Search

BackgroundIn 2021, we showed an increased risk associated with COVID-19 in pregnancy. Since then, the SARS-CoV-2 virus has undergone genetic mutations. We aimed to examine the effects on maternal and perinatal outcomes of COVID-19 during pregnancy, and evaluate vaccine effectiveness, when omicron (B.1.1.529) was the variant of concern.MethodsINTERCOVID-2022 is a large, prospective, observational study, involving 41 hospitals across 18 countries. Each woman with real-time PCR or rapid test, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in pregnancy was compared with two unmatched women without a COVID-19 diagnosis who were recruited concomitantly and consecutively in pregnancy or at delivery. Mother and neonate dyads were followed until hospital discharge. Primary outcomes were maternal morbidity and mortality index (MMMI), severe neonatal morbidity index (SNMI), and severe perinatal morbidity and mortality index (SPMMI). Vaccine effectiveness was estimated, adjusted by maternal risk profile.FindingsWe enrolled 4618 pregnant women from Nov 27, 2021 (the day after WHO declared omicron a variant of concern), to June 30, 2022: 1545 (33%) women had a COVID-19 diagnosis (median gestation 36·7 weeks [IQR 29·0-38·9]) and 3073 (67%) women, with similar demographic characteristics, did not have a COVID-19 diagnosis. Overall, women with a diagnosis had an increased risk for MMMI (relative risk [RR] 1·16 [95% CI 1·03-1·31]) and SPMMI (RR 1·21 [95% CI 1·00-1·46]). Women with a diagnosis, compared with those without a diagnosis, also had increased risks of SNMI (RR 1·23 [95% CI 0·88-1·71]), although the lower bounds of the 95% CI crossed unity. Unvaccinated women with a COVID-19 diagnosis had a greater risk of MMMI (RR 1·36 [95% CI 1·12-1·65]). Severe COVID-19 symptoms in the total sample increased the risk of severe maternal complications (RR 2·51 [95% CI 1·84-3·43]), perinatal complications (RR 1·84 [95% CI 1·02-3·34]), and referral, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, or death (RR 11·83 [95% CI 6·67-20·97]). Severe COVID-19 symptoms in unvaccinated women increased the risk of MMMI (RR 2·88 [95% CI 2·02-4·12]) and referral, ICU admission, or death (RR 20·82 [95% CI 10·44-41·54]). 2886 (63%) of 4618 total participants had at least a single dose of any vaccine, and 2476 (54%) of 4618 had either complete or booster doses. Vaccine effectiveness (all vaccines combined) for severe complications of COVID-19 for all women with a complete regimen was 48% (95% CI 22-65) and 76% (47-89) after a booster dose. For women with a COVID-19 diagnosis, vaccine effectiveness of all vaccines combined for women with a complete regimen was 74% (95% CI 48-87) and 91% (65-98) after a booster dose.InterpretationCOVID-19 in pregnancy, during the first 6 months of omicron as the variant of concern, was associated with increased risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality, especially among symptomatic and unvaccinated women. Women with complete or boosted vaccine doses had reduced risk for severe symptoms, complications, and death. Vaccination coverage among pregnant women remains a priority.FundingNone.

BackgroundThe effect of COVID-19 in pregnancy on maternal outcomes and its association with preeclampsia and gestational diabetes mellitus have been reported; however, a detailed understanding of the effects of maternal positivity, delivery mode, and perinatal practices on fetal and neonatal outcomes is urgently needed.ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on fetal and neonatal outcomes and the role of mode of delivery, breastfeeding, and early neonatal care practices on the risk of mother-to-child transmission.Study designIn this cohort study that took place from March 2020 to March 2021, involving 43 institutions in 18 countries, 2 unmatched, consecutive, unexposed women were concomitantly enrolled immediately after each infected woman was identified, at any stage of pregnancy or delivery, and at the same level of care to minimize bias. Women and neonates were followed up until hospital discharge. COVID-19 in pregnancy was determined by laboratory confirmation and/or radiological pulmonary findings or ≥2 predefined COVID-19 symptoms. The outcome measures were indices of neonatal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, neonatal positivity and its correlation with mode of delivery, breastfeeding, and hospital neonatal care practices.ResultsA total of 586 neonates born to women with COVID-19 diagnosis and 1535 neonates born to women without COVID-19 diagnosis were enrolled. Women with COVID-19 diagnosis had a higher rate of cesarean delivery (52.8% vs 38.5% for those without COVID-19 diagnosis, P14 days). Among neonates born to mothers with COVID-19 diagnosis, birth via cesarean delivery was a risk factor for testing positive for COVID-19 (odds ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-4.7), even when severity of maternal conditions was considered and after multivariable logistic analysis. In the subgroup of neonates born to women with COVID-19 diagnosis, the outcomes worsened when the neonate also tested positive, with higher rates of neonatal intensive care unit admission, fever, gastrointestinal and respiratory symptoms, and death, even after adjusting for prematurity. Breastfeeding by mothers with COVID-19 diagnosis and hospital neonatal care practices, including immediate skin-to-skin contact and rooming-in, were not associated with an increased risk of newborn positivity.ConclusionIn this multinational cohort study, COVID-19 in pregnancy was associated with increased maternal and neonatal complications. Cesarean delivery was significantly associated with newborn COVID-19 diagnosis. Vaginal delivery should be considered the safest mode of delivery if obstetrical and health conditions allow it. Mother-to-child skin-to-skin contact, rooming-in, and direct breastfeeding were not risk factors for newborn COVID-19 diagnosis, thus well-established best practices can be continued among women with COVID-19 diagnosis.

