Search

OBJECTIVE To examine compliance with a guideline to reduce exposure to supplemental oxygen for category II fetal heart rate (FHR) tracings in normally oxygenated laboring patients. METHODS All patients in labor in an urban academic medical center from January 1 to July 31, 2020 were assessed. The preintervention group included those who delivered from January 1 to March 19, 2020. On March 20, 2020, a new guideline took effect that recommended no maternal supplemental oxygen for category II FHR tracings. The postintervention group delivered from March 20 to July 31, 2020. Exclusion criteria were planned cesarean delivery, multiple gestations, delivery at less than 24 weeks of gestation, intrauterine fetal death, and patients who received supplemental oxygen for an oxygen saturation lower than 95%. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who received oxygen in labor analyzed by control charts and the rules of special cause variation. Chi-squared and t tests were used for secondary outcome assessment. P

Objective To assess the relationship between postpartum hemorrhage and ABO blood type for vaginal delivery and cesarean delivery. Study design This is a retrospective cohort study of data abstracted from the PeriBank database regarding demographics and delivery outcomes. All live singleton deliveries from January 2011 until March 2018 were included in this study. Exclusion criteria were sickle cell disease and multiple gestations. Analyses were conducted separately for cesarean delivery and vaginal delivery. Quantitative variables were analyzed with analysis of variance testing and categorical variables with chi square testing. Significant demographic differences between groups were controlled for using multivariate logistical regression. The primary outcome was the rate of postpartum hemorrhage by blood type (A, B, AB, and O), defined as blood loss >500 mL in vaginal delivery and >1000 mL in cesarean delivery. 43,437 patients were screened and 32,023 women met inclusion criteria (22,484 vaginal deliveries (70.2%) and 9539 cesarean deliveries (29.8%)). Results In the vaginal delivery group there were differences in age, parity, race, use of regional anesthesia, rate of induction of labor, and thrombocytopenia between blood types. In the cesarean delivery group, age, parity, and race were significantly different between blood types. There was no observed difference in the rate of postpartum hemorrhage by blood type for those who delivered via vaginal delivery when controlling for demographic differences (p = 0.2). In the cesarean delivery group, there was a significantly higher rate of postpartum hemorrhage in women with type O blood (5.2% type O vs 3.8% type A vs 4.4% type B vs 4.2% type AB, p = 0.035), including when controlling for demographic differences (p = 0.02). In both vaginal and cesarean delivery groups, there was no difference in rates of any of the secondary outcomes, including blood transfusion, hysterectomy, intrapartum dilation and curettage, and intensive care unit admission. Conclusion Although this study found no statistically significant difference in clinical outcomes between blood types, type O blood may be an additional risk factor to consider for postpartum hemorrhage at the time of cesarean delivery.

Objective: Recent randomized controlled trials have demonstrated an association between uterine closure technique at the time of cesarean delivery and short- and long-term operative outcomes with varied results. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine types of suture material used for cesarean delivery. Data sources: Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception of each database to October 2021. Study eligibility criteria: All randomized controlled trials that compared types of suture materials used for hysterotomy closure during low-transverse cesarean delivery at ≥24 weeks' gestation and examined maternal outcomes were included for this review. The primary outcome was estimated blood loss. Secondary outcomes included additional surgical complications. Methods: Results were summarized as mean difference or risk ratio with associated 95% confidence intervals. The quality of studies was evaluated with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for judging risk of bias. Heterogeneity was measured using I-squared (Higgins I2). Results: This review included 7 randomized controlled trials, of which 3 compared multifilament with barbed suture (136 vs 136 participants), 3 compared multifilament with conventional monofilament suture (245 vs 244 participants), and 1 trial compared multifilament with chromic suture (4590 vs 4595 participants). Primary analysis showed no difference in estimated blood loss between the multifilament and the barbed suture group (mean difference, 46.2 mL; 95% confidence interval, -13.6 to 105.9), nor in change in hemoglobin concentration between the multifilament and the conventional monofilament group (mean difference, -0.1%; 95% confidence interval, -0.5 to 0.3). Secondary outcomes showed a reduction in operative time with barbed vs multifilament suture (mean difference, 1.9 minutes; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-3.8). Analysis also demonstrated an increased uterine scar thickness with use of conventional monofilament vs multifilament suture (mean difference, -1.05 mm; 95% confidence interval, -1.9 to -0.2). Conclusion: This meta-analysis does not support a specific type of suture material for uterine closure at cesarean delivery because of insufficient data. Although barbed suture was associated with an overall decrease in operative time, and use of conventional monofilament suture was associated with an increase in uterine scar thickness, the clinical utility of these differences is not clear. Further adequate randomized controlled trials are warranted for evaluation of different suture materials for hysterotomy closure. Keywords: barbed suture; cesarean deliery; hysterotomy; monofilament; multifilament; pregnancy; suture material; suture technique; uterine closure; uterus.

