Search

Background: Advancing maternal age is increasingly prevalent and is associated with severe maternal morbidity often requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Objectives: To describe maternal ICU admissions at a quaternary care hospital in Montreal, Canada, and evaluate the association between maternal age and composite of: need for invasive interventions, ICU stay > 48 h, or maternal death. Methods: Chart review of ICU admissions during pregnancy/postpartum (2006–2016); logistic regressions to evaluate the impact of age on outcomes. Results: With 5.1 ICU admissions per 1000 deliveries, we included 187 women (mean age 32 ± 6.3 years; 20 (10.7%) ≥ 40 years). The composite outcome occurred in 105 (56.2%) patients; there were two maternal deaths. Age ≥ 40 years increased the odds of invasive interventions (OR 4.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15–14.1) but not of the composite outcome (OR 2.30; 95% CI 0.66–8.02). Conclusion: Peripartum women aged ≥ 40 years had worse outcomes in ICU, with an increased need for invasive interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Optimal obstetric management for women with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is not known. We describe the management of six pregnant women requiring in-hospital care for severe COVID-19. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify pregnant women who tested positive for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) between 15 March and 30 June 2020. A subset of women meeting criteria for severe COVID-19 was included. Results: Four women required non-invasive supplemental oxygen therapy and two required mechanical ventilation. Four women were discharged from hospital undelivered and two required preterm delivery. One woman had a pulmonary embolism, and two required re-admission for worsening symptoms. Conclusion: Management of pregnant women with severe COVID-19 is complex and should involve multidisciplinary expertise. Avoiding early delivery may be a safe option. We recommend an individualized approach to care, including careful consideration of the expected risks and benefits of expectant obstetric management versus delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION: Obtaining granular data on events and circumstances leading to severe maternal morbidity (SMM) could complement large epidemiologic studies and enable targeted interventions to improve maternal health. This study aims to assess the feasibility of gathering such data from maternity units across Canada through a Canadian Obstetric Survey System (CanOSS). METHODS: The study is a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study, the first step of which is a nationwide survey of maternity unit leads. Semistructured qualitative interviews are being conducted with unit leads that expressed interest in response to the survey. Responses are reported using proportions and percentages. Interviews are being thematically analyzed. This study was approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (HiREB) #14002. RESULTS: As of October 18, 2022, we have identified 306 maternity units nationally, and sent 218 surveys, with 59 maternity units across 8 provinces completing. Among these, 34 (83%) report having a system in place for reviewing SMM, conducted on an as-needed basis in 61% of units, and most commonly involving a multidisciplinary panel of experts with representation from nursing (85%), maternity unit leadership (79%), and hospital management (74%). A written report is prepared following 76% of meetings. Findings are shared with health care professionals involved in the event and formulated into recommendations in 79% and 82% of units, respectively. Importantly, 78% of respondents would be willing to contribute anonymized data on SMM within a centralized reporting system. Interviews have taken place with 14 unit leads. Interviewed participants unanimously agree that an obstetric survey system is needed. Concerns raised include privacy, resources, funding, and having a clear definition of SMM. CONCLUSION: This feasibility study will facilitate future planning, clarify barriers to be addressed, and resource implications for gathering data on SMM at a national level, and lay the foundations for a future CanOSS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Severe maternal morbidity (SMM) can have long-term health consequences for the affected mother. The association between SMM and future maternal mental health conditions has not been well studied., Objective: To assess the association between SMM in the first recorded birth and the risk of hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visits for a mental health condition over a 13-year period., Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based retrospective cohort study used data from postpartum individuals aged 18 to 55 years with a first hospital delivery between 2008 and 2021 in 11 provinces and territories in Canada, except Québec. Data were analyzed from January to June 2023., Exposure: SMM, defined as a composite of conditions, such as septic shock, severe preeclampsia or eclampsia, severe hemorrhage with intervention, or other complications, occurring after 20 weeks' gestation and up to 42 days after a first