Search

Objective: Fetal head and neck masses can result in critical airway obstruction. Our study aimed to evaluate prenatal factors associated with the decision for a definitive airway, including ex‐utero intrapartum treatment (EXIT), at birth among at‐risk fetuses. Methods: A single‐institution retrospective review evaluated all fetal head and neck masses prenatally diagnosed from 2005 to 2023. The primary outcome was the decision for a definitive airway at birth, including intubation, tracheostomy, or EXIT. Results: Thirty four patients were included, with 23 deliveries occurring at our institution. 8/23 (35%) patients received a definitive airway at birth, six underwent an EXIT procedure, and two required intubation only. Patients who received a definitive airway had higher rates of polyhydramnios (50% vs. 7%, p = 0.03), tracheal narrowing on ultrasound (US) (50% vs. 0%, p = 0.01), tracheal displacement on US (63% vs. 0%, p < 0.01), abnormal fetal breathing on US (50% vs. 0%, p = 0.01), tracheal narrowing or displacement on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (75% vs. 7%, p < 0.01), and larger mass maximum diameter (7.9 vs. 4.3 cm, p = 0.02). In our series, 100% of patients with polyhydramnios, tracheal narrowing or displacement on either US or MRI, and abnormal fetal breathing on US received a definitive airway at birth. Conclusion: Prenatal findings of tracheal narrowing or displacement, polyhydramnios, and abnormal fetal breathing are strongly associated with the decision for a definitive airway at birth and warrant mobilization of appropriate resources. Key points: What's already known about this topic? Fetal head and neck masses are rare congenital anomalies that can result in critical airway obstruction, with management ranging from surveillance to emergent surgical airway What does this study add? In our series, 100% of patients with polyhydramnios, tracheal narrowing or displacement on either ultrasound (US) or magnetic resonance imaging, and abnormal fetal breathing on US received a definitive airway at birthPatients presenting with the above findings warrant transfer to a fetal center with appropriate resources [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Congenital heart defects (CHD) are the most common birth defect and a leading cause of infant morbidity and mortality. CHD often occurs in low‐risk pregnant patients, which underscores the importance of routine fetal cardiac screening at the time of the 2nd trimester ultrasound. Prenatal diagnosis of CHD is important for counseling and decision‐making, focused diagnostic testing, and optimal perinatal and delivery management. As a result, prenatal diagnosis has led to improved neonatal and infant outcomes. Updated fetal cardiac screening guidelines, coupled with technological advancements and educational efforts, have resulted in increased prenatal detection of CHD in both low‐ and high‐risk populations. However, room for improvement remains. In recent years, fetal cardiac screening for specific high‐risk populations has started in the 1st trimester, which is a trend that is likely to expand over time. This review discusses fetal cardiac screening throughout pregnancy. Key points: What is already known about this topic? Routine ultrasound screening is essential for the prenatal detection of congenital heart defects (CHD).Fetal cardiac screening remains suboptimal. What does this study add? The latest guidelines for 2nd trimester fetal cardiac screening from different professional societies are reviewed.The use of cine loops, color Doppler, and 1st trimester screening is encouraged to improve prenatal detection of CHD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective  This study was aimed to review 4 weeks of universal novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) screening among delivery hospitalizations, at two hospitals in March and April 2020 in New York City, to compare outcomes between patients based on COVID-19 status and to determine whether demographic risk factors and symptoms predicted screening positive for COVID-19. Study Design  This retrospective cohort study evaluated all patients admitted for delivery from March 22 to April 18, 2020, at two New York City hospitals. Obstetrical and neonatal outcomes were collected. The relationship between COVID-19 and demographic, clinical, and maternal and neonatal outcome data was evaluated. Demographic data included the number of COVID-19 cases ascertained by ZIP code of residence. Adjusted logistic regression models were performed to determine predictability of demographic risk factors for COVID-19. Results  Of 454 women delivered, 79 (17%) had COVID-19. Of those, 27.9% (n  = 22) had symptoms such as cough (13.9%), fever (10.1%), chest pain (5.1%), and myalgia (5.1%). While women with COVID-19 were more likely to live in the ZIP codes quartile with the most