In March 2020, as community spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 became increasingly prevalent, pregnant women seemed to be equally susceptible to developing coronavirus disease 2019. Although the disease course usually appears mild, severe and critical cases of coronavirus disease 2019 seem to lead to substantial morbidity, including intensive care unit admission with prolonged hospital stay, intubation, mechanical ventilation, and even death. Although there are recent reports regarding the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on pregnancy, there is a lack of information regarding the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnant vs nonpregnant women.We aimed to describe the outcomes of severe and critical cases of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnant vs nonpregnant, reproductive-aged women.This is a multicenter, retrospective, case-control study of women with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection hospitalized with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in 4 academic medical centers in New York City and 1 in Philadelphia between March 12, 2020, and May 5, 2020. The cases consisted of pregnant women admitted specifically for severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 and not for obstetrical indications. The controls consisted of reproductive-aged, nonpregnant women admitted for severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. The primary outcome was a composite morbidity that includes the following: death, a need for intubation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, or a need for high-flow nasal cannula OA total of 38 pregnant women with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 polymerase chain reaction-confirmed infections were admitted to 5 institutions specifically for coronavirus disease 2019, 29 (76.3%) meeting the criteria for severe disease status and 9 (23.7%) meeting the criteria for critical disease status. The mean age and body mass index were markedly higher in the nonpregnant control group. The nonpregnant cohort also had an increased frequency of preexisting medical comorbidities, including diabetes, hypertension, and coronary artery disease. The pregnant women were more likely to experience the primary outcome when compared with the nonpregnant control group (34.2% vs 14.9%; P=.03; adjusted odds ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-18.2). The pregnant patients experienced higher rates of intensive care unit admission (39.5% vs 17.0%; P.01; adjusted odds ratio, 5.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-17.5). Among the pregnant women who underwent delivery, 72.7% occurred through cesarean delivery and the mean gestational age at delivery was 33.8±5.5 weeks in patients with severe disease status and 35±3.5 weeks in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 status.Pregnant women with severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019 are at an increased risk for certain morbidities when compared with nonpregnant controls. Despite the higher comorbidities of diabetes and hypertension in the nonpregnant controls, the pregnant cases were at an increased risk for composite morbidity, intubation, mechanical ventilation, and intensive care unit admission. These findings suggest that pregnancy may be associated with a worse outcome in women with severe and critical cases of coronavirus disease 2019. Our study suggests that similar to other viral infections such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, pregnant women may be at risk for greater morbidity and disease severity.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate if manual rotation, undertaken during labor, of fetuses in occiput posterior or occiput transverse position led to an increased rate of spontaneous vaginal delivery. DATA SOURCES: Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Ovid, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials with the use of a combination of keywords and text words related to "occiput posterior," "occiput transverse," and "manual rotation" from inception of the databases to July 2021. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all randomized controlled trials evaluating manual rotation of fetuses in the occiput posterior or occiput transverse position during labor. METHODS: The primary outcome was the rate of spontaneous vaginal delivery. Meta-analyses were performed using the random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird to determine the relative risks or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: A total of 643 records were screened with inclusion of 6 articles and 1002 randomized patients. All included studies compared manual rotation of fetuses in occiput posterior or occiput transverse position, all confirmed using ultrasound examinations, after complete cervical dilation with either no rotation or a sham rotation procedure. There was no difference in the rate of spontaneous vaginal delivery with manual rotation (relative risk, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.20) nor was there any difference in any other maternal or fetal outcomes. In a subgroup analysis of occiput posterior fetuses, there was a 12.80-minute decrease in the length of the second stage of labor in the manual rotation group (mean difference, -12.80; 95% confidence interval, -22.61 to -2.99). There were no significant differences in any other maternal or fetal outcomes in the occiput posterior subgroup and no differences in the occiput transverse subgroup. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic manual rotation of fetuses in occiput posterior or occiput transverse position, confirmed using ultrasound examination, did not increase the rate of spontaneous vaginal delivery compared with no manual rotation. Manual rotation of the occiput posterior fetal head early during the second stage of labor was associated with a significant 12.8-minute decrease in the length of the second stage of labor with no changes in any other maternal or fetal outcomes. There were no differences demonstrated for fetuses rotated from occiput transverse position or for the combination of occiput posterior and occiput transverse fetuses. Because there is some evidence of benefit, prophylactic manual rotation can be offered to patients during the second stage of labor presenting with occiput posterior position of the fetal head documented during ultrasound examination.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has had an impact on healthcare systems around the world with 3 million people contracting the disease and 208,000 cases resulting in death as of this writing. Information regarding coronavirus infection in pregnancy is still limited. Objective This study aimed to describe the clinical course of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019 in hospitalized pregnant women with positive laboratory testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Study Design This is a cohort study of pregnant women with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 hospitalized at 12 US institutions between March 5, 2020, and April 20, 2020. Severe disease was defined according to published criteria as patient-reported dyspnea, respiratory rate >30 per minute, blood oxygen saturation ≤93% on room air, ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen 50% within 24–48 hours on chest imaging. Critical disease was defined as respiratory failure, septic shock, or multiple organ dysfunction or failure. Women were excluded from the study if they had presumed coronavirus disease 2019, but laboratory testing was negative. The primary outcome was median duration from hospital admission to discharge. Secondary outcomes included need for supplemental oxygen, intubation, cardiomyopathy, cardiac arrest, death, and timing of delivery. The clinical courses are described by the median disease day on which these outcomes occurred after the onset of symptoms. Treatment and neonatal outcomes are also reported. Results Of 64 hospitalized pregnant women with coronavirus disease 2019, 44 (69%) had severe disease, and 20 (31%) had critical disease. The following preexisting comorbidities were observed: 25% had a pulmonary condition, 17% had cardiac disease, and the mean body mass index was 34 kg/m2. Gestational age was at a mean of 29±6 weeks at symptom onset and a mean of 30±6 weeks at hospital admission, with a median disease day 7 since first symptoms. Most women (81%) were treated with hydroxychloroquine; 7% of women with severe disease and 65% of women with critical disease received remdesivir. All women with critical disease received either prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation during their admission. The median duration of hospital stay was 6 days (6 days [severe group] and 10.5 days [critical group]; P=.01). Intubation was usually performed around day 9 on patients who required it, and peak respiratory support for women with severe disease was performed on day 8. In women with critical disease, prone positioning was required in 20% of cases, the rate of acute respiratory distress syndrome was 70%, and reintubation was necessary in 20%. There was 1 case of maternal cardiac arrest, but there were no cases of cardiomyopathy or maternal death. Thirty-two of 64 (50%) women with coronavirus disease 2019 in this cohort delivered during their hospitalization (34% [severe group] and 85% [critical group]). Furthermore, 15 of 17 (88%) pregnant women with critical coronavirus disease 2019 delivered preterm during their disease course, with 16 of 17 (94%) pregnant women giving birth through cesarean delivery; overall, 15 of 20 (75%) women with critical disease delivered preterm. There were no stillbirths or neonatal deaths or cases of vertical transmission. Conclusion In pregnant women with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, admission into the hospital typically occurred about 7 days after symptom onset, and the duration of hospitalization was 6 days (6 [severe group] vs 12 [critical group]). Women with critical disease had a high rate of acute respiratory distress syndrome, and there was 1 case of cardiac arrest, but there were no cases of cardiomyopathy or maternal mortality. Hospitalization of pregnant women with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 resulted in delivery during the clinical course of the disease in 50% of this cohort, usually in the third trimester. There were no perinatal deaths in this cohort.

