Search

This study aimed to present a case of first-trimester uterine rupture and perform a systematic review to identify common presentations, risk factors, and management strategies.Searches were performed in PubMed, Ovid, and Scopus using a combination of key words related to "uterine rupture," "first trimester," and "early pregnancy" from database inception to September 30, 2020.English language descriptions of uterine rupture at ≤14 weeks of gestation were included, and cases involving pregnancy termination and ectopic pregnancy were excluded.Outcomes for the systematic review included maternal demographics, description of uterine rupture, and specifics of uterine rupture diagnosis and management. Data were extracted to custom-made reporting forms. Median values were calculated for continuous variables, and percentages were calculated for categorical variables. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for case reports and case series.Overall, 61 cases of first-trimester uterine rupture were identified, including our novel case. First-trimester uterine ruptures occurred at a median gestation of 11 weeks. Most patients (59/61 [97%]) had abdominal pain as a presenting symptom, and previous uterine surgery was prevalent (44/61 [62%]), usually low transverse cesarean delivery (32/61 [52%]). The diagnosis of uterine rupture was generally made after surgical exploration (37/61 [61%]), with rupture noted in the fundus in 26 of 61 cases (43%) and in the lower segment in 27 of 61 cases (44%). Primary repair of the defect was possible in 40 of 61 cases (66%), whereas hysterectomy was performed in 18 of 61 cases (30%). Continuing pregnancy was possible in 4 of 61 cases (7%).Uterine rupture is an uncommon occurrence but should be considered in patients with an acute abdomen in early pregnancy, especially in women with previous uterine surgery. Surgical exploration is typically needed to confirm the diagnosis and for management. Hysterectomy is not always necessary; primary uterine repair is sufficient in more than two-thirds of the cases to achieve hemostasis. Continuing pregnancy, although uncommon, is also possible.

Despite patient interest, there is little evidence regarding waterbirth. This review sought to compare maternal and perinatal outcomes in waterbirth, compared with landbirth. This search was conducted using MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Web of Sciences, Scopus, ClinicalTrial.gov, OVID, and Cochrane Library from inception to November 15, 2021, with no language or geographic restrictions. Review was registered with PROSPERO under registration number: CRD42021288576. Selection criteria included randomized controlled trials of women with singleton cephalic gestations at ≥36 weeks comparing waterbirth to landbirth. The primary outcome was a perinatal composite outcome. Secondary outcomes included maternal and individual perinatal outcomes. Summary measures were reported as relative risk or mean difference with 95% confidence intervals using random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird. I 2 (Higgins I 2) > 0% was used to identify heterogeneity. Six trials including 706 patients were included. When reported, all patients were ≥ 37 weeks' gestation. Labor augmentation (41.7 vs. 84.7%, p Key Points

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

Magnesium sulfate decreases the risk of eclampsia in patients with severe preeclampsia. There is a theoretical risk that magnesium sulfate increases the risk of intrapartum hemorrhage. We evaluated whether there was a quantitative difference in blood loss in patients receiving magnesium sulfate at the time of cesarean delivery (CD) compared to those who were not.A retrospective cohort study was performed using a database of patients with preeclampsia with severe features or eclampsia. The primary outcome was calculated estimated blood loss (cEBL) compared between patients who received magnesium sulfate during CD and those who did not. cEBL was derived through a validated equation by multiplying the patient's blood volume by percent of blood volume loss. Secondary outcomes were hematocrit change, visual EBL (vEBL), hemorrhage, cEBL1500mL, Apgar7 at 5 min, and NICU admission. Exclusion criteria were incomplete records or negative cEBL, as well as blood transfusion prior to collection of a postpartum hematocrit.We identified 124 patients with preeclampsia with severe features or eclampsia at time of CD. There were 57 (46%) that received magnesium sulfate during CD and 67 (54%) in which magnesium was stopped during the CD. The mean differences for hematocrit value (0.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.3 to 1.8) and cEBL (108, 95% CI -102 to 318) were not significantly different after adjusting for obesity and history of CD.Magnesium sulfate administration for seizure prevention in patients with preeclampsia with severe features at the time of CD does not appear to be associated with an increase in the cEBL.

