Search

Background: Although the risk for transplacental transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is rare, placental infections with adverse functional consequences have been reported. This study aims to analyse histological placental findings in pregnancies complicated by SARS-CoV-2 infection and investigate its correlation with clinical symptoms and perinatal outcomes. We want to determine which pregnancies are at-risk to prevent adverse pregnancy outcomes related to COVID-19 in the future. Methods: A prospective, longitudinal, multicentre, cohort study. All pregnant women presenting between April 2020 and March 2021 with a nasopharyngeal RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Around delivery, maternal, foetal and placental PCR samples were collected. Placental pathology was correlated with clinical maternal characteristics of COVID-19. Results: Thirty-six patients were included, 33 singleton pregnancies (n = 33, 92%) and three twin pregnancies (n = 3, 8%). Twenty-four (62%) placentas showed at least one abnormality. Four placentas (4/39, 10%) showed placental staining positive for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 accompanied by a unique combination of diffuse, severe inflammatory placental changes with massive perivillous fibrin depositions, necrosis of syncytiotrophoblast, diffuse chronic intervillositis, and a specific, unprecedented CD20+ B-cell infiltration. This SARS-CoV-2 placental signature seems to correlate with foetal distress (75% vs. 15.6%, p = 0.007) but not with the severity of maternal COVID-19 disease. Conclusion: We describe a unique placental signature in pregnant patients with COVID-19, which has not been reported in a historical cohort. We show that the foetal environment can be seriously compromised by disruption of placental function due to local, devastating SARS-CoV-2 infection. Maternal clinical symptoms did not predict the severity of the SARS-CoV-2-related placental signature, resulting in a lack of adequate identification of maternal criteria for pregnancies at risk. Close foetal monitoring and pregnancy termination in case of foetal distress can prevent adverse pregnancy outcomes due to COVID-19 related placental disease.

OBJECTIVE:To compare the costs of a strategy of patient controlled remifentanil versus epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour. DESIGN:We performed a multicentre randomised controlled trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands, the RAVEL trial. Costs were analysed from a health care perspective alongside the RAVEL trial. POPULATION:Pregnant women of intermediate to high risk beyond 32 weeks gestation who planned vaginal delivery. METHODS:Women were randomised before the onset of labour, to receive either patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia when pain relief was requested during labour. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Primary outcome for effectiveness was satisfaction with pain relief, expressed as the area under the curve (AUC). A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Here, we present an economic analysis from a health care perspective including costs from the start of labour to ten days postpartum. Health-care utilization was documented in the Case Report Forms and by administering an additional questionnaire. RESULTS:The costs in the patient controlled remifentanil group (n = 687) and in the epidural group (n = 671) were €2900 versus €3185 respectively (mean difference of -€282 (95% CI -€611 to €47)). The (non-significant) higher costs in the epidural analgesia group could be mainly attributed to higher costs of neonatal admission. CONCLUSION:From an economic perspective, there is no preferential pain treatment in labouring intermediate to high risk women. Since patient controlled remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to AUC for satisfaction with pain relief we recommend epidural analgesia as the method of choice. However, if appropriately counselled on effect and side effects there is, from an economic perspective, no reason to deny women patient controlled remifentanil.