International progress on stillbirth reduction: Changes in Stillbirth Rates in Selected Low and Middle-Income Countries from 2000 to 2021.

In this paper, we attempted to determine if there were reductions in low and middle - income country stillbirth rates since 2000 - focusing on sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean. We used data made available by the United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation and the World Health Organization as well as the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Global Network for Women's and Children's Health Research.. Overall, nearly every country evaluated had at least a small reduction in stillbirth rate from the year 2000 to 2021, but the reductions varied substantially between regions. Asia and Latin America/Caribbean had similar levels of reductions with a number of countries in each of those regions having rates in 2021 that were 40 % or more lower than those documented in 2000. No country in Africa documented a reduction in stillbirths of 40 % and many had stillbirth reductions of less than 15 %.

Why are the Pakistani maternal, fetal and newborn outcomes so poor compared to other low and middle-income countries?

BACKGROUND: Pakistan has among the poorest pregnancy outcomes worldwide, significantly worse than many other low-resource countries. The reasons for these differences are not clear. In this study, we compared pregnancy outcomes in Pakistan to other low-resource countries and explored factors that might help explain these differences. METHODS: The Global Network (GN) Maternal Newborn Health Registry (MNHR) is a prospective, population-based observational study that includes all pregnant women and their pregnancy outcomes in defined geographic communities in six low-middle income countries (India, Pakistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guatemala, Kenya, Zambia). Study staff enroll women in early pregnancy and follow-up soon after delivery and at 42 days to ascertain delivery, neonatal, and maternal outcomes. We analyzed the maternal mortality ratios (MMR), neonatal mortality rates (NMR), stillbirth rates, and potential explanatory factors from 2010 to 2018 across the GN sites. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2018, there were 91,076 births in Pakistan and 456,276 births in the other GN sites combined. The MMR in Pakistan was 319 per 100,000 live births compared to an average of 124 in the other sites, while the Pakistan NMR was 49.4 per 1,000 live births compared to 20.4 in the other sites. The stillbirth rate in Pakistan was 53.5 per 1000 births compared to 23.2 for the other sites. Preterm birth and low birthweight rates were also substantially higher than the other sites combined. Within weight ranges, the Pakistani site generally had significantly higher rates of stillbirth and neonatal mortality than the other sites combined, with differences increasing as birthweights increased. By nearly every measure, medical care for pregnant women and their newborns in the Pakistan sites was worse than at the other sites combined. CONCLUSION: The Pakistani pregnancy outcomes are much worse than those in the other GN sites. Reasons for these poorer outcomes likely include that the Pakistani sites' reproductive-aged women are largely poorly educated, undernourished, anemic, and deliver a high percentage of preterm and low-birthweight babies in settings of often inadequate maternal and newborn care. By addressing the issues highlighted in this paper there appears to be substantial room for improvements in Pakistan's pregnancy outcomes.

Building an obstetric intensive care unit during the COVID-19 pandemic at a tertiary hospital and selected maternal-fetal and delivery considerations.

During the novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic, New York City became an international epicenter for this highly infectious respiratory virus. In anticipation of the unfortunate reality of community spread and high disease burden, the Anesthesia and Obstetrics and Gynecology departments at NewYork-Presbyterian / Columbia University Irving Medical Center, an academic hospital system in Manhattan, created an Obstetric Intensive Care Unit on Labor and Delivery to defray volume from the hospital's preexisting intensive care units. Its purpose was threefold: (1) to accommodate the anticipated influx of critically ill pregnant and postpartum patients due to novel coronavirus, (2) to care for critically ill obstetric patients who would previously have been transferred to a non-obstetric intensive care unit, and (3) to continue caring for our usual census of pregnant and postpartum patients, who are novel Coronavirus negative and require a higher level of care. In this chapter, we share key operational details for the conversion of a non-intensive care space into an obstetric intensive care unit, with an emphasis on the infrastructure, personnel and workflow, as well as the goals for maternal and fetal monitoring.