delivery., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was a hospitalization or ED visit for a mental health condition, including mood and anxiety disorders, substance use, schizophrenia, and other psychotic disorder, or suicidality or self-harm event, arising at least 43 days after the first birth hospitalization. Cox regression models generated hazard ratios with 95% CIs, adjusted for baseline maternal comorbidities, maternal age at delivery, income quintile, type of residence, hospital type, and delivery year., Results: Of 2 026 594 individuals with a first hospital delivery, 1 579 392 individuals (mean [SD] age, 30.0 [5.4] years) had complete ED and hospital records and were included in analyses; among these, 35 825 individuals (2.3%) had SMM. Compared with individuals without SMM, those with SMM were older (mean [SD] age, 29.9 [5.4] years vs 30.7 [6.0] years), were more likely to deliver in a teaching tertiary care hospital (40.8% vs 51.1%), and to have preexisting conditions (eg, ≥2 conditions: 1.2% vs 5.3%), gestational diabetes (8.2% vs 11.7%), stillbirth (0.5% vs 1.6%), preterm birth (7.7% vs 25.0%), or cesarean delivery (31.0% vs 54.3%). After a median (IQR) duration of 2.6 (1.3-6.4) years, 1287 (96.1 per 10 000) individuals with SMM had a mental health hospitalization or ED visit, compared with 41 779 (73.2 per 10 000) individuals without SMM (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.19-1.34])., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of postpartum individuals with and without SMM in pregnancy and delivery, there was an increased risk of mental health hospitalizations or ED visits up to 13 years after a delivery complicated by SMM. Enhanced surveillance and provision of postpartum mental health resources may be especially important after SMM.

Background: Severe maternal morbidity is a composite indicator of maternal health and obstetrical care. Little is known about the risk of recurrent severe maternal morbidity in a subsequent delivery., Objective: This study aimed to estimate the risk of recurrent severe maternal morbidity in the next delivery after a complicated first delivery., Study Design: We analyzed a population-based cohort study of women with at least 2 singleton hospital deliveries between 1989 and 2021 in Quebec, Canada. The exposure was severe maternal morbidity in the first hospital-recorded delivery. The study outcome was severe maternal morbidity at the second delivery. Log-binomial regression models adjusted for maternal and pregnancy characteristics were used to generate relative risks and 95% confidence intervals comparing women with and without severe maternal morbidity at first delivery., Results: Among 819,375 women, 43,501 (3.2%) experienced severe maternal morbidity in the first delivery. The rate of severe maternal morbidity recurrence at second delivery was 65.2 vs 20.3 per 1000 in women with and without previous severe maternal morbidity (adjusted relative risk, 3.11; 95% confidence interval, 2.96-3.27). The adjusted relative risk for recurrence of severe maternal morbidity was greatest among women who had ≥3 different types of severe maternal morbidity at their first delivery, relative to those with none (adjusted relative risk, 5.50; 95% confidence interval, 4.26-7.10). Women with cardiac complication at first delivery had the highest risk of severe maternal morbidity in the next delivery., Conclusion: Women who experience severe maternal morbidity have a relatively high risk of recurrent morbidity in the subsequent pregnancy. In women with severe maternal morbidity, these study findings have implications for prepregnancy counseling and maternity care in the next pregnancy., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Severe maternal morbidity (SMM)-an unexpected pregnancy-associated maternal outcome resulting in severe illness, prolonged hospitalisation or long-term disability-is recognised by many, as the preferred indicator of the quality of maternity care, especially in high-income countries. Obtaining comprehensive details on events and circumstances leading to SMM, obtained through maternity units, could complement data from large epidemiological studies and enable targeted interventions to improve maternal health. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of gathering such data from maternity units across Canadian provinces and territories, with the goal of establishing a national obstetric survey system for SMM in Canada., Methods and Analysis: We propose a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study. We will first distribute a cross-sectional survey to leads of all maternity units across Canada to gather information on (1) Whether the unit has a system for reviewing SMM and the nature and format of this system, (2) Willingness to share anonymised data on SMM by direct entry using a web-based platform and (3) Respondents' perception on the definition and leading causes of SMM at a local level. This will be followed by semistructured interviews with respondent groups defined a priori, to identify barriers and facilitators for data sharing. We will perform an integrated analysis to determine feasibility outcomes, a narrative description of barriers and facilitators for data-sharing and resource implications for data