Search

Introduction: There is little evidence to guide the timing of delivery of women with early-onset severe preeclampsia. We hypothesize that immediate delivery is not inferior for neonatal outcome but reduces maternal complications compared with temporizing management.Material and Methods: This Dutch multicenter open-label randomized clinical trial investigated non-inferiority for neonatal outcome of temporizing management as compared with immediate delivery (TOTEM NTR 2986) in women between 27+5 and 33+5 weeks of gestation admitted for early-onset severe preeclampsia with or without HELLP syndrome. In participants allocated to receive immediate delivery, either induction of labor or cesarean section was initiated at least 48 hours after admission. Primary outcomes were adverse perinatal outcome, defined as a composite of severe respiratory distress syndrome, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, culture proven sepsis, intraventricular hemorrhage grade 3 or worse, periventricular leukomalacia grade 2 or worse, necrotizing enterocolitis stage 2 or worse, and perinatal death. Major maternal complications were secondary outcomes. It was estimated 1130 women needed to be enrolled. Analysis was by intention-to-treat.Results: The trial was halted after 35 months because of slow recruitment. Between February 2011 and December 2013, a total of 56 women were randomized to immediate delivery (n = 26) or temporizing management (n = 30). Median gestational age at randomization was 30 weeks. Median prolongation of pregnancy was 2 days (interquartile range 1-3 days) in the temporizing management group. Mean birthweight was 1435 g after immediate delivery vs 1294 g after temporizing management (P = .14). The adverse perinatal outcome rate was 55% in the immediate delivery group vs 52% in the temporizing management group (relative risk 1.06; 95% confidence interval 0.67-1.70). In both groups there was one neonatal death and no maternal deaths. In the temporizing treatment group, one woman experienced pulmonary edema and one placental abruption. Analyses of only the singleton pregnancies did not result in other outcomes.Conclusions: Early termination of the trial precluded any conclusions for the main outcomes. We observed that temporizing management resulted in a modest prolongation of pregnancy without changes in perinatal and maternal outcome. Conducting a randomized study for this important research question did not prove feasible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Low-dose aspirin (LDA) prophylaxis has been shown to reduce women's preeclampsia risk. Evidence regarding LDA adherence rates of pregnant women is based almost exclusively on clinical trials, giving a potentially biased picture. Moreover, these studies do not report on determinants of adherence. Since 2017, obstetric healthcare professionals in a Dutch region have assessed women's preeclampsia risk by means of a prediction tool and counseled those with an above-population average risk on LDA as a prophylactic measure., Material and Methods: From 2017 to 2018, 865 women were recruited in multiple centers and prospectively followed using web-based surveys (Expect Study II). Rates and determinants of LDA usage among women with an increased preeclampsia risk in daily practice were assessed. Results were compared with findings in a similar cohort from a care-as-usual setting lacking risk-based counseling (Expect Study I, n = 2614). Netherlands Trial Register NTR4143., Results: In total, 306 women had a predicted increased preeclampsia risk. LDA usage was higher for women receiving risk-based care than care-as-usual (29.4% vs 1.5%, odds ratio 19.1, 95% confidence interval 11.2-32.5). Daily LDA usage was positively correlated with both predicted risk and women's concerns regarding preeclampsia. Most reported reasons for non- or incomplete use were unawareness of LDA as a preventive intervention, concerns about potential adverse effects and doubts regarding the benefits., Conclusions: Risk-based counseling was associated with a higher prevalence of LDA usage, but general usage rates were low. Future research regarding potential factors improving the usage of LDA during pregnancy is necessary., (© 2020 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).)

Introduction: When women with a previous cesarean section and an unfavorable cervix have an indication for delivery, the choice is to induce labor or to perform a cesarean section. This study aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of a balloon catheter as a method of induction of labor in women with one previous cesarean section and an unfavorable cervix compared with an elective repeat cesarean section., Material and Methods: We performed a prospective cohort study in 51 hospitals in the Netherlands on term women with one previous cesarean section, a live singleton fetus in cephalic position, an unfavorable cervix and an indication for delivery. We recorded obstetric, maternal and neonatal characteristics. We compared the outcome of women who were induced with a balloon catheter with the outcome of women who delivered by elective repeat cesarean section. Main outcomes were maternal and neonatal morbidity. Mode of delivery was a secondary outcome for women who were induced. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusted for potential confounders., Results: Analysis was performed on 993 women who were induced and 321 women who had a repeat cesarean section (August 2011 until September 2012). Among the women who were induced, 560 (56.4%) delivered vaginally and 11 (1.1%) sustained a uterine rupture. Composite adverse maternal outcome (uterine rupture, severe postpartum hemorrhage or postpartum infection) occurred in 73 (7.4%) in the balloon and 14 (4.5%) women in the repeat cesarean section group (aOR 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-2.96). Composite adverse neonatal outcome (Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes or umbilical pH <7.10) occurred in 57 (5.7%) and 10 (3.2%) neonates, respectively (aOR 1.40, 95% CI 0.87-3.48). Women who were induced had a shorter postpartum admission time (2.0 vs 3.0 days (P < 0.0001))., Conclusions: In women with a previous cesarean section and a need for delivery, induction of labor with a balloon catheter does not result in a significant increase in adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes as compared with planned cesarean section., (© 2019 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).)