cases (47 vs. 41%) and less likely to live in the ZIP code quartile with the fewest cases (6 vs. 14%), these comparisons were not statistically significant (p  = 0.18). Women with COVID-19 were less likely to have a vaginal delivery (55.2 vs. 51.9%, p  = 0.04) and had a significantly longer postpartum length of stay with cesarean (2.00 vs. 2.67days, p  < 0.01). COVID-19 was associated with higher risk for diagnoses of chorioamnionitis and pneumonia and fevers without a focal diagnosis. In adjusted analyses, including demographic factors, logistic regression demonstrated a c-statistic of 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69, 0.80). Conclusion  COVID-19 symptoms were present in a minority of COVID-19-positive women admitted for delivery. Significant differences in obstetrical outcomes were found. While demographic risk factors demonstrated acceptable discrimination, risk prediction does not capture a significant portion of COVID-19-positive patients. Key Points COVID-19 symptoms were present in a minority of COVID-19-positive women admitted. COVID-19 symptomatology did not appear to differ before or after the apex of infection in New York. Demographic risk factors are unlikely to capture a significant portion of COVID-19-positive patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective  To review obstetric personnel absences at a hospital during the initial peak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection risk in New York City from March 25 to April 21, 2020. Study Design  This retrospective study evaluated absences at Morgan Stanley Children's Hospital. Clinical absences for (1) Columbia University ultrasonographers, (2) inpatient nurses, (3) labor and delivery operating room (OR) technicians, (4) inpatient obstetric nurse assistants, and (5) attending physicians providing inpatient obstetric services were analyzed. Causes of absences were analyzed and classified as illness, vacation and holidays, leave, and other causes. Categorical variables were compared with the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. Results  For nurses, absences accounted for 1,052 nursing workdays in 2020 (17.2% of all workdays) compared with 670 (11.1%) workdays in 2019 (p  < 0.01). Significant differentials in days absent in 2020 compared with 2019 were present for (1) postpartum nurses (21.9% compared with 12.9%, p  < 0.01), (2) labor and delivery nurses (14.8% compared with 10.6%, p  < 0.01), and (3) antepartum nurses (10.2% compared with 7.4%, p  = 0.03). Evaluating nursing assistants, 24.3% of workdays were missed in 2020 compared with 17.4% in 2019 (p  < 0.01). For ultrasonographers, there were 146 absences (25.2% of workdays) in 2020 compared with 96 absences (16.0% of workdays) in 2019 (p  < 0.01). The proportion of workdays missed by OR technicians was 22.6% in 2020 and 18.3% in 2019 (p  = 0.25). Evaluating attending physician absences, a total of 78 workdays were missed due to documented COVID-19 infection. Evaluating the causes of absences, illness increased significantly between 2019 and 2020 for nursing assistants (42.6 vs. 57.4%, p  = 0.02), OR technicians (17.1 vs. 55.9%, p  < 0.01), and nurses (15.5 vs. 33.7%, p  < 0.01). Conclusion  COVID-19 outbreak surge planning represents a major operational issue for medical specialties such as critical care due to increased clinical volume. Findings from this analysis suggest it is prudent to devise backup staffing plans. Key Points 1) COVID-19 outbreak surge planning represents a major operational issue for obstetrics. 2) Inpatient obstetric volume cannot be reduced. 3) Staffing contingencies plans for nurses, sonographers, and physicians may be required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Placenta accreta spectrum includes the full range of abnormal placental attachment to the uterus or other structures, encompassing placenta accreta, placenta increta, placenta percreta, morbidly adherent placenta, and invasive placentation. The incidence of placenta accreta spectrum has increased in recent years, largely driven by increasing rates of cesarean delivery. Prenatal detection of placenta accreta spectrum is primarily made by ultrasound and is important to reduce maternal morbidity associated with the condition. Despite a large body of research on various placenta accreta spectrum ultrasound markers and their screening performance, inconsistencies in the literature persist. In response to the need for standardizing the definitions of placenta accreta spectrum markers and the approach to the ultrasound examination, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine convened a task force with representatives from the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Radiology, the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Society for Radiologists in Ultrasound, the American Registry for Diagnostic Medical