonographic prenatal diagnosis of apparently isolated CC anomalies (207 with cACC and 62 with pACC) were included in the analysis. Additional structural anomalies of the CNS were detected exclusively on prenatal MRI in 11.2% (30/269) of cases, with malformations of cortical development representing the most common type of anomaly. When stratifying the analysis according to the type of CC anomaly, the rate of associated anomalies detected exclusively on MRI was 11.6% (24/207) in cACC cases and 9.7% (6/62) in pACC cases. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, only maternal body mass index was associated independently with the likelihood of detecting associated anomalies on MRI (odds ratio, 1.07 (95% CI, 1.01-1.14); P = 0.03). Associated anomalies were detected exclusively after delivery and were missed on both types of prenatal imaging in 3.9% (8/205) of fetuses with prenatal diagnosis of isolated anomaly of the CC. Conclusion In fetuses with isolated anomaly of the CC diagnosed on antenatal neurosonography, MRI can identify a small proportion of additional anomalies, mainly malformations of cortical development, which are not detected on ultrasound. (c) 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare vaginal dinoprostone and mechanical methods for induction of labor (IOL) in pregnancies complicated by late fetal growth restriction. Material and methods: Multicenter, retrospective, cohort study involving six referral centers in Italy and Spain. Inclusion criteria were pregnancies complicated by late fetal growth restriction as defined by Delphi consensus criteria. The primary outcome was the occurrence of uterine tachysystole; secondary outcomes were either cesarean delivery or operative vaginal delivery for non-reassuring fetal status, a composite score of adverse neonatal outcome and admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the data. Results: A total of 571 pregnancies complicated by late fetal growth restriction undergoing IOL (391 with dinoprostone and 180 with mechanical methods) were included in the analysis. The incidence of uterine tachysystole (19.2% vs. 5.6%; p = 0.001) was higher in women undergoing IOL with dinoprostone than in those undergoing IOL with mechanical methods. Similarly, the incidence of cesarean delivery or operative delivery for non-reassuring fetal status (25.6% vs. 17.2%; p = 0.027), composite adverse neonatal outcome (26.1% vs. 16.7%; p = 0.013) and NICU admission (16.9% vs. 5.6%; p

Objectives: To evaluate the maternal and perinatal outcomes of pregnancies affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This was a multinational retrospective cohort study including women with a singleton pregnancy and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, conducted in 72 centers in 22 different countries in Europe, the USA, South America, Asia and Australia, between 1 February 2020 and 30 April 2020. Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as a positive result on real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay of nasopharyngeal swab specimens. The primary outcome was a composite measure of maternal mortality and morbidity, including admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), use of mechanical ventilation and death. Results: In total, 388 women with a singleton pregnancy tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR of a nasopharyngeal swab and were included in the study. Composite adverse maternal outcome was observed in 47/388 (12.1%) women; 43 (11.1%) women were admitted to the ICU, 36 (9.3%) required mechanical ventilation and three (0.8%) died. Of the 388 women included in the study, 122 (31.4%) were still pregnant at the time of data analysis. Among the other 266 women, six (19.4% of the 31 women with first-trimester infection) had miscarriage, three (1.1%) had termination of pregnancy, six (2.3%) had stillbirth and 251 (94.4%) delivered a liveborn infant. The rate of preterm birth before 37 weeks' gestation was 26.3% (70/266). Of the 251 liveborn infants, 69/251 (27.5%) were admitted to the neonatal ICU, and there were five (2.0%) neonatal deaths. The overall rate of perinatal death was 4.1% (11/266). Only one (1/251, 0.4%) infant, born to a mother who tested positive during the third trimester, was found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR. Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women is associated with a 0.8% rate of maternal mortality, but an 11.1% rate of admission to the ICU. The risk of vertical transmission seems to be negligible. © 2020 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. © 2020 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Due to a technical error, the author list at the end of this article is unfortunately incorrect. Elif Gül Yapar Eyi is not a co-author, and therefore, his name and affiliation should not appear in the list. The correct author list and affiliations read as follows: Daniele Di Mascio, Cihat Sen, Gabriele Saccone, Alberto Galindo, Amos Grünebaum, Jun Yoshimatsu, Milan Stanojevic, AsimKurjak, Frank Chervenak, María Jos´e Rodríguez Suárez, Zita Maria Gambacorti-Passerini, María de los Angeles Anaya Baz, Esther Vanessa Aguilar Galán, Yolanda Cuñarro López, Juan Antonio De León Luis, Ignacio Cueto Hernández, Ignacio Herraiz, Cecilia Villalain, Roberta Venturella, Giuseppe Rizzo, Ilenia Mappa, Giovanni Gerosolima, Lars Hellmeyer, Josefine Königbauer, Giada Ameli, Tiziana Frusca, Nicola Volpe, Giovanni Battista Luca Schera, Stefania Fieni, Eutalia Esposito, Giuliana Simonazzi, Gaetana Di Donna, Aly Youssef, Anna Nunzia Della Gatta, Mariano Catello Di Donna, Vito Chiantera, Natalina Buono, Giulio Sozzi, Pantaleo Greco, Danila Morano, Beatrice Bianchi, Maria Giulia Lombana Marino, Federica Laraud, Arianna Ramone, Angelo Cagnacci, Fabio Barra, Claudio Gustavino, Simone Ferrero, Fabio Ghezzi, Antonella Cromi, Antonio Simone Laganá, Valentina Laurita Longo, Francesca Stollagli, Angelo Sirico, Antonio Lanzone, Lorenza Driul, Fabiana Cecchini D, Serena Xodo, Brian Rodriguez, Felipe Mercado-Olivares, Deena Elkafrawi, Giovanni Sisti, Rosanna Esposito, Antonio Coviello, Marco Cerbone, Maddalena Morlando, Antonio Schiattarella, Nicola Colacurci, Pasquale De Franciscis, Ilaria Cataneo, Marinella Lenzi, Fabrizio Sandri, Riccardo Buscemi, Giorgia Gattei, Francesca della Sala, Eleonora Valori, Maria Cristina Rovellotti, Elisa Done, Gilles Faron, Leonardo Gucciardo, Valentina Esposito, Flaminia Vena, Antonella Giancotti, Roberto Brunelli, Ludovico Muzii, Luigi Nappi, Felice Sorrentino, Lorenzo Vasciaveo, Marco Liberati, Danilo Buca, Martina Leombroni, Francesca Di Sebastiano, Luciano Di Tizio, Diego Gazzolo, Massimo Franchi, Quintino Cesare Ianniciello, Simone Garzon, Giuliano Petriglia, Leonardo Borrello, Albaro Jos´e Nieto-Calvache, Juan Manuel Burgos-Luna, Caroline Kadji, Andrew Carlin, Elisa Bevilacqua, Marina Moucho, Pedro Viana Pinto, Rita Figueiredo, Jos´e Morales Roselló, Gabriela Loscalzo, Alicia Martinez-Varea, Vincente Diago, Jesús S Jimenez Lopez, Alicia Yeliz Aykanat, Stefano Cosma, Andrea Carosso, Chiara Benedetto, Amanda Bermejo, Otto Henrique May Feuerschuette, Ozlem Uyaniklar, Sakine Rahimli Ocakouglu, Zeliha