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.

Objective Internal contraction monitoring provides a quantitative assessment of intrauterine resting tone. During the course of labor, elevated intrauterine resting tone may be identified. We hypothesized that elevated intrauterine resting tone could lead to compression of the spiral arteries, thus limiting uterine blood flow and resulting in neonatal compromise. Therefore, our objective was to assess the association between elevated resting tone during labor and neonatal morbidity. Study Design This was a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of singleton deliveries at ≥37 weeks of gestation. Patients with ruptured membranes and an intrauterine pressure catheter in place for at least 30 minutes prior to delivery were included. Intrauterine resting tone was calculated as the average baseline pressure between contractions during the 30 minutes prior to delivery. The study group had elevated intrauterine resting tone, defined as intrauterine resting tone ≥75th percentile (≥12.3 mm Hg). Primary outcome was composite neonatal morbidity: hypoxic–ischemic encephalopathy, hypothermia treatment, intubation, seizures, umbilical arterial pH ≤7.1, oxygen requirement, or death. Secondary outcomes included umbilical artery pH Results Of the 8,580 patients in the cohort, 2,210 (25.8%) met the inclusion criteria. The median intrauterine resting tone was 9.7 mm Hg (interquartile range: 7.3–12.3 mm Hg). Elevated resting tone was associated with a shorter median duration of the first stage of labor (10.0 vs. 11.0 hours, p Conclusion Our findings suggest that elevated intrauterine resting tone is associated with increased risk of neonatal composite morbidity. Key Points

To evaluate the hypothesis that patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), who receive prenatal care in a multidisciplinary, prenatal OUD clinic, have comparable postpartum breastfeeding rates, prenatal and postpartum visit compliance, and postpartum contraceptive use when compared with matched controls without a diagnosis of OUD. This was a retrospective, matched, cohort study that included all patients who received prenatal care in a multidisciplinary, prenatal OUD clinic-Clinic for Acceptance Recovery and Empowerment (CARE)-between September 2018 and August 2020. These patients were maintained on opioid agonist therapy (OAT) throughout their pregnancy. CARE patients were matched to controls without OUD in a 1:4 ratio for mode of delivery, race, gestational age ± 1 week, and delivery date ± 6 months. The primary outcome was rate of exclusive breastfeeding at maternal discharge. Secondary outcomes included adherence with prenatal care (≥4 prenatal visits), adherence with postpartum care (≥1 postpartum visit), postpartum contraception plan prior to delivery, and type of postpartum contraceptive use. Conditional multivariate logistic regression was used to account for possible confounders in adjusted calculations. A total of 210 patients were included (42 CARE and 168 matched controls). Despite having lower rates of adequate prenatal care, 40 CARE patients (95%) were exclusively breastfeeding at discharge resulting in CARE patients being significantly more likely to be breastfeeding at discharge (adjusted relative risk (aRR): 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.55). CARE patients and controls demonstrated no difference in postpartum visit compliance (86 vs. 81%, aRR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.76-1.40) or effective, long-term contraception use (48 vs. 48%; aRR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.36-1.84). In the setting of multidisciplinary OUD prenatal care during pregnancy, patients with OUD were more likely to be breastfeeding at the time of discharge than matched controls, with no difference in postpartum visit compliance or effective, long-term contraception.· Women with OUD are more likely to breastfeed when engaged in a multidisciplinary prenatal clinic.. · Women with OUD had no difference in LARC use when engaged in a multidisciplinary prenatal clinic.. · Women with OUD had no difference in postpartum visit rate in a multidisciplinary prenatal clinic..

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.