Identification of patients at risk for postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) may allow for prompt diagnosis and intervention. Individual risk factors, risk assessment tools and prediction models have been used for determining a patient's risk of PPH. Measures for the prevention of PPH include identification and management of iron deficiency anemia, unit readiness and preparedness through performing regular simulations and having a PPH cart or medication kit readily available, prophylactic uterotonic - carbetocin alone or dual agents such as oxytocin and misoprostol or oxytocin and methylergometrine or antifibrinolytic (oxytocin and tranexamic acid) use in the third stage of labor immediately after fetal head delivery, and controlled cord traction.

Induction abortion in the second trimester may be favored in some instances, such as in women with compounding medical conditions or when skilled providers are not available. Various methods of pre-induction cervical preparation have been used to shorten the length of induction and decrease the risk of complications. The benefits of cervical preparation with laminaria before DE have been well studied, but the benefits of laminaria before medical induction are less clear.To determine if overnight cervical preparation with laminaria tents shortens delivery interval in women undergoing 2nd trimester induction of labor (IOL) with misoprostol.This was a retrospective cohort study comparing overnight intracervical laminaria placement followed by misoprostol to misoprostol alone for 2nd trimester IOL between 1/2000 and 12/2010. Women were excluded if the reason for IOL was preterm labor or preterm premature rupture of membranes or if misoprostol was not used as the primary induction agent. The primary outcome was time from misoprostol administration to delivery.126 women were analyzed including 36 (29%) who received laminaria + misoprostol and 90 (71%) who received misoprostol alone. Women in the laminaria + misoprostol group were significantly older (30 yrs [14-44] vs. 27 yrs [17-43],The use of laminaria tents for overnight cervical preparation does not expedite delivery times in patients undergoing 2nd trimester IOL with misoprostol.

In the case of prelabor rupture of membranes at term, the risk for neonatal and maternal infectious morbidity increases progressively with time from prelabor rupture of membranes. Although most studies identified a benefit associated with early induction within the first 24 hours following term prelabor rupture of membranes, there is currently no precise data regarding how early should induction be scheduled.This study aimed to identify the optimal timing of labor induction among women with term prelabor rupture of membranes by comparing the maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with labor induction with those of expectant management at any given 1-hour interval following prelabor rupture of membranes.This was a secondary analysis of data from the TERMPROM trial, an international, multicenter, randomized clinical trial on immediate delivery vs expectant management of women with prelaor rupture of membranes at term (≥37+0/7 weeks' gestation). We considered all participants as a single cohort of women with term prelabor rupture of membranes, irrespective of the original randomized study group allocation. For each given 1-hour time interval within the first 36 hours following prelabor rupture of membranes, we compared the outcomes of subjects for whom labor induction was initiated during this interval with those of subjects managed expectantly at the same time interval. The primary neonatal outcome was a composite of neonatal infection and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit. The primary maternal outcomes included maternal infection (clinical chorioamnionitis or postpartum fever) and cesarean delivery.Of the 4742 subjects who met the study criteria, 2622 underwent labor induction, and 2120 experienced a spontaneous onset of labor. The rates of the neonatal composite outcome, neonatal admission to intensive care unit, and maternal infection increased progressively with time after prelabor rupture of membranes. The risk for these outcomes was lower among women who underwent induction when compared with those managed expectantly within the first 15 to 20 hours after prelabor rupture of membranes without affecting the risk for cesarean delivery. In addition, women who underwent labor induction within the first 30 to 36 hours had a shorter prelabor rupture of membranes to delivery time and a shorter total maternal hospital stay when compared with those managed expectantly at the same time interval. Among women managed expectantly, less than two-thirds (64%; 1365/2120) experienced a spontaneous onset of labor within the first 24 hours following prelabor rupture of membranes.These findings suggest that immediate labor induction seems to be the optimal management strategy to minimize neonatal and maternal morbidity in the setting of prelabor rupture of membranes at term gestations. In cases for which immediate induction is not feasible, labor induction remains the preferred option over expectant management if performed within the first 15 to 20 hours after prelabor rupture of membranes.