Atak, Reyhan Gündüz, Esra Tustas Haberal, Bernd Froessler, Anupam Parange, Peter Palm, Igor Samardjiski, Chiara Taccaliti, Erhan Okuyan, George Daskalakis, Renato Augusto Moreira de Sa, Alejandro Pittaro, Maria Luisa Gonzalez-Duran, Ana Concheiro Guisan, Serife Özlem Genç, Blanka Zlatohlávková, Anna Luengo Piqueras, Dolores Esteban Oliva, Aylin Pelin Cil, Olus Api, Panos Antsaklis, Liana Ples, Ioannis Kyvernitakis, Holger Maul, Marcel Malan, Albert Lila, Roberta Granese, Alfredo Ercoli, Giuseppe Zoccali, Andrea Villasco, Nicoletta Biglia, Ciuhodaru Madalina, Elena Costa, Caroline Daelemans, Axelle Pintiaux, Elisa Cueto, Eran Hadar, Sarah Dollinger, Noa A. Brzezinski Sinai, Erasmo Huertas, Pedro Arango, Amadeo Sanchez, Javier Alfonso Schvartzman, Liviu Cojocaru, Sifa Turan, Ozhan Turan, Maria Carmela Di Dedda, Rebeca Garrote Molpeceres, Snezana Zdjelar, Tanja Premru-Srsen, Lilijana Kornhauser Cerar, Mirjam Druškovic, Valentina De Robertis, Vedran Stefanovic, Irmeli Nupponen, Kaisa Nelskylä, Zulfiya Khodjaeva, Ksenia A. Gorina, Gennady T. Sukhikh, Giuseppe Maria Maruotti, Silvia Visentin, Erich Cosmi, Jacopo Ferrari, Alessandra Gatti, Daniela Luvero, Roberto Angioli, Ludovica Puri, Marco Palumbo, Giusella D’Urso, Francesco Colaleo, Agnese Maria Chiara Rapisarda, Ilma Floriana Carbone, Antonio Mollo, Giovanni Nazzaro, Mariavittoria Locci, Maurizio Guida, Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo, Pierluigi Benedetti Panici, Vincenzo Berghella, Maria Elena Flacco, Lamberto Manzoli, Giuseppe Bifulco, Giovanni Scambia, Fulvio Zullo and Francesco D’Antonio Flaminia Vena, Antonella Giancotti, Roberto Brunelli, Ludovico Muzii and Pierluigi Benedetti Panici, Department of Maternal and Child Health and Urological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy Rosanna Esposito, Antonio Coviello, Marco Cerbone, Giuseppe Maria Maruotti, Giovanni Nazzaro, Mariavittoria Locci, Maurizio Guida, Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo, Giuseppe Bifulco and Fulvio Zullo, Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy Ignacio Herraiz and Cecilia Villalain, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fetal Medicine Unit, Maternal and Child Health and Development Network, University Hospital 12 de Octubre, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain María Jos´e Rodríguez Suárez, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Asturias, Spain Zita Maria Gambacorti-Passerini, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ciudad Real University General Hospital, Ciudad Real, Spain María de los Angeles Anaya Baz and Esther Vanessa Aguilar Galán, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ciudad Real University General Hospital, Ciudad Real, Spain; University of Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain Yolanda Cuñarro López, Juan Antonio De León Luis and Ignacio Cueto Hernández, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fetal Medicine Unit, Maternal and Child Health and Development Network, Gregorio Marañón Hospital, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain Roberta Venturella, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, Magna Graecia University of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italy Giuseppe Rizzo, University of Roma Tor Vergata, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Ospedale Cristo Re Roma, Rome, Italy; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The First I.M. Sechenov Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia Ilenia Mappa, University of Roma Tor Vergata, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Ospedale Cristo Re Roma, Rome, Italy Giovanni Gerosolima, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ospedale AOSG Moscati, Avellino, Italy Lars Hellmeyer, Josefine Königbauer and Giada Ameli, Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Vivantes Klinikum im Friedrichshain, Berlin, Germany Tiziana Frusca, Nicola Volpe, Giovanni Battista Luca Schera and Stefania Fieni, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Parma, Parma, Italy Eutalia Esposito, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ospedale di San Leonardo, Castellammare di Stabia, Italy Giuliana Simonazzi, Gaetana Di Donna, Aly Youssef and Anna Nunzia Della Gatta, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Bologna, Sant’Orsola- Malpighi University Hospital, Bologna, Italy Mariano Catello Di Donna, Vito Chiantera, Natalina Buono and Giulio Sozzi, Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, University of Palermo, Palermo, Sicilia, Italy Pantaleo Greco, Danila Morano, Beatrice Bianchi and Maria Giulia Lombana Marino, Department ofMedical Sciences, Section of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria Sant’Anna, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy Federica Laraud, Arianna Ramone, Angelo Cagnacci, Fabio Barra, Claudio Gustavino and Simone Ferrero, Academic Unit of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico, San Martino, Genova, Italy Fabio Ghezzi, Antonella Cromi and Antonio Simone Laganà, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, “Filippo Del Ponte” Hospita University of Insubria, Varese, Italy Valentina Laurita Longo, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS – Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy; Istituto di Clinica Ostetrica e Ginecologica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy; and Queen Margaret University, Institute for Global Health and Development, Edinburgh, UK Francesca Stollagli and Ludovica Puri, Istituto di Clinica Ostetrica e Ginecologica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy Angelo Sirico and Giovanni Scambia, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS – Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy Antonio Lanzone, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS – Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy; Istituto di Clinica Ostetrica e Ginecologica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy Lorenza Driul, Fabiana Cecchini D and Serena Xodo, Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Udine, Udine, Italy Brian Rodriguez, Felipe Mercado-Olivares, Deena Elkafrawi and Giovanni Sisti, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, New York Health and Hospitals/Lincoln Bronx, The Bronx, NY, USA Maddalena Morlando, Antonio Schiattarella, Nicola Colacurci and Pasquale De Franciscis, Department of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy Ilaria Cataneo, Marinella Lenzi and Fabrizio Sandri, Unit of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ospedale Maggiore, Bologna, Italy Riccardo Buscemi, Giorgia Gattei, Francesca della Sala and Maria Cristina Rovellotti, Department of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy Eleonora Valori, Department of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy; Hospital Castelli, Verbania, Italy Elisa Done, Gilles Faron and Leonardo Gucciardo, UZ Brussel, Universitair Ziekenhuis, Brussel, Belgium Valentina Esposito, University of Milan, Milan, Italy Luigi Nappi, Felice Sorrentino and Lorenzo Vasciaveo, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy. © 2021 De Gruyter. All rights reserved.

