Making stillbirths visible: a systematic review of globally reported causes of stillbirth.

BACKGROUND: Stillbirth is a global health problem. The World Health Organization (WHO) application of the International Classification of Diseases for perinatal mortality (ICD-PM) aims to improve data on stillbirth to enable prevention. OBJECTIVES: To identify globally reported causes of stillbirth, classification systems, and alignment with the ICD-PM. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, Global Health, and Pubmed from 2009 to 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Reports of stillbirth causes in unselective cohorts. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pooled estimates of causes were derived for country representative reports. Systems and causes were assessed for alignment with the ICD-PM. Data are presented by income setting (low, middle, and high income countries; LIC, MIC, HIC). MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-five reports from 50 countries (489 089 stillbirths) were included. The most frequent categories were Unexplained, Antepartum haemorrhage, and Other (all settings); Infection and Hypoxic peripartum (LIC), and Placental (MIC, HIC). Overall report quality was low. Only one classification system fully aligned with ICD-PM. All stillbirth causes mapped to ICD-PM. In a subset from HIC, mapping obscured major causes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of quality information on causes of stillbirth globally. Improving investigation of stillbirths and standardisation of audit and classification is urgently needed and should be achievable in all well-resourced settings. Implementation of the WHO Perinatal Mortality Audit and Review guide is needed, particularly across high burden settings. FUNDING: HR, SH, SHL, and AW were supported by an NHMRC-CRE grant (APP1116640). VF was funded by an NHMRC-CDF (APP1123611). TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Urgent need to improve data on causes of stillbirths across all settings to meet global targets. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Background and methods Nearly three million babies are stillborn every year. These deaths have deep and long-lasting effects on parents, healthcare providers, and the society. One of the major challenges to preventing stillbirths is the lack of information about why they happen. In this study, we collected reports on the causes of stillbirth from high-, middle-, and low-income countries to: (1) Understand the causes of stillbirth, and (2) Understand how to improve reporting of stillbirths. Findings We found 85 reports from 50 different countries. The information available from the reports was inconsistent and often of poor quality, so it was hard to get a clear picture about what are the causes of stillbirth across the world. Many different definitions of stillbirth were used. There was also wide variation in what investigations of the mother and baby were undertaken to identify the cause of stillbirth. Stillbirths in all income settings (low-, middle-, and high-income countries) were most frequently reported as Unexplained, Other, and Haemorrhage (bleeding). Unexplained and Other are not helpful in understanding why a baby was stillborn. In low-income countries, stillbirths were often attributed to Infection and Complications during labour and birth. In middle- and high-income countries, stillbirths were often reported as Placental complications. Limitations We may have missed some reports as searches were carried out in English only. The available reports were of poor quality. Implications Many countries, particularly those where the majority of stillbirths occur, do not report any information about these deaths. Where there are reports, the quality is often poor. It is important to improve the investigation and reporting of stillbirth using a standardised system so that policy makers and healthcare workers can develop effective stillbirth prevention programs. All stillbirths should be investigated and reported in line with the World Health Organization standards.

Fetal loss in women with hereditary thrombophilic defects and concomitance of other thrombophilic defects: a retrospective family study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the absolute risk of fetal loss associated with hereditary deficiencies of antithrombin (AT), protein C (PC) and protein S (PS), and the contribution of additional thrombophilic defects to this risk. DESIGN: A retrospective family cohort study. SETTING: A tertiary referral teaching hospital. POPULATION: Women from families with hereditary deficiencies of AT, PC and PS, and their non-deficient relatives. METHODS: We assessed the absolute risk of fetal loss, comparing deficient women with non-deficient female relatives. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Early, late and total fetal loss rates; odds ratios of fetal loss. RESULTS: We evaluated 289 women, who had 860 pregnancies. The total fetal loss rates were 23% (AT deficient), 26% (PC deficient), 11% (type-I PS deficient) and 15% (type-III PS deficient), compared with 11, 18, 12 and 13% in non-deficient women, respectively. Odds ratios were 2.3 (95% CI 0.9-6.1), 2.1 (95% CI 0.9-4.7), 0.7 (95% CI 0.2-1.8) and 1.1 (95% CI 0.6-2.0), none of which reached statistical significance. Differences were mainly the result of higher late fetal loss rates in women deficient in AT (OR 11.3, 95% CI 3.0-42.0) and PC (OR 4.7, 95% CI 1.3-17.4). The concomitance of factor-V Leiden and prothrombin G20210A was observed in 19% of women, and did not increase the risk of fetal loss. CONCLUSIONS: Although absolute risks of fetal loss were high, odds ratios of total fetal loss were not statistically significant in deficient versus non-deficient women. However the higher absolute risks appeared to reflect higher late fetal loss rates as opposed to early fetal loss rates. An additional effect of concomitance of factor-V Leiden and prothrombin G20210A was not demonstrated, which may result from the exclusion of women at highest risk of venous thromboembolism, or from the small numbers sampled in the study.