Objectives: Accurate assessment of gestational age (GA) is important at both individual and population levels. The most accurate way to estimate GA in women who book late in pregnancy is unknown. The aim of this study was to externally validate the accuracy of equations for GA estimation in late pregnancy and to identify the best equation for estimating GA in women who do not receive an ultrasound scan until the second or third trimester. Design: This was a prospective, observational cross‐sectional study. Setting: 57 prenatal care centres, France. Participants: Women with a singleton pregnancy and a previous 11–14‐week dating scan that gave the observed GA were recruited over an 8‐week period. They underwent a standardised ultrasound examination at one time point during the pregnancy (15–43 weeks), measuring 12 foetal biometric parameters that have previously been identified as useful for GA estimation. Main Outcome Measures: A total of 189 equations that estimate GA based on foetal biometry were examined and compared with GA estimation based on foetal CRL. Comparisons between the observed GA and the estimated GA were made using R2, calibration slope and intercept. RMSE, mean difference and 95% range of error were also calculated. Results: A total of 2741 pregnant women were examined. After exclusions, 2339 participants were included. In the 20 best performing equations, the intercept ranged from −0.22 to 0.30, the calibration slope from 0.96 to 1.03 and the RSME from 0.67 to 0.87. Overall, multiparameter models outperformed single‐parameter models. Both the 95% range of error and mean difference increased with gestation. Commonly used models based on measurement of the head circumference alone were not amongst the best performing models and were associated with higher 95% error and mean difference. Conclusions: We provide strong evidence that GA‐specific equations based on multiparameter models should be used to estimate GA in late pregnancy. However, as all methods of GA assessment in late pregnancy are associated with large prediction intervals, efforts to improve access to early antenatal ultrasound must remain a priority. Trial Registration: The proposal for this study and the corresponding methodological review was registered on PROSPERO international register of systematic reviews (registration number: CRD4201913776). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the contribution and impact of fetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in managing fetal gastroschisis. Methods: We conducted an observational retrospective study of gastroschisis patients at three fetal medicine centers from 2008 to 2019. The primary endpoint was the number of cases in which the MRI provided relevant information related to gastroschisis. Results: A total of 189 patients were included, and our study group included 38 patients who underwent MRI. For the eight patients with suspected gastroschisis, MRI confirmed the diagnosis. In six cases, it provided additional relevant information (spiral turn, intestine ischemia, and bowel size discrepancy). For the 17 patients with ultrasound signs of additional gastrointestinal anomalies, MRI detected one case of unidentified complex gastroschisis on sonography. For the 13 patients undergoing routine MRI, no significant information was obtained. One termination of pregnancy and one fetoscopy were performed a few days after the MRI results. There was no subsequent follow‐up or additional bowel complications to support management. Conclusion: Although MRI did not change the management of pregnancies complicated by fetal gastroschisis, patients presenting with fetal gastroschisis with intraabdominal bowel dilatation could benefit from MRI to allow for more precise prenatal counseling to predict postnatal intestinal complications before birth. Key points: What's already known about this topic?The antenatal management of gastroschisis is based on ultrasonography and non‐stress testing.Intraabdominal bowel dilatation has been proposed as the main predictor of outcome for complex gastroschisis.Indications for MRI in gastroschisis are not well‐defined. What does this study add?Performing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) did not modify the management of pregnancy in most cases.In more than 20% of cases (8/38), performing MRI could specify the anatomical injury complicating gastroschisis when associated with intraabdominal dilatation of the intestinal loops.It can help to refine the prenatal counseling and postnatal care protocols.MRI is only indicated in the third trimester in cases of complex gastroschisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In women seronegative before pregnancy, congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV)-related sequelae are exclusively seen in those infected in the first trimester of pregnancy. Following a maternal primary infection in the first trimester, up to 30% of infected neonates suffer long-term sequelae. Maternal parity is an established risk factor of cCMV in previously seronegative women. Our objective was to quantify, in a population of women seronegative at their first pregnancy, the risk of cCMV and related sequelae following primary infections in the first trimester in subsequent pregnancies. Methods There were 739 women seronegative at their first pregnancy who had at least 1 of 971 subsequent pregnancies and deliveries managed at our institution. All women had CMV immunoglobin (Ig) G and IgM testing at 11–14 weeks of each pregnancy. Results Between 2 consecutive pregnancies, 15.6% (115/739) of women seroconverted. Of these seroconversions, 29% (33/115) occurred in the periconceptional period or in the first trimester. The risks for cCMV and related sequelae (neurologic and/or hearing loss) following a maternal infection in the first trimester were, respectively, 24- and 6-fold higher (risk ratios, 24 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 10.8–62.3] and 6 [95% CI 1.5–24], respectively) than in the general pregnant population. Of all primary maternal infections and fetal infections in the first trimester, 88% (29/33) and 92% (11/12), respectively, occurred when the inter-pregnancy interval was ≤2 years. Conclusions Women seronegative at their first pregnancy with a subsequent pregnancy within 2 years have the highest risk of delivering a child with cCMV-related sequelae. These women should be made aware of the risk and given the opportunity of serology screening in the first trimester. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The etiologies of undifferentiated fever in pregnant women have not been studied thoroughly. Because of its non-specific presentation but severe prognosis, listeriosis is often suspected in this setting, but in most cases not confirmed. We studied the causes of undifferentiated fever in pregnant women who received preemptive listeriosis treatment. We conducted from November 1, 2011, to June 30, 2013, a prospective multicentric observational cohort study of pregnant women referred to obstetrical wards with undifferentiated fever and who received listeriosis preemptive treatment. Clinical and biological features, treatment, outcome, and final diagnosis were collected. We enrolled 103 febrile pregnant women. A cause was identified in 77/103 (75%): viral infection in 52/103 (50%, influenza in 21 (20%)), bacterial infection in 22 (21%, including 16 pyelonephritis (16%) and 3 pneumonias (3%)), and TORCH infection in 3 (3%, varicella, toxoplasmosis, and cytomegalovirus primo-infections, n=1, each). Viral infections collected during influenza outbreaks (December–March) accounted for 43/57 (75%) cases. Two fetal losses were reported in the context of febrile pneumonia. Final diagnoses required adapting medical care in 46/77 (60%) of cases, for bacterial, influenza, or TORCH infections. A large array of benign to potentially severe infections manifests as acute undifferentiated fever in pregnant women, requiring careful repeated evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Centre for Medical Image Computing (CMIC) at University College London (UCL) hosted a two-day workshop on placenta imaging on April 12th and 13th 2018. The workshop consisted of 10 invited talks, 3 contributed talks, a poster session, a public interaction session and a panel discussion about the future direction of placental imaging. With approximately 50 placental researchers in attendance, the workshop was a platform for engineers, clinicians and medical experts in the field to network and exchange ideas. Attendees had the chance to explore over 20 posters with subjects ranging from the movement of blood within the placenta to the efficient segmentation of fetal MRI using deep learning tools. UCL public engagement specialists also presented a poster, encouraging attendees to learn more about how to engage patients and the public with their research, creating spaces for mutual learning and dialogue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. In 2006, WHO produced international growth standards for infants and children up to age 5 years on the basis of recommendations from a WHO expert committee. Using the same methods and conceptual approach, the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study (FGLS), part of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project, aimed to develop international growth and size standards for fetuses. Methods. The multicentre, population-based FGLS assessed fetal growth in geographically defined urban populations in eight countries, in which most of the health and nutritional needs of mothers were met and adequate antenatal care was provided. We used ultrasound to take fetal anthropometric measurements prospectively from 14 weeks and 0 days of gestation until birth in a cohort of women with adequate health and nutritional status who were at low risk of intrauterine growth restriction. All women had a reliable estimate of gestational age confirmed by ultrasound measurement of fetal crown-rump length in the first trimester. The five primary ultrasound measures of fetal growth—head circumference, biparietal diameter, occipitofrontal diameter, abdominal circumference, and femur length—were obtained every 5 weeks (within 1 week either side) from 14 weeks to 42 weeks of gestation. The best fitting curves for the five measures were selected using second-degree fractional polynomials and further modelled in a multilevel framework to account for the longitudinal design of the study. Findings. We screened 13108 women commencing antenatal care at less than 14 weeks and 0 days of gestation, of whom 4607 (35%) were eligible. 4321 (94%) eligible women had pregnancies without major complications and delivered live singletons without congenital malformations (the analysis population). We documented very low maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity, confirming that the participants were at low risk of adverse outcomes. For each of the five fetal growth measures, the mean differences between the observed and smoothed centiles for the 3rd, 50th, and 97th centiles, respectively, were small: 2-25 mm (SD 3 • 0), 0 • 02 mm (3 • 0), and -2•69 mm (3 • 2) for head circumference; 0 • 83 mm (0 • 9), -0 • 05 mm (0 • 8), and -0 •84 mm (10) for biparietal diameter; 0 -63 mm (1 • 2), 0• 04 mm (1 • 1), and -1 • 05 mm (1 • 3) for occipitofrontal diameter; 2 • 99 mm (3 • 1), 0 • 25 mm (3 • 2), and -4-•22 mm (3 • 7) for abdominal circumference; and 0-62 mm (0 • 8), 0 • 03 mm (0 • 8), and -0 • 65 mm (0 • 8) for femur length We calculated the 3rd, 5th 10th, 50th, 90th, 95th and 97th centile curves according to gestational age for these ultrasound measures, representing the international standards for fetal growth. Interpretation. We recommend these international fetal growth standards for the clinical interpretation of routinely taken ultrasound measurements and for comparisons across populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]