Introduction The aim of this study was to compare vaginal dinoprostone and mechanical methods for induction of labor (IOL) in pregnancies complicated by late fetal growth restriction. Material and methods Multicenter, retrospective, cohort study involving six referral centers in Italy and Spain. Inclusion criteria were pregnancies complicated by late fetal growth restriction as defined by Delphi consensus criteria. The primary outcome was the occurrence of uterine tachysystole; secondary outcomes were either cesarean delivery or operative vaginal delivery for non-reassuring fetal status, a composite score of adverse neonatal outcome and admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the data. Results A total of 571 pregnancies complicated by late fetal growth restriction undergoing IOL (391 with dinoprostone and 180 with mechanical methods) were included in the analysis. The incidence of uterine tachysystole (19.2% vs. 5.6%; p = 0.001) was higher in women undergoing IOL with dinoprostone than in those undergoing IOL with mechanical methods. Similarly, the incidence of cesarean delivery or operative delivery for non-reassuring fetal status (25.6% vs. 17.2%; p = 0.027), composite adverse neonatal outcome (26.1% vs. 16.7%; p = 0.013) and NICU admission (16.9% vs. 5.6%; p < 0.001) was higher in women undergoing IOL with dinoprostone than in those undergoing IOL with mechanical methods. At logistic regression analysis, IOL with mechanical methods was associated with a significantly lower risk of uterine tachysystole (odds ratio 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.13-0.54; p < 0.001). Conclusions In pregnancies complicated by late fetal growth restriction, IOL with mechanical methods is associated with a lower risk of uterine tachysystole, cesarean delivery or operative delivery for non-reassuring fetal status, and adverse neonatal outcome compared with pharmacological methods.

Objective\ud To assess the rate of fetal loss following amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) in twin pregnancy.\ud \ud Methods\ud MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for studies reporting procedure‐related complications following amniocentesis or CVS in twin pregnancy. The primary outcome was the rate of procedure‐related fetal loss. The secondary outcomes were fetal loss occurring before 24 weeks of gestation and fetal loss occurring within 4 weeks after the procedure. Head‐to‐head meta‐analyses were used to compare directly each outcome, between women undergoing amniocentesis and those not undergoing amniocentesis and between women undergoing CVS and those not undergoing CVS, and to compute pooled risk differences (RD) between women exposed and those not exposed to each invasive procedure. Additionally, meta‐analyses of proportions were used to estimate the pooled rates of each of the three outcomes in women undergoing amniocentesis or CVS and in controls.\ud \ud Results\ud Sixteen studies (3419 twin pregnancies undergoing and 2517 not undergoing an invasive procedure) were included. Head‐to‐head meta‐analyses comparing directly twin pregnancies undergoing and those not undergoing amniocentesis showed a higher risk for overall fetal loss in those undergoing amniocentesis (odds ratio (OR), 1.46 (P = 0.04); RD, 0.013 (P = 0.04)), while there was no difference in the risk of either fetal loss before 24 weeks of gestation (OR, 1.59 (P = 0.06); RD, 0.010 (P = 0.11)) or fetal loss within 4 weeks after the procedure (OR, 1.38 (P = 0.3); RD, 0.003 (P = 0.8)). Overall, the pooled rate of fetal loss was 2.4% (95% CI, 1.4–3.6%) in twin pregnancies undergoing amniocentesis compared with 2.4% (95% CI, 0.9–4.6%) in those not undergoing amniocentesis. Head‐to‐head meta‐analyses directly comparing twin pregnancies undergoing and those not undergoing CVS showed no significant difference in either overall fetal loss (OR, 1.61 (P = 0.5); RD, 0.003 (P = 0.8)) or fetal loss before 24 weeks of gestation (OR, 1.61 (P = 0.5); RD, 0.003 (P = 0.8)). Overall, the pooled rate of fetal loss was 2.0% (95% CI, 0.0–6.5%) in twin pregnancies undergoing CVS compared with 1.8% (95% CI, 0.3–4.2%) in those not undergoing CVS.\ud \ud Conclusion\ud The risk of fetal loss following amniocentesis and CVS in twins is lower than reported previously and the rate of fetal loss before 24 weeks of gestation, or within 4 weeks after the procedure, did not differ from the background risk in twin pregnancy not undergoing invasive prenatal testing. These data can guide prenatal counseling for twin pregnancies undergoing invasive procedures.

Objectives To assess the role of fetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detecting associated anomalies in fetuses presenting with mild or moderate isolated ventriculomegaly (VM) undergoing multiplanar ultrasound evaluation of the fetal brain. Methods This was a multicenter, retrospective, cohort study involving 15 referral fetal medicine centers in Italy, the UK and Spain. Inclusion criteria were fetuses affected by isolated mild (ventricular atrial diameter, 10.0-11.9 mm) or moderate (ventricular atrial diameter, 12.0-14.9 mm) VM on ultrasound, defined as VM with normal karyotype and no other additional central nervous system (CNS) or extra-CNS anomalies on ultrasound, undergoing detailed assessment of the fetal brain using a multiplanar approach as suggested by the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology guidelines for the fetal neurosonogram, followed by fetal MRI. The primary outcome of the study was to report the incidence of additional CNS anomalies detected exclusively on prenatal MRI and missed on ultrasound, while the secondary aim was to estimate the incidence of additional anomalies detected exclusively after birth and missed on prenatal imaging (ultrasound and MRI). Subgroup analysis according to gestational age at MRI (< 24 vs >= 24 weeks), laterality of VM (unilateral vs bilateral) and severity of dilatation (mild vs moderate VM) were also performed. Results Five hundred and fifty-six fetuses with a prenatal diagnosis of isolated mild or moderate VM on ultrasound were included in the analysis. Additional structural anomalies were detected on prenatal MRI and missed on ultrasound in 5.4% (95% CI, 3.8-7.6%) of cases. When considering the type of anomaly, supratentorial intracranial hemorrhage was detected on MRI in 26.7% of fetuses, while polymicrogyria and lissencephaly were detected in 20.0% and 13.3% of cases, respectively. Hypoplasia of the corpus callosum was detected on MRI in 6.7% of cases, while dysgenesis was detected in 3.3%. Fetuses with an associated anomaly detected only on MRI were more likely to have moderate than mild VM (60.0% vs 17.7%; P

OBJECTIVES: Monoamniotic twin pregnancies are at increased risk of perinatal complications, primarily owing to the risk of cord entanglement. There is no recommendation on whether such pregnancies should be managed in hospital or can be safely managed in an outpatient setting, and the timing of planned delivery is also a subject of debate. The aim of this study was to compare the perinatal outcomes of inpatient vs outpatient fetal surveillance approaches employed among 22 participating study centers, and to calculate the fetal and neonatal death rates according to gestational age, in non-anomalous monoamniotic twins from 26 weeks' gestation. METHODS: The MONOMONO study was a multinational cohort study of consecutive women with monochorionic monoamniotic twin pregnancies, who were referred to 22 university hospitals in Italy, the USA, the UK and Spain, from January 2010 to January 2017. Only non-anomalous uncomplicated monoamniotic twin pregnancies with two live fetuses at 26 + 0 weeks' gestation were included in the study. In 10 of the centers, monoamniotic twins were managed routinely as inpatients, whereas in the other 12 centers they were managed routinely as outpatients. The primary outcome was intrauterine fetal death. We also planned to assess fetal and neonatal death rates according to gestational age per 1-week interval. Outcomes are presented as odds ratio (OR) with 95% CIs. The main outcome was analyzed using both standard logistic regression analysis, in which each fetus was treated as an independent unit, and a generalized mixed-model approach, with each twin pair treated as a cluster unit, considering that the outcome for a twin is not independent of that of its cotwin. RESULTS: 195 consecutive pregnant women with a non-anomalous uncomplicated monoamniotic twin gestation (390 fetuses) were included. Of these, 75 (38.5%) were managed as inpatients and 120 (61.5%) as outpatients. The overall perinatal loss rate was 10.8% (42/390) with a peak fetal death rate of 4.3% (15/348) occurring at 29 weeks' gestation. There was no significant difference in mean gestational age at delivery (31 weeks), birth weight (∼1.6 kg), or emergency delivery rate between the inpatient and outpatient surveillance groups. Based on generalized mixed-model analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in fetal death rates between inpatient management commencing from around 26 weeks compared with outpatient surveillance protocols from 30 weeks (3.3% vs 10.8%; adjusted OR 0.21 (95% CI, 0.04-1.17)). Maternal length of stay in the hospital was 42.1 days in the inpatient group, and 7.4 days in the outpatient group (mean difference 34.70 days (95% CI, 31.36-38.04 days). From 32 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks, no fetal or neonatal death in either group was recorded. 