Adaptation of prenatal care and ultrasound.

In the spring of 2020, expeditious changes to obstetric care were required in New York as cases of COVID-19 increased and pandemic panic ensued. A reduction of in-person office visits was planned with provider appointments scheduled to coincide with routine maternal blood tests and obstetric ultrasounds. Dating scans were combined with nuchal translucency assessments to reduce outpatient ultrasound visits. Telehealth was quickly adopted for selected prenatal visits and consultations when deemed appropriate. The more sensitive cell-free fetal DNA test was commonly used to screen for aneuploidy in an effort to decrease return visits for diagnostic genetic procedures. Antenatal testing guidelines were modified with a focus on providing evidence-based testing for maternal and fetal conditions. For complex pregnancies, fetal interventions were undertaken earlier to avoid serial surveillance and repeated in-person hospital visits. These rapid adaptations to traditional prenatal care were designed to decrease the risk of coronavirus exposure of patients, staff, and physicians while continuing to provide safe and comprehensive obstetric care.

Telehealth Uptake into Prenatal Care and Provider Attitudes during the COVID-19 Pandemic in New York City: A Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) determine to what degree prenatal care was able to be transitioned to telehealth at prenatal practices associated with two affiliated hospitals in New York City during the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and (2) describe providers' experience with this transition. STUDY DESIGN: Trends in whether prenatal care visits were conducted in-person or via telehealth were analyzed by week for a 5-week period from March 9 to April 12 at Columbia University Irving Medical Center (CUIMC)-affiliated prenatal practices in New York City during the COVID-19 pandemic. Visits were analyzed for maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) and general obstetrical faculty practices, as well as a clinic system serving patients with public insurance. The proportion of visits that were telehealth was analyzed by visit type by week. A survey and semistructured interviews of providers were conducted evaluating resources and obstacles in the uptake of telehealth. RESULTS: During the study period, there were 4,248 visits, of which approximately one-third were performed by telehealth (n = 1,352, 31.8%). By the fifth week, 56.1% of generalist visits, 61.5% of MFM visits, and 41.5% of clinic visits were performed via telehealth. A total of 36 providers completed the survey and 11 were interviewed. Accessing technology and performing visits, documentation, and follow-up using the telehealth electronic medical record were all viewed favorably by providers. In transitioning to telehealth, operational challenges were more significant for health clinics than for MFM and generalist faculty practices with patients receiving public insurance experiencing greater difficulties and barriers to care. Additional resources on the patient and operational level were required to optimize attendance at in-person and video visits for clinic patients. CONCLUSION: Telehealth was rapidly implemented in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic and was viewed favorably by providers. Limited barriers to care were observed for practices serving patients with commercial insurance. However, to optimize access for patients with Medicaid, additional patient-level and operational supports were required. KEY POINTS: · Telehealth uptake differed based on insurance.. · Medicaid patients may require increased assistance for telehealth.. · Quick adoption of telehealth is feasible..

Telehealth for High-Risk Pregnancies in the Setting of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

As New York City became an international epicenter of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, telehealth was rapidly integrated into prenatal care at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, an academic hospital system in Manhattan. Goals of implementation were to consolidate in-person prenatal screening, surveillance, and examinations into fewer in-person visits while maintaining patient access to ongoing antenatal care and subspecialty consultations via telehealth virtual visits. The rationale for this change was to minimize patient travel and thus risk for COVID-19 exposure. Because a large portion of obstetric patients had underlying medical or fetal conditions placing them at increased risk for adverse outcomes, prenatal care telehealth regimens were tailored for increased surveillance and/or counseling. Based on the incorporation of telehealth into prenatal care for high-risk patients, specific recommendations are made for the following conditions, clinical scenarios, and services: (1) hypertensive disorders of pregnancy including preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, and chronic hypertension; (2) pregestational and gestational diabetes mellitus; (3) maternal cardiovascular disease; (4) maternal neurologic conditions; (5) history of preterm birth and poor obstetrical history including prior stillbirth; (6) fetal conditions such as intrauterine growth restriction, congenital anomalies, and multiple gestations including monochorionic placentation; (7) genetic counseling; (8) mental health services; (9) obstetric anesthesia consultations; and (10) postpartum care. While telehealth virtual visits do not fully replace in-person encounters during prenatal care, they do offer a means of reducing potential patient and provider exposure to COVID-19 while providing consolidated in-person testing and services. KEY POINTS: · Telehealth for prenatal care is feasible.. · Telehealth may reduce coronavirus exposure during prenatal care.. · Telehealth should be tailored for high risk prenatal patients..