acquisition on an annual basis, and variations in top-5 causes of SMM., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has been approved by the Mount Sinai and Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Boards. The study findings will be presented at annual scientific meetings of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, North American Society of Obstetric Medicine, and International Network of Obstetric Survey Systems and published in an open-access peer-reviewed Obstetrics and Gynaecology or General Internal Medicine journal., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 remains ill defined in a global context. The World Health Organization Solidarity randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated remdesivir in patients across many countries, with Canada enrolling patients using an expanded data collection format in the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) trial. We report on the Canadian findings, with additional demographics, characteristics and clinical outcomes, to explore the potential for differential effects across different health care systems., Methods: We performed an open-label, pragmatic RCT in Canadian hospitals, in conjunction with the Solidarity trial. We randomized patients to 10 days of remdesivir (200 mg intravenously [IV] on day 0, followed by 100 mg IV daily), plus standard care, or standard care alone. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included changes in clinical severity, oxygen- and ventilator-free days (at 28 d), incidence of new oxygen or mechanical ventilation use, duration of hospital stay, and adverse event rates. We performed a priori subgroup analyses according to duration of symptoms before enrolment, age, sex and severity of symptoms on presentation., Results: Across 52 Canadian hospitals, we randomized 1282 patients between Aug. 14, 2020, and Apr. 1, 2021, to remdesivir ( n = 634) or standard of care ( n = 648). Of these, 15 withdrew consent or were still in hospital, for a total sample of 1267 patients. Among patients assigned to receive remdesivir, in-hospital mortality was 18.7%, compared with 22.6% in the standard-of-care arm (relative risk [RR] 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.03), and 60-day mortality was 24.8% and 28.2%, respectively (95% CI 0.72 to 1.07). For patients not mechanically ventilated at baseline, the need for mechanical ventilation was 8.0% in those assigned remdesivir, and 15.0% in those receiving standard of care (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75). Mean oxygen-free and ventilator-free days at day 28 were 15.9 (± standard deviation [SD] 10.5) and 21.4 (± SD 11.3) in those receiving remdesivir and 14.2 (± SD 11) and 19.5 (± SD 12.3) in those receiving standard of care ( p = 0.006 and 0.007, respectively). There was no difference in safety events of new dialysis, change in creatinine, or new hepatic dysfunction between the 2 groups., Interpretation: Remdesivir, when compared with standard of care, has a modest but significant effect on outcomes important to patients and health systems, such as the need for mechanical ventilation. Trial registration : ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04330690., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Alexandra Binnie reports receiving research grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Physicians Services Incorporated Foundation. Sergio Borgia reports receiving honoraria from Gilead Sciences and GSK. Yiorgos Alexandros Cavayas reports receiving a grant from CIHR. Matthew Cheng reports receiving grants from the McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity and from CIHR, during the conduct of the study (payments made to the institution). Dr. Cheng also reports receiving personal fees from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work; and from Nplex Biosciences and GEn1E lifesciences (in the form of stock options for being a member of the scientific advisory board) outside the submitted work. Dr. Cheng co-founded Kanvas Biosicences and owns equity in the company, and reports 3 patents pending. John Conly reports receiving grants from CIHR, Pfizer, the World Health Organization (WHO), Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Calgary, and the Calgary Health Foundation. Dr. Conly also reports receiving support to attend the Think Tank Meeting 2019. Dr. Conly is a member and Chair of the WHO Infection Prevention and Control Research and Development Expert Group for COVID-19, a member of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme (WHE) Ad-hoc COVID-19 IPC Guidance Development Group, and a member of the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group. Madeleine Durand reports receiving grants from CIHR and the Fonds Recherche du Québec–Santé (FRQS). Rob Fowler reports receiving a grant from CIHR for the CATCO trial and is the H. Barrie Fairley Professor of Critical Care at the University Health Network. Michael Fralick reports receiving multiple grants from CIHR and support from grants from the Canadian military for clinical trials to identify treatments for COVID-19 (payments made to institution). Dr. Fralick is a paid consultant for a start-up company called Proof DiagnosticsDx, which has created a point-of-care testing