Search

The article presents a survey conducted to determine the latest trends in continuing medical education among obstetrician-gynecologists in connection to their maintenance of certification scheme. The survey was conducted among physician members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico. The maintenance of certification program is a four-part scheme mandated by the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for board recertification.

Background: Both progestogens and cerclage are individually effective in preterm birth prevention in high risk pregnancies. However, national and international guidelines cite a lack of data available to comment on the potential benefit of concurrent progestogen therapy after cerclage has been placed. Studies to date have been small with mixed results regarding benefit of concurrent progestogen with cerclage leaving uncertainty regarding best clinical practice., Objective: This study aimed to evaluate whether cerclage with progestogen therapy was superior to cerclage alone in the prevention of spontaneous preterm birth in singleton pregnancies., Methods: This is an international retrospective cohort study of singleton pregnancies, without major anomaly or aneuploidy, and with cerclage placed at 10 different institutions in the United States and Colombia from June 2016 to June 2020. Exclusion criteria were lack of documentation regarding whether progestogen was prescribed, unavailable delivery outcome, and pregnancy termination (spontaneous or induced) before 16 weeks' gestation. The exposure of interest was progestogen use with cerclage placement, which included those who continued to use progestogen or who started progestogen after cerclage. The comparison group consisted of those without progestogen use after cerclage placement, which included those who had no progestogen use during the entire pregnancy or who initiated progestogen and then stopped it after cerclage placement. Progestogen type, cerclage indication, maternal baseline characteristics, and maternal/neonatal outcomes were collected. The primary outcome was spontaneous preterm birth at <37 weeks. The secondary outcomes were spontaneous preterm birth at <34 weeks, gestational age at delivery, and a composite neonatal outcome including ≥1 of the following: perinatal mortality, confirmed sepsis, grade III or IV intraventricular hemorrhage, retinopathy of prematurity, respiratory distress syndrome, and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. There were planned subgroup analyses by cerclage indication, progestogen type (vaginal progesterone vs 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate), preterm birth history, and site. Continuous variables were compared in adjusted analyses with analysis of covariance, and categorical variables were compared with multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounders with adjusted odds ratio. A Cox regression survival curve was generated to compare latency to spontaneous delivery, censored after 37 weeks., Results: During the study period, a total of 699 singletons met the inclusion criteria: 561 in the progestogen with cerclage group and 138 with cerclage alone. Baseline characteristics were similar, except the higher likelihood of previous spontaneous preterm birth in the progestogen group (61% vs 41%; P<.001). Within the progestogen group, 52% were on 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate weekly, 44% on vaginal progesterone daily, and 3% on oral progesterone daily. Progestogen with cerclage was associated with a significantly lower frequency of spontaneous preterm birth <37 weeks (31% vs 39%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.59 [0.39-0.89]; P=.01) and <34 weeks (19% vs 27%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.55 [0.35-0.87]; P=.01), increased latency to spontaneous delivery (hazard ratio for spontaneous preterm birth <37 weeks, 0.66 [0.49-0.90]; P=.009), and lower frequency of perinatal death (7% vs 16%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.37 [0.20-0.67]; P=.001). In planned subgroup analyses, association with reduced odds of preterm birth <37 weeks persisted in those on vaginal progesterone, those without a previous preterm birth, those with ultrasound- or examination-indicated cerclage, those who started progestogen therapy before cerclage, and in sites restricted to the United States., Conclusion: Use of progestogen with cerclage was associated with reduced rates of spontaneous preterm birth and early spontaneous preterm birth compared with cerclage alone. Although this study was not sufficiently powered for subgroup analysis, the strength of evidence for benefit appeared greatest for those with ultrasound- or examination-indicated cerclage, and with vaginal progesterone. El resumen está disponible en Español al final del artículo., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The objective of this study was to examine the association between maternal insurance status and maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes in women who had hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. A population-based retrospective cohort study was undertaken using the US Vital Statistics dataset on Period Linked Birth-Infant Data from 2016-2020. The study population was restricted to non-anomalous births from women whose pregnancies were complicated by hypertensive disorders. Insurance status was categorized as private, Medicaid, self-pay and other. The primary outcome was a composite of maternal adverse outcomes, which included admission to the intensive care unit, unplanned hysterectomy, maternal blood transfusion or uterine rupture. We examined the role of prenatal care in these relationships using a mediation analysis with Kotelchuck's Adequacy of Prenatal Care Utilization Index. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between maternal insurance status and adverse outcomes (using adjusted odds ratios [aOR] and 99% confidence interval [CI]). Of the 18,999,865 live births in the five-year study, 1,642,654 (8.6%) met the inclusion criteria. The frequency of the composite maternal adverse outcome was 1.3%. The maternal composite occurred more frequently in women with Medicaid (aOR = 1.11, 99% CI: 1.06, 1.16) or self-pay (aOR = 1.40, 99% CI: 1.25, 1.55) when compared to private insurance. Adjusting for prenatal care slightly attenuated this association, but remained significant. Among women with hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, women with Medicaid insurance or self-pay were more likely to experience maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes than women with private insurance., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Objective: Hypertension in pregnancy is associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Previous studies have demonstrated disparities in the risk of preeclampsia based on race, educational attainment, census tract income level and household income. Yet, data on the association of insurance type, classification of hypertension in pregnancy and outcomes have not been well described. We sought to compare outcomes in women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, by private versus public insurance. Study design: This was a retrospective cohort study of subjects with a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy that delivered ≥23-week gestation at Oregon Health & Science University (October 2013-December 2017). The cohort began with the 2013 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Executive Summary on Hypertension in Pregnancy, which advised surveillance for severe features of disease in women with hypertension. Utilizing ICD-9 and ICD-10 discharge codes, followed by individual chart review, subjects were stratified into two groups by insurance status: Medicaid (public insurance), or individual or group health insurance (private insurance). As primary outcomes, we assessed severe features of preeclampsia, adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes (composite), and final hypertensive diagnosis: (i) chronic hypertension; (ii) gestational hypertension; (iii) preeclampsia without severe features and, (iv) preeclampsia with severe features. Differences in demographic and outcome data were analyzed by chi-square, t -test, and logistic regression. Results: Among 10 132 deliveries, 1335 (13.2%) were delivered with a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy. Medicaid covered 54.1% (722) of these deliveries; 44.1% (589) were covered by private insurance, and 1.8% (24) had unknown insurance. There was a similar percentage of subjects with Medicaid or private insurance in each hypertensive group ( p  = .08). However, compared to subjects with private insurance, those with Medicaid had more severe blood pressure (BP) elevations (systolic BP ≥160 mmHg, p  = .001) and more cases of eclampsia ( p  = .04), while neonates of subjects with Medicaid had more intensive care unit admissions ( p  = .02), and preterm births ( p  < .001). The association between Medicaid insurance and severe BP elevation, or adverse neonatal outcomes, persisted after multivariable adjustment. Conclusion: Medicaid was not associated with a particular hypertensive disorder in pregnancy, yet those with Medicaid experienced more severe BP elevations and higher rates of adverse neonatal outcomes. More research is needed to understand potential risk factors and ways to improve outcomes for those with publicly funded insurance.