Search

Predicting likelihood of vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) is a cornerstone in counseling patients considering a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC). Yet, the simplified Bishop score (SBS), a score comprised cervical dilation, station, and effacement assessment used to predict successful vaginal delivery, has not been applied to the TOLAC population. We evaluated the relationship between admission SBS and likelihood of successful VBAC. We also determined the predictive characteristics of SBS, compared to cervical dilation alone, for successful VBAC.This is a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of patients with a singleton gestation, ≥37 0/7 weeks gestation, and prior cesarean admitted to LaborDelivery between 2010 and 2014. The primary outcome of successful VBAC was compared between those with a favorable (score5) and unfavorable (score ≤5) admission SBS. Secondary outcomes were select maternal and neonatal outcomes. Adjusted risk ratios were estimated using multivariable logistic regression analyses. Receiver-operating characteristic curves compared predictive capabilities of cervical dilation alone to SBS for successful VBAC.Of the 656 patients who underwent a TOLAC during the study period, 421 (64%) had a successful VBAC. 203 (31%) and 453 (69%) had a favorable and an unfavorable admission SBS, respectively. After adjusting for body mass index and prior vaginal delivery, patients with a favorable admission SBS had a 30% greater likelihood of successful VBAC compared to those with an unfavorable SBS (aRR 1.30, 95% CI 1.16-1.40). Admission cervical dilation alone performed similarly to SBS as a predictor of successful VBAC, with a receiver-operator characteristic curve area under the curve (AUC) of 0.68 (95% CI 0.64-0.72) versus an AUC 0.66 (95% CI 0.62-0.70), respectively (A favorable admission SBS is associated with an increased likelihood of VBAC. Although both admission SBS and cervical dilation alone are only modest predictors of VBAC, admission cervical dilation performs overall similarly to current models for VBAC prediction and is an objective, reproducible, and generalizable measure. Our study highlights the value of waiting until end of pregnancy (rather than the first prenatal visit) to conclude patient counseling on the decision to TOLAC in order to consider admission cervical assessment, particularly cervical dilation.

To estimate short-term maternal and neonatal outcomes with one-compared with two-step testing for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing one-step and two-step GDM testing strategies before September 2021 was conducted. We searched Ovid Medline (1946-), EMBASE (1947-), Scopus (1960-), Cochrane Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov . The primary outcome was rate of large-for-gestational age (LGA) neonates. Secondary outcomes were clinically relevant outcomes for GDM that were selected a priori.Titles, abstracts, and manuscripts were screened, selected, and reviewed by the first two authors. Four RCTs (24,966 patients) and 13 observational studies (710,677 patients) were analyzed.Pooled relative risks (RRs) were calculated with 95% CIs using random-effects models and were plotted graphically with forest plots. Study heterogeneity was evaluated using Cochran Q and Higgins I 2 tests. The quality of studies that met the inclusion criteria was evaluated with the Downs and Black checklist. Publication bias was assessed by using asymmetry of funnel plots and Harbord's test. There was no difference in the rate of LGA neonates (pooled RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.88-1.04) by testing strategy among RCTs, but patients who underwent one-step testing were more likely to be diagnosed with GDM (pooled RR 2.13; 95% CI 1.61-2.82) and treated with diabetes medications (pooled RR 2.24; 95% CI 1.21-4.15). One-step testing was associated with higher rates of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (pooled RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.00-1.26) and neonatal hypoglycemia (pooled RR 1.23; 95% CI 1.13-1.34). In analysis of high-quality RCTs and observational studies, one-step testing was associated with a lower rate of LGA neonates (pooled RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.95-0.98), but higher rates of GDM diagnosis, treatment, NICU admission, and neonatal hypoglycemia.Despite a significant increase in GDM diagnosis and treatment with one-step testing, there is no difference in rate of LGA neonates compared with two-step testing among RCTs.PROSPERO, CRD42021252703.

To evaluate whether a Medicaid reimbursement program for immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) is associated with an increased rate of LARC uptake.We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing patients who delivered at a large, urban, tertiary medical center one year before and after Missouri Medicaid coverage changed to reimburse immediate postpartum LARC in October 2016. Patients were identified through the electronic medical record and excluded if they delivered prior to 24 weeks gestation or had a contraindication to immediate postpartum LARC. The primary outcome was placement of immediate postpartum LARC, which we examined overall and stratified by insurance type. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine the impact of the policy change while adjusting for appropriate confounders.A total of 6,233 eligible patients delivered during the study period: 3105 before and 3128 after the change in reimbursement for immediate postpartum LARC. Patients delivering after the policy change were more likely to be Hispanic, have commercial insurance or be uninsured, and have a BMI30. Placement of immediate postpartum LARC increased from 0.7% pre- to 9.7% postpolicy change (aOR 15.6; 95% CI 10.1-24.2). In our stratified analysis, immediate postpartum LARC uptake increased for patients with Medicaid (aOR 15.8; 95% CI 9.9-25.4) and commercial insurance (aOR 9.7; 95% CI 3.0-31.8).The change in Missouri Medicaid reimbursement for placement of immediate postpartum LARC had systemic impact with an increase in postpartum LARC uptake in all patients, regardless of insurance provider.Insurance reimbursement has the power to influence hospital policy and patient care. Overall, changes to Medicaid reimbursement increased access to postpartum LARC for all patients at a large academic institution, regardless of insurance status.