device using CRISPR for COVID-19. Holly Hoang reports receiving payment from CATCO Sunnybrook to fund research assistant (payment made to institution) and a research grant from Covenant Health Research Centre. Marina Klein reports receiving grants from Gilead, ViiV Healthcare, Merck and AbbVie for investigator-initiated studies, and consulting fees from Gilead, ViiV Healthcare, Merck and AbbVie, all outside the submitted work. Todd Lee reports receiving operating grants from CIHR and McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity (MI4), and research salary support from FRQS. Alexandra Lostun reports receiving per-case funding to cover the costs of enrolling patients (paid to institution, North York General Hospital). François Carrier reports receiving grants from the Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada and the Canadian Donation and Transplantation Research Program, and a grant and salary support from FRQS. Marlee McGuinty reports receiving speaking fees from Merck. Srinivas Murthy reports receiving a grant from CIHR, during the conduct of the study, and is the Health Research Foundation and Innovative Medicines Canada Chair in Pandemic Preparedness Research. Conar O’Neil reports receiving conference sponsorship from Gilead Sciences, and is a member of a Gilead Sciences advisory board. Jesse Papenburg reports receiving a grant from CIHR, during the conduct of the study, as well as research grants and contracts from AbbVie and research contracts (site investigator for clinical trial) from MedImmune, Merck and Sanofi Pasteur. Dr. Papenburg has received consulting fees from Merck for an ad hoc advisory board meeting, and honoraria for presentations from Seegene, AbbVie and AstraZeneca. Dr. Papenburg is also a voting member of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization. Ken Kuljit S. Parhar reports receiving a CIHR project grant, Alberta Innovates grant and Alberta Health Innovation Implementation and Spread grant (all paid to institution). Seema Nair Parvathy reports receiving funding from St. Joseph’s Health Care Foundation and London Health Sciences Foundation. Moira Rushton-Marovac reports receiving advisory board honoraria from Gilead. Marina Salvadori reports being an employee of the Public Health Agency of Canada. Makeda Semret reports receiving support from the McGill MI4 for the clinical research platform through which CATCO was supported at the McGill University Health Centre. Ameeta Singh reports receiving consulting fees from Gilead for membership of an advisory board. Ranjani Somayaji reports receiving contract research funding from Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Calgary and Calgary Health Foundation, and clinical research funding from CIHR and the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Dr. Somayaji also reports participation on an oncovir data monitoring safety board. Darrell Tan reports receiving grants from AbbVie (in-kind drug only) and Gilead (in-kind drug and grants to institution), and a contract between GSK and the institution for clinical trials. Alain Tremblay reports receiving contract research funding from the Sunnybrook Research Institute, and grants for COVID-19 clinical trials from the University of Calgary and Calgary Health Foundation. Alexis Turgeon reports receiving a grant from CIHR. Jason Weatherald reports receiving grants (paid to institution) and consulting fees (paid to Dr. Weatherald) from Janssen and Actelion, as well as honoraria and travel support from Janssen. Dr. Weatherald has served on advisory boards for Janssen and Acceleron (paid) and on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for Université Laval (unpaid). Dr. Weatherald also reports membership of the Medical Advisory Committee of the Pulmonary Hypertension Association of Canada, and is a shareholder of Precision Lung Consultants and Diagnostics. Cedric Yansouni reports receiving grants from FRQS and consulting fees from Medicago Inc. Dr. Yansouni also reports participation in a Medicago Inc. Independent Data Monitoring Committee and held the role of scientific advisor for the COVID-19 Immunity Task Force. No other competing interests were declared., (© 2022 CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors.)

Excluding pregnant people from Covid-19 clinical trials may lead to unintended harmful consequences. For this study, an online questionnaire was sent to physicians belonging to Canadian professional medical associations in order to evaluate their perspectives on the participation of pregnant women in Covid-19 clinical trials. The majority of respondents expressed support for including pregnant women in Covid-19 trials (119/165; 72%), especially those investigating therapies with a prior safety record in pregnancy (139/164; 85%). The main perceived barriers to inclusion identified were unwillingness of pregnant patients to participate and of treating teams to offer participation, the burden of regulatory approval, and a general "culture of exclusion" of pregnant women from trials. We describe why some physicians may be reluctant to include pregnant individuals in trials, and we identify barriers to the appropriate participation of pregnant people in clinical research., (© 2021 by The Hastings Center. All rights reserved.)