Search

Background: Unlike pregestational diabetes mellitus, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends antenatal corticosteroids in those with gestational diabetes mellitus at risk for preterm birth. However, this recommendation is based on limited data, only 10.6% of the Antenatal Late Preterm Steroids study sample had gestational diabetes mellitus. There is a paucity of data on the risk of neonatal respiratory and other morbidity in this population., Objective: This study aimed to examine respiratory outcomes in parturients with gestational diabetes mellitus who received antenatal corticosteroids and delivered during the late preterm period vs those who did not., Study Design: This population-based cohort study used the US Vital Statistics dataset between 2016 to 2020. The inclusion criteria were singleton, nonanomalous individuals who delivered between 34.0 to 36.6 weeks with gestational diabetes mellitus and known status of antepartum corticosteroid exposure. The primary outcome, a composite neonatal adverse outcome, included Apgar score <5 at 5 minutes, immediate assisted ventilation, assisted ventilation >6 hours, surfactant use, seizure, or neonatal mortality. The secondary outcome was a composite maternal adverse outcome, including maternal blood transfusion, ruptured uterus, unplanned hysterectomy, and admission to the intensive care unit. Multivariable Poisson regression models were used to estimate adjusted relative risks and 95% confidence intervals. Average annual percent change was calculated to assess changes in rates of corticosteroid exposure over the study period., Results: Of 19 million births during the study period, 110,197 (0.6%) met the inclusion criteria, and among them, 23,028 (20.9%) individuals with gestational diabetes mellitus received antenatal corticosteroids. The rate of antenatal steroid exposure remained stable over the 5 years (APC=10.7; 95% confidence interval, -5.4 to 29.4). The composite neonatal adverse outcome was significantly higher among those who received corticosteroids than among those who did not (137.1 vs 216.5 per 1000 live births; adjusted relative risk 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.28). Three components of the composite neonatal adverse outcome-immediate assisted ventilation, intubation >6 hours, and surfactant use-were significantly higher with exposure than without. In addition, the composite maternal adverse outcome was significantly higher among those who received corticosteroids (adjusted relative risk, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.52). Three components of the composite maternal adverse outcome-admission to intensive care unit, blood transfusion, and unplanned hysterectomy-were significantly higher among the exposed group. Subgroup analysis, among large for gestational age, by gestational age, and race and ethnicity, confirm the trend of increased likelihood of adverse outcomes with exposure to corticosteroid., Conclusion: Individuals with gestational diabetes mellitus and antenatal corticosteroid exposure, who delivered in the late preterm, were at higher risk of neonatal and maternal adverse outcomes than those unexposed to corticosteroid., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Second-trimester ultrasound is the standard technique for fetal anatomy evaluation in the United States despite international guidelines and literature that suggest that first-trimester timing may be superior in patients with obesity. First-trimester imaging performs well in cohorts of participants with obesity., Objective: Our aim was to compare the completion rate of a first-trimester fetal anatomy ultrasound scan with that of a second-trimester fetal anatomy ultrasound scan among pregnant people with a body mass index ≥35 kg/m 2 ., Study Design: This randomized controlled trial enrolled participants with a body mass index ≥35 kg/m 2 with a singleton gestation and who presented before 14+0/7 weeks of gestation. Participants were randomized to receive an ultrasound assessment of anatomy at either 12+0/7 to 13+6/7 weeks or at 18+0/7 to 22+6/7 weeks. The primary outcome was completion rate (percentage of scans that optimally imaged all the required fetal structures). Secondary outcomes included the necessity of a transvaginal approach, completion rates for each individual view, number of anomalies identified and missed in each group, scan duration, and patient perspectives. A 1-year pilot sample was analyzed using Bayesian methods for the primary outcome with a neutral prior and frequentist analyses for the remaining outcomes., Results: A total of 128 participants were enrolled, and 1 withdrew consent; 62 subjects underwent a first-trimester ultrasound scan and 62 underwent a second-trimester ultrasound scan. A total of 2 participants did not attend the research visits, and 1 sought termination of pregnancy. In the first-trimester group, 66% (41/62) of ultrasound scans were completed in comparison with 53% (33/62) in the second-trimester ultrasound group (Bayesian relative risk, 1.20; 95% credible interval, 0.91-1.73). When compared with a second-trimester scan plus a follow-up ultrasound, a first-trimester ultrasound plus a second-trimester ultrasound was equally successful in completing the anatomy views (76%). First-trimester anatomy ultrasound scans required a transvaginal approach in 63% (39/62) of cases and had a longer duration than a second-trimester ultrasound scan. No anomalies were missed in either group. First-trimester ultrasound participants who responded to a survey described that they were very satisfied with the technique., Conclusion: In pregnant subjects with a body mass index ≥35 kg/m 2 , a single first-trimester anatomy ultrasound scan was more likely to obtain all the recommended anatomic views than a single second-trimester ultrasound scan. An evaluation of anatomy at 12+0/7 to 13+6/7 weeks' gestation plus an evaluation at 18+0/7 to 22+6/7 led to complete anatomic evaluation 4 weeks earlier than 2 second trimester scans. Assessment of ultrasound duration in a clinical setting is needed to ensure feasibility outside of a research setting., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)