Search

Objective Nationwide, obstetric clinics modified prenatal care to include telehealth visits in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, enabling the opportunity to investigate its impact on patient outcomes. We hypothesized that use of prenatal telehealth visits would increase the number of prenatal visits, decrease the frequency of urgent triage/emergency department (ED) visits, and improve perinatal outcomes. This study aimed to determine the impact of telehealth on number of obstetric prenatal visits and urgent triage/ED visits amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Study Design This is a retrospective cohort of patients from a federally qualified health center in central Texas. Patients with a singleton gestation who delivered after 32 weeks were included. Comparison groups were made between those patients who delivered between May 2020 and December 2020 (presumed modified prenatal visit schedule with in-person and telehealth) and those patients delivering between June 2019 and February 2020 (the traditional care model with in-person visits only). Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were used to estimate differences in the number of prenatal visits and unscheduled triage/ED visits. Results A total of 1,654 patients were identified with 801 (48.4%) patients undergoing modified prenatal care and 853 (51.6%) patients receiving traditional care during the study period. No significant differences were seen in overall prenatal attendance or triage/ED presentations. However, when stratified by parity, multiparous patients undergoing modified prenatal care were less likely to experience an urgent triage/ED presentation (8.7 vs. 12.7%; odds ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.10–2.61). Conclusion When compared with a traditional prenatal visitation cohort prepandemic, patients who received modified telehealth prenatal care during the COVID-19 pandemic had similar prenatal attendance and unscheduled emergency presentations. However, multiparous patients experienced a decreased rate of unscheduled emergency presentations. Supplementing prenatal care with telehealth may provide overall comparable prenatal care delivery. Key Points Use of telehealth has the potential to improve prenatal care. The COVID-19 pandemic allowed for comparison to traditional prenatal care. Multiparous patients had a decreased frequency of ED visits. Similar prenatal attendance was seen between both prenatal models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Following the release of A Randomized Trial of Induction versus Expectant Management (ARRIVE) trial, the induction of labor at 39 weeks has increased in the United States. The risk of uterine rupture and optimal timing of elective induction in those patients with a prior cesarean delivery is not well-described, and they were not included in the original trial. We aimed to determine the risk of uterine rupture in those patients undergoing elective induction of labor with prior cesarean delivery. Study Design This was a retrospective cohort of participants with prior cesarean delivery from 1996 to 2000. Participants were included if they had two or more prior cesareans. Participants were excluded if they had a history of an unknown prior incision, a classical incision, gestational age <39 weeks, any diabetes, chronic hypertension, twin gestation, collagen or vascular disease, or HIV. Those undergoing expectant management were compared with those undergoing elective induction with no medical or obstetrical indications for delivery. Analysis was performed at three gestational age groups: 39 weeks, 40 weeks, and 41 weeks. The primary outcomes were uterine rupture, rates of successful vaginal delivery, and a composite major morbidity risk. Multivariable logistic regression was performed. Results At 39 weeks, 618 (10.3%) elective inductions were compared with 5,365 (89.7%) undergoing expectant management; uterine rupture occurred more frequently (13 patients [2.1%] vs. 49 patients [0.9%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.3–4.6) with fewer successful vaginal birth after cesarean [VBAC; 66.8 vs. 75%; aOR, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.5–0.7]. The risk of uterine rupture was similar between groups at 40 weeks (5 patients [0.8%] vs. 21 patients [1.2%]; p = 0.387) and 41 weeks (7 patients [1.4%] vs. 2 patients (0.8%); p = 0.448). Conclusion Patients undergoing elective induction of labor with a prior cesarean scar had an increased risk of uterine rupture when compared with expectant management at 39 weeks, with fewer successful VBAC. Key Points TOLAC elective induction at 39 weeks has an increased risk of uterine rupture. TOLAC elective induction at 39 weeks has a less successful chance of vaginal delivery. Awaiting spontaneous labor in this cohort does not increase the risk of uterine rupture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Periviable premature rupture of membranes (PROM) counseling should describe maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with both immediate delivery and expectant management. Unfortunately, most published data focuses on neonatal outcomes and maternal risk estimates vary widely. We performed a meta-analysis to describe outcomes associated with expectant management compared with immediate delivery of periviable PROM. Study Design We performed a search on PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, PROSPERO, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov utilizing a combination of key terms. Published clinical trials and observational cohorts were included if published after 2000. Publications were selected if they included maternal and/or neonatal outcomes for both expectant management and immediate delivery. Gestational age range was limited from 14 to 25 weeks. The primary outcome was maternal sepsis. Secondary outcomes included chorioamnionitis, hemorrhage, laparotomy, and neonatal survival. Pooled risk differences (RDs) were calculated for each outcome using a random-effects model. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Harbord test. Results A total of 2,550 studies were screened. After removal of duplicates and filtering by abstract, 44 manuscripts were reviewed. A total of five publications met inclusion for analysis: four retrospective and one prospective. Overall, 364 (68.0%) women underwent expectant management and 171 (32.0%) underwent immediate delivery. Maternal sepsis was significantly more frequent in the expectant group (RD, 4%; 95% confidence interval, 2–7%) as was chorioamnionitis (RD: 30%; p < 0.01) and any laparotomy (RD: 28%; p < 0.01). Neonatal survival in the expectant group was 39% compared with 0% in the immediate group (p < 0.01). Conclusion Women who undergo expectant management following periviable rupture of membranes experience significantly increased risks of sepsis, chorioamnionitis, and laparotomy. Overall, 39% of neonates survive to discharge. Knowledge of these risks is critical to counseling patients with this diagnosis. Key Points Expectant management associated with 4% increased risk of sepsis. Expectant management associated with 30% increased risk of chorioamnionitis. A total of 39% of neonates survived to discharge with expectant management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]