Sonography, and the Gottesfeld-Hohler Memorial Ultrasound Foundation. The goals of the task force were to assess placenta accreta spectrum sonographic markers on the basis of available data and expert consensus, provide a standardized approach to the prenatal ultrasound evaluation of the uterus and placenta in pregnancies at risk of placenta accreta spectrum, and identify research gaps in the field. This manuscript provides information on the Placenta Accreta Spectrum Task Force process and findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, a novel coronavirus, precisely severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), that causes the disease novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been declared a worldwide pandemic. Over a million cases have been confirmed in the United States. As of May 5, 2020, New York State has had over 300,000 cases and 24,000 deaths with more than half of the cases and deaths occurring in New York City (NYC). Little is known, however, of how this virus impacts pregnancy. Given this lack of data and the risk for severe disease in this relatively immunocompromised population, further understanding of the obstetrical management of COVID-19, as well as hospital level preparation for its control, is crucial. Guidance has come from expert opinion, professional societies and public health agencies, but to date, there is no report on how obstetrical practices have adapted these recommendations to their local situations. We therefore developed an internet-based survey to elucidate the practices put into place to guide the care of obstetrical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. We surveyed obstetrical leaders in four academic medical centers in NYC who were implementing and testing protocols at the height of the pandemic. We found that all sites made changes to their practices, and that there appeared to be agreement with screening and testing for COVID-19, as well as labor and delivery protocols, for SARS-CoV-2-positive patients. We found less consensus with respect to inpatient antepartum fetal surveillance. We hope that this experience is useful to other centers as they formulate their plans to face this pandemic. Key Points Practices changed to accommodate public health needs. Most practices are screened for novel COVID-19 on admission. Fetal testing in COVID-19 patients varied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective  This study aimed to (1) determine to what degree prenatal care was able to be transitioned to telehealth at prenatal practices associated with two affiliated hospitals in New York City during the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and (2) describe providers' experience with this transition. Study Design  Trends in whether prenatal care visits were conducted in-person or via telehealth were analyzed by week for a 5-week period from March 9 to April 12 at Columbia University Irving Medical Center (CUIMC)-affiliated prenatal practices in New York City during the COVID-19 pandemic. Visits were analyzed for maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) and general obstetrical faculty practices, as well as a clinic system serving patients with public insurance. The proportion of visits that were telehealth was analyzed by visit type by week. A survey and semistructured interviews of providers were conducted evaluating resources and obstacles in the uptake of telehealth. Results  During the study period, there were 4,248 visits, of which approximately one-third were performed by telehealth (n  = 1,352, 31.8%). By the fifth week, 56.1% of generalist visits, 61.5% of MFM visits, and 41.5% of clinic visits were performed via telehealth. A total of 36 providers completed the survey and 11 were interviewed. Accessing technology and performing visits, documentation, and follow-up using the telehealth electronic medical record were all viewed favorably by providers. In transitioning to telehealth, operational challenges were more significant for health clinics than for MFM and generalist faculty practices with patients receiving public insurance experiencing greater difficulties and barriers to care. Additional resources on the patient and operational level were required to optimize attendance at in-person and video visits for clinic patients. Conclusion  Telehealth was rapidly implemented in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic and was viewed favorably by providers. Limited barriers to care were observed for practices serving patients with commercial insurance. However, to optimize access for patients with Medicaid, additional patient-level and operational supports were required. Key Points Telehealth uptake differed based on insurance. Medicaid patients may require increased assistance for telehealth. Quick adoption of telehealth is feasible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]