46 fetuses were delivered after 34 + 0 weeks, and none of them died in utero or within the first 28 days postpartum. CONCLUSION: In uncomplicated monoamniotic twins, inpatient surveillance is associated with similar fetal mortality as outpatient management. After 31 + 6 weeks, and up to 36 + 6 weeks, there were no intrauterine fetal deaths or neonatal deaths. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Objectives To evaluate the strength of association between maternal and pregnancy characteristics and the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes in pregnancies with laboratory confirmed COVID-19. Methods Secondary analysis of a multinational, cohort study on all consecutive pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from February 1, 2020 to April 30, 2020 from 73 centers from 22 different countries. A confirmed case of COVID-19 was defined as a positive result on real-time reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) assay of nasal and pharyngeal swab specimens. The primary outcome was a composite adverse fetal outcome, defined as the presence of either abortion (pregnancy loss before 22 weeks of gestations), stillbirth (intrauterine fetal death after 22 weeks of gestation), neonatal death (death of a live-born infant within the first 28 days of life), and perinatal death (either stillbirth or neonatal death). Logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate parameters independently associated with the primary outcome. Logistic regression was reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results Mean gestational age at diagnosis was 30.6±9.5 weeks, with 8.0% of women being diagnosed in the first, 22.2% in the second and 69.8% in the third trimester of pregnancy. There were six miscarriage (2.3%), six intrauterine device (IUD) (2.3) and 5 (2.0%) neonatal deaths, with an overall rate of perinatal death of 4.2% (11/265), thus resulting into 17 cases experiencing and 226 not experiencing composite adverse fetal outcome. Neither stillbirths nor neonatal deaths had congenital anomalies found at antenatal or postnatal evaluation. Furthermore, none of the cases experiencing IUD had signs of impending demise at arterial or venous Doppler. Neonatal deaths were all considered as prematurity-related adverse events. Of the 250 live-born neonates, one (0.4%) was found positive at RT-PCR pharyngeal swabs performed after delivery. The mother was tested positive during the third trimester of pregnancy. The newborn was asymptomatic and had negative RT-PCR test after 14 days of life. At logistic regression analysis, gestational age at diagnosis (OR: 0.85, 95% CI 0.8–0.9 per week increase; p Conclusions Early gestational age at infection, maternal ventilatory supports and low birthweight are the main determinants of adverse perinatal outcomes in fetuses with maternal COVID-19 infection. Conversely, the risk of vertical transmission seems negligible.

WOS:000613461600006 PubMed ID: 32926494 Objectives To evaluate the maternal and perinatal outcomes of pregnancies affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods This was a multinational retrospective cohort study including women with a singleton pregnancy and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, conducted in 72 centers in 22 different countries in Europe, the USA, South America, Asia and Australia, between 1 February 2020 and 30 April 2020. Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as a positive result on real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay of nasopharyngeal swab specimens. The primary outcome was a composite measure of maternal mortality and morbidity, including admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), use of mechanical ventilation and death. Results In total, 388 women with a singleton pregnancy tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR of a nasopharyngeal swab and were included in the study. Composite adverse maternal outcome was observed in 47/388 (12.1%) women; 43 (11.1%) women were admitted to the ICU, 36 (9.3%) required mechanical ventilation and three (0.8%) died. Of the 388 women included in the study, 122 (31.4%) were still pregnant at the time of data analysis. Among the other 266 women, six (19.4% of the 31 women with first-trimester infection) had miscarriage, three (1.1%) had termination of pregnancy, six (2.3%) had stillbirth and 251 (94.4%) delivered a liveborn infant. The rate of preterm birth before 37 weeks' gestation was 26.3% (70/266). Of the 251 liveborn infants, 69/251(27.5%) were admitted to the neonatal ICU, and there were five (2.0%) neonatal deaths. The overall rate of perinatal death was 4.1% (11/266). Only one (1/251, 0.4%) infant, born to a mother who tested positive during the third trimester, was found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR. Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women is associated with a 0.8% rate of maternal mortality, but an 11.1% rate of admission to the ICU. The risk of vertical transmission seems to be negligible. (C) 2020 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Objective: To determine the role of progesterone, pessary and cervical cerclage in reducing the risk of (preterm birth) PTB in twin pregnancies and compare these interventions using pairwise and network meta-analysis. Study design: Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were explored. The inclusion criteria were studies in which twin pregnancies were randomized to an intervention for the prevention of PTB (any type of progesterone, cervical cerclage, cervical pessary, or any combination of these) or to a control group (e.g. placebo or treatment as usual). Interventions of interest were either progesterone [vaginal or oral natural progesterone or intramuscular 17a-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC)], cerclage (McDonald or Shirodkar), or cervical pessary. The primary outcome was PTB < 34 weeks of gestation. Both primary and secondary outcomes were explored in an unselected population of twin pregnancies and in women at higher risk of PTB (defined as those with cervical length 0.05). When stratifying the analysis for spontaneous PTB, neither pessary, vaginal or intramuscular 17-OHPC were associated with a significant reduction in the risk of PTB compared to controls (all p > 0.05), while there was no study on cerclage which explored this outcome in an unselected population of twin pregnancies. When considering twin pregnancies with short cervical length (≤25 mm), there was no contribution of either pessary, vaginal progesterone, intra-muscular 17-OHPC or cerclage in reducing the risk of overall PTB < 34 weeks of gestation. Conclusions: Cervical pessary, progesterone and cerclage do not show a significant effect in reducing the rate of PTB or perinatal morbidity in twins, either when these interventions are applied to an unselected population of twins or in pregnancies with a short cervix.