Asymptomatic cervical changes, such as cervical length shortening and dilation, which often occur before spontaneous preterm birth, have been described well in singleton pregnancies with or without history of preterm birth. The current screening strategies available to identify patients at increased risk of spontaneous preterm birth include use of transvaginal ultrasound for cervical length assessment and for detection of a short cervical length (≤25 mm) before 24 weeks of gestation. Whether an additional evaluation of the cervix (ie, via speculum or manual exam) is indicated is often pondered by clinicians and may depend on how short the cervical length is and if there is a history of preterm birth. Based on expert opinion, we developed a novel staging system of asymptomatic cervical changes including the following: cervical length measurement, cervical and membrane appearance on speculum exam, and cervical dilation by manual exam. This staging system, if proven accurate, may aid in standardizing definitions for purposes of patient prognosis, evaluation of intervention efficacy, and clinical management.

Systematically review the evidence on fundal pressure to expedite vaginal delivery.Literature search in electronic databases. Randomized controlled trials of fundal pressure to expedite delivery were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The primary outcome was the length of the second stage.We identified 10 randomized controlled trials. Fundal pressure was associated with a shorter length of the second stage of labor (mean difference (MD) -20.33 min, 95% confidence intervals (CI) -28.55, -12.11). Sub-group analysis with only manual pressure or a belt confirmed the association. There was no significant difference in the rate of vaginal delivery (relative risk (RR) 1.00, 95%, CI 0.98, 1.02), one and five minute Apgar scores (MD 0.10, 95%, confidence intervals -0.05, 0.24; and MD 0.02, 95%, CI -0.12, 0.15), neonatal trauma (RR 0.33, 95%, CI 0.01, 7.90), vaginal/perineal laceration (RR 0.83, 95%, CI 0.57, 1.22), cervical laceration (RR 1.30, 95%, CI 0.21, 8.02), episiotomy (RR 1.08, 95%, CI 0.96, 1.21), cesarean section rate (RR 0.72; 95%, CI 0.34, 1.51), operative vaginal deliveries (RR 0.79; 95%, CI 0.55, 1.13) and neonatal intensive care admissions (RR 0.33, 95%, CI 0.01, 7.90). However, patients receiving fundal pressure had a lower umbilical cord arterial pH (MD -0.03, 95%, CI -0.04, -0.01), and a 3.5 non-significantly higher incidence of Apgar scores 7 at 5 min (4.9% vs 0.7%, RR 3.48, 95%, CI 0.57, 21.32).Fundal pressure in the second stage is associated with a 20-minute decrease in the length of labor and a small decrease in neonatal umbilical artery pH.

Platelet protease activated receptor-4 (PAR4) Thr120 is a common genetic variant associated with increased platelet activity. Increased platelet activity is implicated in the pathogenesis of preeclampsia and preterm birth.Compare the rate of preeclampsia and preterm birth in pregnant individuals homozygous for PAR4 Thr120 variant vs not.This is a prospective cohort study of patients who delivered November 2020-July 2021. Maternal blood collected on admission for PAR4 genotyping. The primary outcome was the rate of preeclampsia/gestational hypertension in those with Thr/Thr genotype compared with Ala/Thr or Ala/Ala. Secondary outcomes included rates of preterm birth and placental pathology.Three hundred and twenty singletons were included and 52 (16.3%) were PAR4 Thr/Thr. Those PAR4 Thr/Thr were more likely to be Black (67.3% vs 29.5%, p lt; .001), younger (28 ± 6 vs 31 ± 6, p = .004), and have higher body mass index (35.2 ± 6.8 vs 33.1 ± 7.4, p = .047). There was no difference in preeclampsia/gestational hypertension (19.2% vs 22.8%, p = .705). Those Thr/Thr had a significantly higher rate of preterm birth (15.4% vs 3.7%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.04 [1.47-11.10], p = .007), indicated preterm birth because of fetal growth restriction or preeclampsia (5.8% vs 0.4%, aOR 10.03 [1.48-67.87], p = .02), spontaneous preterm birth (7.7% vs 2.2%, aOR 4.81 [1.27-18.27], p = .02), and placental intervillous thrombosis (18.5% vs 7.9%, aOR 4.12 [1.14-14.92], p = .03).Platelet receptor PAR4 Thr120 is a common variant associated with an increased risk of placental vascular pathology and preterm birth in homozygous individuals. Although a cohort study cannot establish causation, this strong association warrants further exploration.

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.