The few studies that have addressed the relationship between severity of intrapartum fever and neonatal and maternal morbidity have had mixed results. The impact of the duration between reaching maximum intrapartum temperature and delivery on neonatal outcomes remains unknown.To test the association of severity of intrapartum fever and duration from reaching maximum temperature to delivery with neonatal and maternal morbidity.This was a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort of term, singleton patients admitted for induction of labor or spontaneous labor who had intrapartum fever (≥38°C). Patients were divided into 3 groups according to maximum temperature during labor: afebrile (38°C), mild fever (38°C-39°C), and severe fever (39°C). The primary outcome was composite neonatal morbidity (umbilical artery pH7.1, mechanical ventilation, respiratory distress, meconium aspiration with pulmonary hypertension, hypoglycemia, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and Apgar7 at 5 minutes). Secondary outcomes were composite neonatal neurologic morbidity (hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, hypothermia treatment, and seizures) and composite maternal morbidity (postpartum hemorrhage, endometritis, and maternal packed red blood cell transfusion). Outcomes were compared between the maximum temperature groups using multivariable logistic regression. Cox proportional-hazards regression modeling accounted for the duration between reaching maximum intrapartum temperature and delivery.Of the 8132 patients included, 278 (3.4%) had a mild fever and 74 (0.9%) had a severe fever. The incidence of composite neonatal morbidity increased with intrapartum fever severity (afebrile 5.4% vs mild 18.0% vs severe 29.7%; P.01). After adjusting for confounders, there were increased odds of composite neonatal morbidity with severe fever compared with mild fever (adjusted odds ratio, 1.93 [95% confidence interval, 1.07-3.48]). Severe fevers remained associated with composite neonatal morbidity compared with mild fevers after accounting for the duration between reaching maximum intrapartum temperature and delivery (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.05 [95% confidence interval, 1.23-3.43]). Composite neonatal neurologic morbidity and composite maternal morbidity were not different between patients with mild and patients with severe fevers.Composite neonatal morbidity correlated with intrapartum fever severity in a potentially dose-dependent fashion. This correlation was independent of the duration from reaching maximum intrapartum temperature to delivery, suggesting that clinical management of intrapartum fever, in terms of timing or mode of delivery, should not be affected by this duration.

Healthcare workers were prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination roll-out because of the high occupational risk. Vaccine trials excluded individuals who were trying to conceive and those who are pregnant and lactating, necessitating vaccine decision-making in the absence of data specific to this population.This study aimed to determine the initial attitudes about COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy-capable healthcare workers by reproductive status and occupational exposure.We performed a structured survey distributed via social media of US-based healthcare workers involved in patient care since March 2020 who were pregnancy-capable (biologic female sex without history of sterilization or hysterectomy) from January 8, 2021 to January 31, 2021. Participants were asked about their desire to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and their perceived safety of the COVID-19 vaccine using 5-point Likert items with 1 corresponding to "I strongly don't want the vaccine" or "very unsafe for me" and 5 corresponding to "I strongly want the vaccine" or "very safe for me." We categorized participants into the following 2 groups: (1) reproductive intent (preventing pregnancy vs attempting pregnancy, currently pregnant, or currently lactating), and (2) perceived COVID-19 occupational risk (high vs low). We used descriptive statistics to characterize the respondents and their attitudes about the vaccine. Comparisons between reproductive and COVID-19 risk groups were conducted using Mann-Whitney U tests.Our survey included 11,405 pregnancy-capable healthcare workers: 51.3% were preventing pregnancy (n=5846) and 48.7% (n=5559) were attempting pregnancy, currently pregnant, and/or lactating. Most respondents (n=8394, 73.6%) had received a vaccine dose at the time of survey completion. Most participants strongly desired vaccination (75.3%) and very few were strongly averse (1.5%). Although the distribution of responses was significantly different between respondents preventing pregnancy and those attempting conception or were pregnant and/or lactating and also between respondents with a high occupational risk and those with a lower occupational risk of COVID-19, the effect sizes were small and the distribution was the same for each group (median, 5; interquartile range, 4-5).Most of the healthcare workers desired vaccination. Negative feelings toward vaccination were uncommon but were significantly higher among those attempting pregnancy and those who are pregnant and lactating and also among those with a lower perceived occupational risk of contracting COVID-19, although the effect size was small. Understanding healthcare workers' attitudes toward vaccination may help guide interventions to improve vaccine education and uptake in the general population.