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) is a zoonotic coronavirus that crossed species to infect humans, causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Despite a potentially higher risk of pregnant women acquiring SARS‐CoV‐2 infection compared with the non‐pregnant population (particularly in some ethnic minorities), no additional specific recommendations to avoid exposure are needed in pregnancy. The most common clinical symptoms and laboratory signs of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in pregnancy are fever, cough, lymphopenia and elevated C‐reactive protein levels. Pregnancy is associated with a higher risk of severe SARS‐CoV‐2 infection compared with the non‐pregnant population, including pneumonia, admission to the intensive care unit and death, even after adjusting for potential risk factors for severe outcomes. The risk of miscarriage does not appear to be increased in women with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Evidence with regards to preterm birth and perinatal mortality is conflicting, but these risks are generally higher only in symptomatic, hospitalized women. The risk of vertical transmission, defined as the transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 from the mother to the fetus or the newborn, is generally low. Fetal invasive procedures are considered to be generally safe in pregnant women with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, although the evidence is still limited. In pregnant women with COVID‐19, use of steroids should not be avoided if clinically indicated; the preferred regimen is a 2‐day course of dexamethasone followed by an 8‐day course of methylprednisolone. Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs may be used if there are no contraindications. Hospitalized pregnant women with severe COVID‐19 should undergo thromboprophylaxis throughout the duration of hospitalization and at least until discharge, preferably with low molecular weight heparin. Hospitalized women who have recovered from a period of serious or critical illness with COVID‐19 should be offered a fetal growth scan about 14 days after recovery from their illness. In asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic women who have tested positive for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection at full term (i.e. ≥ 39 weeks of gestation), induction of labor might be reasonable. To date, there is no clear consensus on the optimal timing of delivery for critically ill women. In women with no or few symptoms, management of labor should follow routine evidence‐based guidelines. Regardless of COVID‐19 status, mothers and their infants should remain together and breastfeeding, skin‐to‐skin contact, kangaroo mother care and rooming‐in throughout the day and night should be practiced, while applying necessary infection prevention and control measures. Many pregnant women have already undergone vaccination, mostly in the USA where the first reports show no significant difference in pregnancy outcomes in pregnant women receiving SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination during pregnancy compared with the background risk. Vaccine‐generated antibodies were present in the umbilical cord blood and breast milk samples of pregnant and lactating women who received the mRNA COVID‐19 vaccine. Based on the available limited data on the safety of the COVID‐19 vaccine in pregnancy, it seems reasonable to offer the option of vaccination to pregnant women after accurate counseling on the potential risk of a severe course of the disease and the unknown risk of fetal exposure to the vaccine. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology., This article's abstract has been translated into Spanish and Chinese. Follow the links from the abstract to view the translations.

Objective: The aim of this study was to report the rate of additional anomalies detected exclusively at prenatal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in fetuses with isolated severe ventriculomegaly undergoing neurosonography. Method: Multicenter, retrospective, cohort study involving 20 referral fetal medicine centers in Italy, United Kingdom, Spain and Denmark. Inclusion criteria were fetuses affected by isolated severe ventriculomegaly (≥15 mm), defined as ventriculomegaly with normal karyotype and no other additional central nervous system (CNS) and extra-CNS anomalies on ultrasound. In all cases, a multiplanar assessment of fetal brain as suggested by ISUOG guidelines on fetal neurosonography had been performed. The primary outcome was the rate of additional CNS anomalies detected exclusively at fetal MRI within two weeks from neurosonography. Subgroup analyses according to gestational age at MRI (

Objective The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the role of paternal sperm exposure before pregnancy on the risk of preeclampsia. Study design The search was conducted using electronic databases from inception of each database through October 2019. Review of articles also included the abstracts of all references retrieved from the search. Only studies evaluating exposure to paternal sperm before pregnancy on the risk of preeclampsia in the subsequent pregnancy were included. Exposure group was defined as significant exposure to paternal sperm, either measured by sexual cohabitation, oral sex habit, or by absence of barrier methods. Control groups was defined as minimal exposure to paternal sperm, either measured by lack of sexual cohabitation or oral sex habit, or by use of barrier methods. Sperm exposure identifiable before pregnancy that may be suspected to modify the risk of preeclampsia was examined. The primary outcome was the incidence of preeclampsia. Subgroup analyses by parity and type of sperm exposure were planned. All analyses were carried out using the random effects model. The pooled results were reported as the OR with 95 % confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was measured using I-squared (Higgins I2). Results Seven studies including 7125 pregnant women were included in this systematic review. Overall, the incidence of preeclampsia was similar in women with a higher overall sperm exposure compared to controls, 774/5512 (14 %) vs 220/1619 (13.6 %); OR 1.04, 95 % CI 0.88–1.22, respectively. The incidence of preeclampsia was significantly reduced in women with a higher overall sperm exposure when including only nulliparous women, 643/3946 (16.1 %) vs 170/725 (23.4 %); OR 0.63, 95 % CI 0.52 to 0.76. Significant lower rate of preeclampsia was also found for ≥12-month sexual cohabitation, 494/3627 (13.6 %) vs 123/691 (17.8 %); OR 0.73, 95 % CI 0.59−0.90. Significantly higher rate of preeclampsia was reported in women not using barrier methods, 315/1904 (16.5 %) vs 103/962 (10.7 %); OR 1.65, 95 % CI 1.30–2.10. Conclusions Paternal sperm exposure in nulliparous women and sexual cohabitation > 12 months before pregnancy are associated with a decreased risk of preeclampsia.

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the strength of association between dispositional optimism, assessed with the Revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R), and obstetrical outcomes, and to evaluate women's social characteristics that may lead to low dispositional optimism during pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: The research was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Sciences, Cochrane Database, and ClinicalTrial.gov as electronic databases. The articles were identified with the use of a combination of the relevant heading term, key words, and word variants for: "optimism" or "happiness" and "pregnancy" or "obstetrical outcomes", from the inception of each database to June 2019. Review of articles also included the abstracts of all references retrieved from the search. Randomized, cohort, case-control, or case series were all accepted study designs. Only studies reporting obstetrical outcomes in women undergone LOT-R to assess dispositional optimism during pregnancy were included. Obstetrical outcomes included preterm birth, pre-eclampsia and small for gestational age fetuses. All analyses were carried out using the random effects model. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using the odds ratio (OR) with a 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI). No continuous variables were compared in the analysis. Significance level was set at P < 0.05. Heterogeneity was measured using I-squared (Higgins I2). RESULTS: Two prospective cohort studies, including 3,570 pregnancies undergone LOT-R - mostly during the second trimester - were included in the systematic review. Out of the 3,570 pregnancies included, 411 were in the lowest quartile of optimism, according to LOT-R score. Dispositional optimism showed a trend towards lower incidence of preterm birth (7.6 % vs 9.7 %; OR 0.76, CI 0.53-1.09); no difference between women at higher levels and women in the lowest quartile of optimism was found in preeclampsia and small for gestational age. Women at higher levels of dispositional optimism were significantly associated with: age ≥ 30 years; marriage or "marriage-like status"; lower rates of public assistance and smoking; white ethnicity; higher rates of higher education. CONCLUSION: There are limited data on optimism and obstetric outcomes. Higher levels of optimism, evaluated by the LOT-R tool in two studies, are associated with a non-significant decrease in preterm birth.