Symptoms and Critical Illness Among Obstetric Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Infection.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize symptoms and disease severity among pregnant women with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, along with laboratory findings, imaging, and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Pregnant women with COVID-19 infection were identified at two affiliated hospitals in New York City from March 13 to April 19, 2020, for this case series study. Women were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection based on either universal testing on admission or testing because of COVID-19-related symptoms. Disease was classified as either 1) asymptomatic or mild or 2) moderate or severe based on dyspnea, tachypnea, or hypoxia. Clinical and demographic risk factors for moderate or severe disease were analyzed and calculated as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. Laboratory findings and associated symptoms were compared between those with mild or asymptomatic and moderate or severe disease. The clinical courses and associated complications of women hospitalized with moderate and severe disease are described. RESULTS: Of 158 pregnant women with COVID-19 infection, 124 (78%) had mild or asymptomatic disease and 34 (22%) had moderate or severe disease. Of 15 hospitalized women with moderate or severe disease, 10 received respiratory support with supplemental oxygen and one required intubation. Women with moderate or severe disease had a higher likelihood of having an underlying medical comorbidity (50% vs 27%, OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.26-6.02). Asthma was more common among those with moderate or severe disease (24% vs 8%, OR 3.51, 95% CI 1.26-9.75). Women with moderate or severe disease were significantly more likely to have leukopenia and elevated aspartate transaminase and ferritin. Women with moderate or severe disease were at significantly higher risk for cough and chest pain and pressure. Nine women received ICU or step-down-level care, including four for 9 days or longer. Two women underwent preterm delivery because their clinical status deteriorated. CONCLUSION: One in five pregnant women who contracted COVID-19 infection developed moderate or severe disease, including a small proportion with prolonged critical illness who received ICU or step-down-level care.

Trends of antenatal care during pregnancy in low- and middle-income countries: Findings from the global network maternal and newborn health registry.

BACKGROUND: Antenatal care (ANC) is an important opportunity to diagnose and treat pregnancy-related complications and to deliver interventions aimed at improving health and survival of both mother and the infant. Multiple individual studies and national surveys have assessed antenatal care utilization at a single point in time across different countries, but ANC trends have not often been studied in rural areas of low-middle income countries (LMICs). The objective of this analysis was to study the trends of antenatal care use in LMICs over a seven-year period. METHODS: Using a prospective maternal and newborn health registry study, we analyzed data collected from 2011 to 2017 across five countries (Guatemala, India [2 sites], Kenya, Pakistan, and Zambia). Utilization of any ANC along with use of select services, including vitamins/iron, tetanus toxoid vaccine and HIV testing, were assessed. We used a generalized linear regression model to examine the trends of women receiving at least one and at least four antenatal care visits by site and year, controlling for maternal age, education and parity. RESULTS: Between January 2011 and December 2017, 313,663 women were enrolled and included in the analysis. For all six sites, a high proportion of women received at least one ANC visit across this period. Over the years, there was a trend for an increasing proportion of women receiving at least one and at least four ANC visits in all sites, except for Guatemala where a decline in ANC was observed. Regarding utilization of specific services, in India almost 100% of women reported receiving tetanus toxoid vaccine, vitamins/iron supplementation and HIV testing services for all study years. In Kenya, a small increase in the proportion of women receiving tetanus toxoid vaccine was observed, while for Zambia, tetanus toxoid use declined from 97% in 2011 to 89% in 2017. No trends for tetanus toxoid use were observed for Pakistan and Guatemala. Across all countries an increasing trend was observed for use of vitamins/iron and HIV testing. However, HIV testing remained very low (<0.1%) for Pakistan. CONCLUSION: In a range of LMICs, from 2011 to 2017 nearly all women received at least one ANC visit, and a significant increase in the proportion of women who received at least four ANC visits was observed across all sites except Guatemala. Moreover, there were variations regarding the utilization of preventive care services across all sites except for India where rates were generally high. More research is required to understand the quality and influences of ANC.