This study aimed to determine if maternal intrapartum administration of oxygen altered the rate of cesarean delivery compared with room air.This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Searches were performed in MEDLINE, OVID, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials using a combination of key words related to "pregnant patients," "labor," "oxygen," "fetus," "newborn," and pregnancy outcomes from database inception until April 2020. The study was registered in PROSPERO (registration number CRD42020162110).The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials of maternal administration of oxygen compared with room air in labor. The exclusion criteria were quasi-randomized trials and oxygen administered for planned cesarean deliveries. The primary outcome was the rate of cesarean delivery. Secondary maternal and neonatal outcomes, including cord gas values, were analyzed.The Cochrane Handbook guidelines were used to assess bias in trials. To calculate the relative risk or mean differences with confidence intervals, a random-effects model was employed. Subgroup analyses were performed for women who received oxygen for nonreassuring fetal heart rate monitoring or prophylactically.Five randomized controlled trials, including 768 women, were included in the meta-analysis, 3 using prophylactic oxygen and 2 using oxygen for nonreassuring fetal heart rate monitoring. The risk of bias was generally considered low. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of cesarean delivery between patients administered oxygen and patients provided room air (16 of 365 [4.4%] vs 11 of 379 [2.9%]; risk ratio 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.7-3.3). In addition, there were no statistically significant differencs in the rates of cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal heart rate monitoring, operative vaginal deliveries, Apgar scores of7, neonatal intensive care unit admissions, or cord blood gas values. There were no statistically significant difference when analyzing oxygen for nonreassuring fetal heart rate monitoring alone or prophylactic oxygen alone. Data regarding FHT is mixed, with one study suggesting an improvement and three suggesting no change.Maternal intrapartum oxygen administration was not associated with any differences in the rate of cesarean delivery or any secondary outcomes compared with room air overall and in the subgroups of therapeutic (for nonreassuring fetal heart rate monitoring) or prophylactic administration in this meta-analysis. Large randomized controlled trials are necessary to further examine any possible benefits or harms of oxygen administration in labor, particularly for nonreassuring fetal heart rate monitoring.