To assess the rate of fetal loss following amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) in twin pregnancy.MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for studies reporting procedure-related complications following amniocentesis or CVS in twin pregnancy. The primary outcome was the rate of procedure-related fetal loss. The secondary outcomes were fetal loss occurring before 24 weeks of gestation and fetal loss occurring within 4 weeks after the procedure. Head-to-head meta-analyses were used to compare directly each outcome, between women undergoing amniocentesis and those not undergoing amniocentesis and between women undergoing CVS and those not undergoing CVS, and to compute pooled risk differences (RD) between women exposed and those not exposed to each invasive procedure. Additionally, meta-analyses of proportions were used to estimate the pooled rates of each of the three outcomes in women undergoing amniocentesis or CVS and in controls.Sixteen studies (3419 twin pregnancies undergoing and 2517 not undergoing an invasive procedure) were included. Head-to-head meta-analyses comparing directly twin pregnancies undergoing and those not undergoing amniocentesis showed a higher risk for overall fetal loss in those undergoing amniocentesis (odds ratio (OR), 1.46 (P = 0.04); RD, 0.013 (P = 0.04)), while there was no difference in the risk of either fetal loss before 24 weeks of gestation (OR, 1.59 (P = 0.06); RD, 0.010 (P = 0.11)) or fetal loss within 4 weeks after the procedure (OR, 1.38 (P = 0.3); RD, 0.003 (P = 0.8)). Overall, the pooled rate of fetal loss was 2.4% (95% CI, 1.4-3.6%) in twin pregnancies undergoing amniocentesis compared with 2.4% (95% CI, 0.9-4.6%) in those not undergoing amniocentesis. Head-to-head meta-analyses directly comparing twin pregnancies undergoing and those not undergoing CVS showed no significant difference in either overall fetal loss (OR, 1.61 (P = 0.5); RD, 0.003 (P = 0.8)) or fetal loss before 24 weeks of gestation (OR, 1.61 (P = 0.5); RD, 0.003 (P = 0.8)). Overall, the pooled rate of fetal loss was 2.0% (95% CI, 0.0-6.5%) in twin pregnancies undergoing CVS compared with 1.8% (95% CI, 0.3-4.2%) in those not undergoing CVS.The risk of fetal loss following amniocentesis and CVS in twins is lower than reported previously and the rate of fetal loss before 24 weeks of gestation, or within 4 weeks after the procedure, did not differ from the background risk in twin pregnancy not undergoing invasive prenatal testing. These data can guide prenatal counseling for twin pregnancies undergoing invasive procedures. © 2020 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.Riesgo de pérdida del feto tras una amniocentesis o una biopsia de vellosidades coriónicas en un embarazo de gemelos: revisión sistemática y metaanálisis OBJETIVO: Evaluar la tasa de pérdida del feto tras una amniocentesis o una biopsia de vellosidades coriónicas (BVC) en un embarazo de gemelos. MÉTODOS: Se hizo una búsqueda en las bases de datos MEDLINE, EMBASE y Cochrane de estudios que habían reportado complicaciones relacionadas con el procedimiento después de una amniocentesis o una BVC en un embarazo de gemelos. El resultado primario fue la tasa de pérdida del feto relacionada con el procedimiento. Los resultados secundarios fueron la pérdida del feto producida antes de las 24 semanas de gestación y la pérdida del feto producida dentro de las 4 semanas posteriores al procedimiento. Se utilizaron metaanálisis cara a cara para comparar cada resultado directamente, entre las mujeres que se sometieron a una amniocentesis y las que no se sometieron a ella, y entre las mujeres que se sometieron a una BVC y las que no se sometieron a ella, así como para calcular las diferencias de riesgo (DR) combinadas entre las mujeres expuestas y las no expuestas a cada procedimiento agresivo. Además, se utilizaron los metaanálisis de proporciones para estimar las tasas combinadas de cada uno de los tres resultados en las mujeres que se sometieron a amniocentesis o a BVC y en los controles. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 16 estudios (3.419 embarazos de gemelos sometidos a un procedimiento agresivo y 2.517 no sometidos). Los metaanálisis cara a cara que compararon directamente los embarazos de gemelos sometidos y no sometidos a amniocentesis mostraron un mayor riesgo de pérdida general del feto en total en los sometidos a amniocentesis (Razón de Momios (RM), 1,46 (P=0,04); DR, 0,013 (P=0,04)), mientras que no hubo diferencias en el riesgo de pérdida del feto antes de las 24 semanas de gestación (RM, 1,59 (P=0,06); DR, 0,010 (P=0,11)) ni en el de las 4 semanas posteriores al procedimiento (RM, 1,38 (P=0,3); DR, 0,003 (P=0,8)). En general, la tasa conjunta de pérdida del feto fue del 2,4% (IC 95%, 1,4-3,6%) en los embarazos de gemelos sometidos a amniocentesis, en comparación con el 2,4% (IC 95%, 0,9-4,6%) en los que no se sometieron a amniocentesis. Los metaanálisis cara a cara que compararon directamente los embarazos de gemelos que se sometieron y que no se sometieron a una BVC no mostraron diferencias significativas ni en la pérdida del feto en total (RM, 1,61 (P=0,5); DR, 0,003 (P=0,8)) ni en la pérdida del feto antes de las 24 semanas de gestación (RM, 1,61 (P=0,5); DR, 0,003 (P=0,8)). En general, la tasa combinada de pérdida del feto fue del 2,0% (IC 95%, 0,0-6,5%) de los embarazos de gemelos sometidos a BVC, comparada con el 1,8% (IC 95%, 0,3-4,2%) de los que no se sometieron a BVC. CONCLUSIÓN: El riesgo de pérdida del feto tras la amniocentesis y la BVC en gemelos es menor que lo reportado en el pasado y la tasa de pérdida del feto antes de las 24 semanas de gestación, o dentro de las 4 semanas posteriores al procedimiento, no difiere de la del riesgo de contexto en los embarazos de gemelos que no se someten a pruebas prenatales agresivas. Estos datos pueden servir de guía para el asesoramiento prenatal de los embarazos de gemelos que se someten a procedimientos agresivos.双胎妊娠中继羊膜穿刺术或绒膜绒毛取样后发生流产的风险:系统评价和荟萃分析 目的: 评估双胎妊娠中继羊膜穿刺术或绒膜绒毛取样(CVS)后发生的流产率。 方法: 在MEDLINE(美国医学文献联机数据库)、EMBASE(荷兰医学文摘数据库)和实证医学资料库中针对报告双胎妊娠中继羊膜穿刺术或CVS后发生与医疗程序相关的并发症进行了搜索。主要结果是与医疗程序相关的流产率。次要结果是发生在孕期24周前的流产和疗程后4周内发生的流产。采用头对头荟萃分析来直接对比每个结果，在已进行过羊膜穿刺术的孕妇与未进行羊膜穿刺术的孕妇之间，并在已经历CVS的孕妇和未经历CVS的孕妇之间进行对比，以计算出暴露于每种侵入性疗程和未暴露于每种侵入性疗程的孕妇之间的汇总风险差异。此外，采用按比例的荟萃分析来评估经历羊膜穿刺术或CVS的孕妇及对照组中三种预后的 每个汇总比率。 结果: 包含了16项研究(经历过侵入性医疗程序的3419个双胎妊娠和未经历侵入性医疗程序的2517个 双胎妊娠)。直接对比经历和未经历羊膜穿刺术的双胎妊娠的头对头荟萃分析，表明经历了羊膜穿刺术的双胎孕妇发生流产的总体风险更高(比值比(OR)，1.46 (P=0.04)；RD, 0.013 (P=0.04))，在孕期24周前(OR, 1.59 (P=0.06); RD, 0.010 (P=0.11))或疗程后四周内(OR, 1.38(P=0.3); RD, 0.003 (P=0.8))，这两种情况的流产风险没有差别。总体来看，经历羊膜穿刺术的双胎妊娠的流产汇总比率为2.4%(95% CI, 1.4-3.6%)，相比之下，未经历羊膜穿刺术的双胎妊娠的流产汇总比率为2.4%(95% CI, 0.9-4.6%)。直接对比经历过和未经历CVS的双胎妊娠的头对头荟萃分析，表明总体流产情况(OR, 1.61 (P=0.5); RD, 0.003 (P=0.8))和孕期24周前的流产情况(OR, 1.61 (P=0.5); RD, 0.003 (P=0.8))无显著差异。总体来看，经历过CVS的双胎妊娠的流产汇总比率为2.0%(95% CI, 0.0-6.5%)，相比之下，未经历CVS的双胎妊娠的流产汇总比率为1.8%(95% CI, 0.3-4.2%)。 结论: 双胎妊娠中继羊膜穿刺术或绒膜绒毛取样(CVS)后发生流产的风险低于以前的报告，而且孕期24周前或疗程后四周内的流产率与未经历侵入性产前检查的双胎妊娠中的背景风险没有差异。这些数据能够为双胎妊娠进行侵入性检查提供产前咨询指导。© 2020 国际妇产科超声学会.

