A Single-Institutional Experience With Prenatal Diagnosis of Cloacal Exstrophy: Room for Improvement.

INTRODUCTION: A single institutional study characterizes the rate of prenatal diagnosis of cloacal exstrophy (CE) and examines its role on successful primary closures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An institutional database of 1485 exstrophy-epispadias patients was reviewed retrospectively for CE patients with confirmed presence/absence of prenatal diagnostics, primary exstrophy closure since 2000, institution of closure, and at least 1 year of follow up following closure. RESULTS: The cohort included 56 domestic patients and 9 international patients. Overall, 78.6% (n = 44) of domestic patients were prenatally diagnosed while 21.4% (n = 12) were diagnosed postnatally. A positive trend was observed in the rate of prenatal diagnosis across the study period, 56.3%, 84.2%, 88.9% respectively (p = 0.025). Confirmatory fMRI was obtained in 40.9% (n = 18) of prenatally diagnosed cases. Patients diagnosed prenatally were found to be more likely to undergo treatment at exstrophy centers of excellence (72.1% v 33.3%, p = 0.020). Prenatal diagnosis was not predictive of increased rate of successful primary closure (75.6% vs 75.0%; p = 1.00; OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.23-4.58). Primary closures undertaken at exstrophy centers of excellence were significantly more likely to be successful compared to outside hospitals (90.9% v 50.0%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of prenatal diagnosis of CE in patients referred for management to a high-volume exstrophy center is improving. Despite this improvement, patients continue to be missed in the prenatal period. While prenatal diagnosis offers the ideal opportunity to educate, counsel, and prepare expectant families, patients diagnosed at birth are not disadvantaged in their ability to receive a successful primary closure. Further research should investigate the benefit of patient referral to high-volume exstrophy centers of care to ensure optimal care and outcomes.

Postpartum readmissions for hypertensive disorders in pregnancy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy are one of the most common causes of readmission in the postpartum period. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, early hospital discharge was encouraged for patients who were medically stable, because hospitalization rates among SARS-CoV-2-infected patients steadily increased in 2020. The impact of an early discharge policy on postpartum readmission rates among patients with hypertensive disorders in pregnancy is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the postpartum readmission rates of patients with hypertensive disorders in pregnancy before and after implementation of an early discharge policy owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: This was a quality improvement, retrospective cohort study of postpartum patients with antenatal hypertensive disorders in pregnancy who delivered and were readmitted because of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy at the New York University Langone Health medical center from March 1, 2019 to February 29, 2020 (control cohort) and from April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021 (COVID-19 cohort). During the pandemic, our institution introduced an early discharge policy for all postpartum patients to be discharged no later than 2 days postpartum during the delivery admission if deemed medically appropriate. The reduction in postpartum length of stay was accompanied by the continuation of patient education, home blood pressure monitoring, and outpatient follow-up. The primary outcome was the comparison of the readmission rates for patients with postpartum hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. Data were analyzed using Fisher's Exact tests, chi-square tests, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests with significance defined as P<.05. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in the readmission rates for patients with postpartum hypertensive disorders in pregnancy before vs after implementation of an early discharge policy (1.08% for the control cohort vs 0.59% for the COVID-19 cohort). The demographics in each group were similar, as were the median times to readmission (5.0 days; interquartile range, 4.0-6.0 days vs 6.0 days; interquartile range, 5.0-6.0 days; P=.13) and the median readmission length of stay (3.0 days; interquartile range, 2.0-4.0 days vs 3.0 days; interquartile range, 2.0-4.0 days; P=.45). There was 1 intensive care unit readmission in the COVID-19 cohort and none in the control cohort (P=.35). There were no severe maternal morbidities or maternal deaths. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that policies calling for a reduced postpartum length of stay, which includes patients with hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, can be implemented without impacting the hospital readmission rate for patients with hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. Continuation of patient education and outpatient surveillance during the pandemic was instrumental for the outpatient postpartum management of the study cohort. Further investigation into best practices to support early discharges is warranted.

Increasing Sibling Relative Risk of Survival to Older and Older Ages and the Importance of Precise Definitions of "Aging," "Life Span," and "Longevity".

The lack of a formal definition of human longevity continues to generate confusion about its genetic and nongenetic determinants. In order to characterize how differences in birth year cohorts and percentiles of survival are associated with familial contribution to variation in survival, we estimated sibling relative risk of living to increasingly rare percentiles of survival based on a dataset of 1,917 validated sibships each containing at least one individual living to age 90 years. About 1,042 of the sibships included at least one individual who survived to age 100 and 511 included at least one individual who survived to age 105 and older. We show that sibling relative risk increases with older ages, sex, and earlier birth year cohorts of the proband and siblings of male 90-year-olds (5th percentile of survival) have 1.73 (95% CI: 1.5; 2.0) times the chance of living to age 90, while siblings of both male and female probands who survived to age 105 years (~0.01 percentile of survival) have 35.6 (95%CI: 15.1; 67.7) times the chance of living to age 105 compared with population controls. These results emphasize the importance of consistently defining the longevity phenotype in terms of rarity of survival for appropriate comparisons across studies.