Clinical trials of the messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccines excluded individuals with active reproductive needs (attempting to conceive, currently pregnant, and/or lactating). Women comprise three-quarters of healthcare workers in the United States-an occupational field among the first to receive the vaccine. Professional medical and government organizations have encouraged shared decision-making and access to vaccination among those with active reproductive needs.This study aimed to characterize the information sources used by pregnancy-capable healthcare workers for information about the COVID-19 vaccines and to compare the self-reported "most important" source by the respondents' active reproductive needs, if any.This was a web-based national survey of female, US-based healthcare workers in January 2021. Recruitment was done using social media and subsequent sharing via word of mouth. We classified the respondents into 6 groups on the basis of self-reported reproductive needs as follows: (1) preventing pregnancy, (2) attempting pregnancy, (3) currently pregnant, (4) lactating, (5) attempting pregnancy and lactating, and (6) currently pregnant and lactating. We provided respondents with a list of information sources (friends, family, obstetrician-gynecologists, pediatrician, news, social media, government organizations, their employer, and "other") and asked respondents which source(s) they used when looking for information about the vaccine and their most important source. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the information sources and compared the endorsement of government organizations and obstetrician-gynecologists, which were the most important information source between reproductive groups, using the chi-square test. The effect size was calculated using Cramér V.Our survey had 11,405 unique respondents: 5846 (51.3%) were preventing pregnancy, 955 (8.4%) were attempting pregnancy, 2196 (19.3%) were currently pregnant, 2250 (19.7%) were lactating, 67 (0.6%) were attempting pregnancy and lactating, and 91 (0.8%) were currently pregnant and lactating. The most endorsed information sources were government organizations (88.7%), employers (48.5%), obstetrician-gynecologists (44.9%), and social media (39.6%). Considering the most important information source, the distribution of respondents endorsing government organizations was different between reproductive groups (P.001); it was most common among respondents preventing pregnancy (62.6%) and least common among those currently pregnant (31.5%). We observed an inverse pattern among the respondents endorsing an obstetrician-gynecologist as the most important source; the source was most common among currently pregnant respondents (51.4%) and least common among those preventing pregnancy (5.8%), P.001. The differences in the endorsement of social media as an information source between groups were significant but had a small effect size.Healthcare workers use government and professional medical organizations for information. Respondents attempting pregnancy and those pregnant and/or lactating are more likely to use social media and an obstetrician-gynecologist as information sources for vaccine decision-making. These data can inform public health messaging and counseling for clinicians.

Objective: There is evidence to suggest that early amniotomy during induction of labor is advantageous. However, following cervical ripening balloon removal the cervix remains less effaced and the utility of amniotomy in this setting is less clear. We investigated whether cervical effacement at the time of amniotomy impacts outcomes among nulliparas undergoing induction of labor. Study Design: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort of singleton, term, nulliparous patients at a tertiary care center undergoing induction of labor and amniotomy. The primary outcome was completion of the first stage of labor. Secondary outcomes were vaginal delivery and postpartum hemorrhage. Outcomes were compared between patients with cervical effacement ≤50% (low effacement) and >50% (high effacement) at time of amniotomy. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for confounders including cervical dilation. Stratified analysis was performed in patients with cervical ripening balloon use. A post-hoc sensitivity analysis was performed to further control for cervical dilation. Results: Of 1256 patients, 365 (29%) underwent amniotomy at low effacement. Amniotomy at low effacement was associated with reduced likelihood of completing the first stage (aRR 0.87 [95% CI 0.78-0.95]) and vaginal delivery (aRR 0.87 [95% CI 0.77-0.96]). Although amniotomy at low effacement was associated with lower likelihood of completing the first stage in all-comers, those who had amniotomy performed at low effacement following cervical ripening balloon expulsion were at highest risk (aRR 0.84 [95% CI 0.69-0.98] P for interaction= 0.04) In the post-hoc sensitivity analysis, including patients who underwent amniotomy at 3 or 4 centimeters dilation, low cervical effacement remained associated with a lower likelihood of completing the first stage of labor. Conclusion: Low cervical effacement at time of amniotomy, particularly following cervical ripening balloon expulsion, is associated with a lower likelihood of successful induction.

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.