Objective: To investigate the outcome of pregnancies with small baby, including both small for gestational age (SGA) and late fetal growth restriction (FGR) fetuses, undergoing induction of labor (IOL) with Dinoprostone, Misoprostol or mechanical methods. Study design: Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were non-anomalous singleton pregnancies complicated by the presence of a small fetus, defined as a fetus with estimated fetal weight (EFW) or abdominal circumference (AC) 3rd centile with normal cerebroplacental Dopplers). Quality assessment of each included study was performed using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions tool (ROBINS-I), while the GRADE methodology was used to assess the quality of the body of retrieved evidence. Meta-analyses of proportions and individual data random-effect logistic regression were used to analyze the data. Results: 12 studies (1711 pregnancies) were included. In the overall population of small fetuses, composite adverse intra-partum outcome occurred in 21.2 % (95 % CI 10.0−34.9) of pregnancies induced with Dinoprostone, 18.0 % (95 % CI 6.9−32.5) of those with Misoprostol and 11.6 % (95 % CI 5.5−19.3) of those undergoing IOL with mechanical methods. Cesarean section (CS) for non-reassuring fetal status (NRFS) was required in 18.1 % (95 % CI 9.9−28.3) of pregnancies induced with Dinoprostone, 9.4 % (95 % CI 1.4−22.0) of those with Misoprostol and 8.1 % (95 % CI 5.0−11.6) of those undergoing mechanical induction. Likewise, uterine tachysystole, was recorded on CTG in 13.8 % (95 % CI 6.9−22.3) of cases induced with Dinoprostone, 7.5 % (95 % CI 2.1−15.4) of those with Misoprostol and 3.8 % (95 % CI 0–4.4) of those induced with mechanical methods. Composite adverse perinatal outcome following delivery complicated 2.9 % (95 % CI 0.5−6.7) newborns after IOL with Dinoprostone, 0.6 % (95 % CI 0–2.5) with Misoprostol and 0.7 % (95 % CI 0–7.1) with mechanical methods. In pregnancies complicated by late FGR, adverse intrapartum outcome occurred in 25.3 % (95 % CI 18.8−32.5) of women undergoing IOL with Dinoprostone, compared to 7.4 % (95 % CI 3.9−11.7) of those with mechanical methods, while CS for NRFS was performed in 23.8 % (95 % CI 17.3−30.9) and 6.2 % (95 % CI 2.8−10.5) of the cases, respectively. Finally, in SGA fetuses, composite adverse intrapartum outcome complicated 8.4 % (95 % CI 4.6−13.0) of pregnancies induced with Dinoprostone, 18.6 % (95 % CI 13.1−25.2) of those with Misoprostol and 8.7 (95 % CI 2.5−17.5) of those undergoing mechanical IOL, while CS for NRF was performed in 8.4 % (95 % CI 4.6−13.0) of women induced with Dinoprostone, 18.6 % (95 % CI 13.1−25.2) of those with Misoprostol and 8.7 % (95 % CI 2.5−17.5) of those undergoing mechanical induction. Overall, the quality of the included studies was low and was downgraded due to considerable clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Conclusions: There is limited evidence on the optimal type of IOL in pregnancies with small fetuses. Mechanical methods seem to be associated with a lower occurrence of adverse intrapartum outcomes, but a direct comparison between different techniques could not be performed.

Objectives:The primary objective was to quantify the risk of perinatal mortality in non‐anomalous monochorionic monoamniotic (MCMA) twin pregnancies complicated by birth‐weight (BW) discordance. The secondary objectives were to investigate the effect of inpatientvsoutpatient fetal monitoring on the risk of mortality in weight‐discordant MCMA twin pregnancies, and to explore the predictive accuracy of BW discordance for perinatal mortality. Methods:This analysis included data on 242 MCMA twin pregnancies (484 fetuses) from three major research collaboratives on twin pregnancy (MONOMONO, STORK and NorSTAMP). The primary outcomes were the risks of intrauterine (IUD), neonatal (NND) and perinatal (PND) death, according to weight discordance at birth from ≥ 10% to ≥ 30%. The secondary outcomes were the association of inpatientvsoutpatient fetal monitoring with the risk of mortality in weight‐discordant pregnancies, and the accuracy of BW discordance in predicting mortality. Logistic regression and receiver‐operating‐characteristics‐curve analyses were used to analyze the data. Results:The risk of IUD was significantly increased in MCMA twin pregnancies with BW discordance ≥ 10% (odds ratio (OR), 2.2; 95% CI, 1.1–4.4;P= 0.022) and increased up to an OR of 4.4 (95% CI, 1.3–14.4;P= 0.001) in those with BW discordance ≥ 30%. This association remained significant on multivariate logistic regression analysis for BW‐discordance cut‐offs ≥ 20%. However, weight discordance had low predictive accuracy for mortality, with areas under the receiver‐operating‐characteristics curve of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.46–0.73), 0.52 (95% CI, 0.33–0.72) and 0.57 (95% CI, 0.45–0.68) for IUD, NND and PND, respectively. There was no difference in the risk of overall IUD, single IUD, double IUD, NND or PND between pregnancies managed as an inpatient compared with those managed as an outpatient, for any BW‐discordance cut‐off. Conclusions:MCMA twin pregnancies with BW discordance are at increased risk of fetal death, signaling a need for increased levels of monitoring. Despite this, the predictive accuracy for mortality is low; thus, detection of BW discordance alone should not trigger intervention, such as iatrogenic delivery. The current data do not demonstrate an advantage of inpatient over outpatient management in these cases. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Objectives: To assess the role of fetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detecting associated anomalies in fetuses presenting with mild or moderate isolated ventriculomegaly (VM) undergoing multiplanar ultrasound evaluation of the fetal brain. Methods: This was a multicenter, retrospective, cohort study involving 15 referral fetal medicine centers in Italy, the UK and Spain. Inclusion criteria were fetuses affected by isolated mild (ventricular atrial diameter, 10.0–11.9 mm) or moderate (ventricular atrial diameter, 12.0–14.9 mm) VM on ultrasound, defined as VM with normal karyotype and no other additional central nervous system (CNS) or extra-CNS anomalies on ultrasound, undergoing detailed assessment of the fetal brain using a multiplanar approach as suggested by the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology guidelines for the fetal neurosonogram, followed by fetal MRI. The primary outcome of the study was to report the incidence of additional CNS anomalies detected exclusively on prenatal MRI and missed on ultrasound, while the secondary aim was to estimate the incidence of additional anomalies detected exclusively after birth and missed on prenatal imaging (ultrasound and MRI). Subgroup analysis according to gestational age at MRI (< 24 vs ≥ 24 weeks), laterality of VM (unilateral vs bilateral) and severity of