Challenges in classification and assignment of causes of stillbirths in low- and lower middle-income countries.

Stillbirths account for 2.6 million deaths annually. 98% occur in low- and lower middle-income countries. Accurate classification of stillbirths in low-resource settings is challenged by poor pregnancy dating and infrequent access to electronic heart rate monitoring for both the newborn and fetus. In these settings, liveborn infants may be misclassified as stillbirths, and stillbirths may be misclassified as miscarriages. Causation is available for only 3% of stillbirths globally due to the absence of registration systems. In low-resource settings where culture and autopsy are infrequently available, clinical course is used to assign cause of stillbirth. This method may miss rare or subtle causes, as well as those with non-specific clinical presentations. Verbal autopsy is another technique for assigning cause of stillbirth when objective medical data are limited. This method requires family engagement and physician attribution of cause. As interventions to reduce stillbirths in LMICs are increasingly implemented, attention to accurate classification and assignment of causes of stillbirth are critical to charting progress.

Maternal outcomes by race during postpartum readmissions.

BACKGROUND: Maternal race may be an important risk factor for postpartum readmissions and associated adverse outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of race with serious complications during postpartum readmissions. STUDY DESIGN: This repeated cross-sectional analysis used the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project from 2012 to 2014. Women ages 15-54 readmitted postpartum after a delivery hospitalization were identified by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria. Race and ethnicity were characterized as non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific islander, Native American, other, and unknown. Overall risk for readmission by race was determined. Risk for severe maternal morbidity during readmissions by race was analyzed. Individual outcomes including pulmonary edema/acute heart failure and stroke also were analyzed by race. Log-linear regression models including demographics, hospital factors, and comorbid risk were used to analyze risk for severe maternal morbidity during postpartum readmissions. RESULTS: Of 11.3 million births, 207,730 (1.8%) women admitted postpartum from 2012 to 2014 were analyzed, including 96,670 white, 47,015 black, and 33,410 Hispanic women. Compared with non-Hispanic white women, non-Hispanic black women were at 80% greater risk of postpartum readmission (95% confidence interval, 79%-82%) whereas Hispanic women were at 11% lower risk of readmission (95% confidence interval, 10%-12%). In unadjusted analysis, compared with non-Hispanic white women, non-Hispanic black women admitted postpartum were at 27% greater risk of severe maternal morbidity (95% confidence interval, 24%-30%) whereas Hispanic women were at 10% lower risk (95% confidence interval, 7%-13%). In the adjusted model, non-Hispanic black women were at 16% greater risk for severe maternal morbidity during readmission than non-Hispanic white women (95% confidence interval, 10%-22%), whereas Hispanic women were at 7% lower risk (95% confidence interval, 1%-12%). Differences in severe maternal morbidity risk between other racial groups and non-Hispanic white women were not significant. In addition to overall morbidity, non-Hispanic black women were at significantly greater risk for eclampsia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and renal failure than other racial groups (P<.05 all). Black women were at 126% greater risk for pulmonary edema/acute heart failure than white women (95% confidence interval, 117%-136%). CONCLUSION: Black women were more likely (1) to be readmitted postpartum, (2) to suffer severe maternal morbidity during readmission, and (3) to suffer life threatening complications such as pulmonary edema/acute heart failure. At-risk women including black women with cardiovascular risk factors may benefit from short-term postpartum follow-up.