dilatation (mild vs moderate VM) were also performed. Results: Five hundred and fifty-six fetuses with a prenatal diagnosis of isolated mild or moderate VM on ultrasound were included in the analysis. Additional structural anomalies were detected on prenatal MRI and missed on ultrasound in 5.4% (95% CI, 3.8–7.6%) of cases. When considering the type of anomaly, supratentorial intracranial hemorrhage was detected on MRI in 26.7% of fetuses, while polymicrogyria and lissencephaly were detected in 20.0% and 13.3% of cases, respectively. Hypoplasia of the corpus callosum was detected on MRI in 6.7% of cases, while dysgenesis was detected in 3.3%. Fetuses with an associated anomaly detected only on MRI were more likely to have moderate than mild VM (60.0% vs 17.7%; P < 0.001), while there was no significant difference in the proportion of cases with bilateral VM between the two groups (P = 0.2). Logistic regression analysis showed that lower maternal body mass index (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 0.85 (95% CI, 0.7–0.99); P = 0.030), the presence of moderate VM (aOR, 5.8 (95% CI, 2.6–13.4); P < 0.001) and gestational age at MRI ≥ 24 weeks (aOR, 4.1 (95% CI, 1.1–15.3); P = 0.038) were associated independently with the probability of detecting an associated anomaly on MRI. Associated anomalies were detected exclusively at birth and missed on prenatal imaging in 3.8% of cases. Conclusions: The incidence of an associated fetal anomaly missed on ultrasound and detected only on fetal MRI in fetuses with isolated mild or moderate VM undergoing neurosonography is lower than that reported previously. The large majority of these anomalies are difficult to detect on ultrasound. The findings from this study support the practice of MRI assessment in every fetus with a prenatal diagnosis of VM, although parents can be reassured of the low risk of an associated anomaly when VM is isolated on neurosonography. Copyright © 2020 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Objective The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was to evaluate the effect of delayed versus immediate pushing in the second stage of labor on mode of delivery and other outcomes in women with neuraxial analgesia. Data sources The research was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Sciences, Scopus, ClinicalTrial.gov , OVID, and the Cochrane Library as electronic databases, from the inception of each database to August 2019. No restrictions for language or geographic location were applied. Study eligibility criteria Selection criteria included only randomized controlled trials in pregnant women randomized to either delayed or immediate pushing during the second stage of labor. Study appraisal and synthesis methods The primary outcome was mode of delivery. The summary measures were reported as relative risk or as mean difference with 95% confidence intervals using the random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird. An I2 (Higgins I2) value of greater than 0% was used to identify heterogeneity. Results Twelve randomized controlled trials, including 5445 women with neuraxial analgesia randomized to delayed versus immediate pushing during the second stage of labor, were included in the meta-analysis. Of the 5445 women included in the meta-analysis, 2754 were randomized to the delayed pushing group and 2691 to the immediate pushing group. No significant difference between delayed and immediate pushing was found for spontaneous vaginal delivery (80.9% versus 78.3%; relative risk, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.00−1.10; 12 randomized controlled trials, 5540 women), operative vaginal delivery (12.8% versus 14.6%; relative risk, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.75−1.08; 11 randomized controlled trials, 5395 women), and cesarean delivery (6.9% versus 7.9%; relative risk, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.73−1.07; 11 randomized controlled trials; 5395 women). Women randomized to the delayed pushing group had a significantly shorter length of active pushing (mean difference, −27.54 minutes; 95% confidence interval, −43.04 to −12.04; 7 randomized controlled trials, 4737 women) at the expense of a significantly longer overall duration of the second stage of labor (mean difference, 46.17 minutes; 95% confidence interval, 32.63−59.71; 8 studies; 4890 women). The incidence of chorioamnionitis (9.1% versus 6.6%; relative risk, 1.37, 95% confidence interval, 1.04−1.81; 1 randomized controlled trial, 2404 women) and low umbilical cord pH (2.7% versus 1.3%; relative risk, 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.30−3.07; 5 randomized controlled trials, 4549 women) were significantly higher in the delayed pushing group. Conclusion In women with spontaneous or induced labor at term with neuraxial analgesia, delayed pushing in the second stage does not affect the mode of delivery, although it reduces the time of active pushing at the expense of a longer second stage. This prolongation of labor was associated with a higher incidence of chorioamnionitis and low umbilical cord pH. Based on these findings, delayed pushing cannot be routinely advocated for the management of the second stage.

Background: Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) is characterized by the elevation of total bile acids (TBAs). The primary concern in women with ICP is the increased risk of stillbirth. ICP is generally considered as “mild” when TBA levels range from 10 to 39 µmol/L and “severe” with levels greater than 40 µmol/L, although levels of TBA ≥100 µmol/L have been also considered as a further threshold of severity. Objective: To quantify the association between different severities of ICP (TBA 10–39, 40–99, and ≥100 µmol/L) and perinatal death. Data sources: Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and ClinicalTrial.gov were searched from the inception of each database to February 2019. Methods of study selection: Randomized, cohort, case-control, or case series studies reporting maternal and perinatal outcomes on women with ICP by the three prespecified TBA levels (10–39, 40–99, and ≥100 µmol/L) were included. We excluded multiple gestations and trials which included an intervention. The analysis was performed with Pearson chi-square and Fisher’s exact test as appropriate. Continuous outcomes were compared using metaregression with inverse variance weighting using reported sample sizes and standard deviations. Pairwise comparisons used a Bonferroni correction to control for multiple testing. Tabulation, integration, and results: Six articles including 1280 singleton pregnancies affected by ICP were included in the systematic review. Out of the 1280 singleton pregnancies affected by ICP included, 118 had ICP with TBA ≥100 µmol/L. Perinatal death was more common in women with TBA ≥100 µmol/L (0.4% for TBA 10-39 μmol/L versus 0.3% for TBA 40-99 μmol/L versus 6.8% for TBA ≥ 100 μmol/L, p