A placental cause of intra-uterine fetal death depends on the perinatal mortality classification system used.

Different classification systems for the cause of intra-uterine fetal death (IUFD) are used internationally. About two thirds of these deaths are reported as unexplained and placental causes are often not addressed. Differences between systems could have consequences for the validity of vital statistics, for targeting preventive strategies and for counselling parents on recurrence risks. Our objective was to compare use of the Tulip classification with other currently used classification systems for causes of IUFD. We selected the extended Wigglesworth classification, modified Aberdeen and the classifications by Hey, Hovatta, de Galan-Roosen and Morrison. We also selected the ReCoDe system for relevant conditions, comparable to contributing factors in the Tulip classification. Panel classification for 485 IUFD cases in the different systems was performed by assessors after individual investigation of structured patient information. Distribution of cases into cause of death groups for the different systems varied, most of all for the placental and unknown groups. Systems with a high percentage of cases with an unknown cause of death and death groups consisting of clinical manifestations only are not discriminatory. Our largest cause of death group was placental pathology and classification systems without placental cause of death groups or minimal subdivision of this group are not useful in modern perinatal audit as loss of information occurs. The most frequent contributing factor was growth restriction. This illustrates the vital role of the placenta in determination of optimal fetal development. In the Tulip classification, mother, fetus and placenta are addressed together. The system has a clear defined subclassification of the placenta group, a low percentage of unknown causes and is easily applied by a multidisciplinary team. A useful classification aids future research into placental causes of IUFD.

[Skin-to-skin caesarean section: a hype or better patient care?] / Huid-op-huidsectio: hype of betere patiëntenzorg?

A caesarean section (CS) is one of the most common surgical procedures performed in the world, for which there are minimal variations in the surgical approach. During the last few years the "skin-to-skin" CS, also coined "natural" or "gentle" CS, is on the rise; parental participation, slow delivery and direct skin-to-skin contact are important aspects. Most Dutch hospitals offer some form of "skin-to-skin" CS but there are local differences in availability and performance of the procedure. Since 2011, the standard procedure in the Martini Hospital in Groningen is the "skin-to-skin" CS (for both elective and emergency CS, 24/7). We describe our method and share our retrospective data, and demonstrate that this procedure does not result in more complications for mother or baby.

Perinatal death investigations: What is current practice?

Perinatal death (PD) is a devastating obstetric complication. Determination of cause of death helps in understanding why and how it occurs, and it is an indispensable aid to parents wanting to understand why their baby died and to determine the recurrence risk and management in subsequent pregnancy. Consequently, a perinatal death requires adequate diagnostic investigation. An important first step in the analysis of PD is to identify the case circumstances, including relevant details regarding maternal history, obstetric history and current pregnancy (complications are evaluated and recorded). In the next step, placental examination is suggested in all cases, together with molecular cytogenetic evaluation and fetal autopsy. Investigation for fetal-maternal hemorrhage by Kleihauer is also recommended as standard. In cases where parents do not consent to autopsy, alternative approaches such as minimally invasive postmortem examination, postmortem magnetic resonance imaging, and fetal photographs are good alternatives. After all investigations have been performed it is important to combine findings from the clinical review and investigations together, to identify the most probable cause of death and counsel the parents regarding their loss.

Risk stratification for healthcare planning in women with gestational diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: To identify relevant factors predicting the need for insulin therapy in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and secondly to determine a potential 'low- risk' diet-treated group who are likely to have good pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis between 2011-2014. Multivariable backward stepwise logistic regression was used to identify the predictors of the need for insulin therapy. To identify a 'low-risk' diet-treated group, the group was stratified according to pregnancy complications. Diet-treated women with indications for induction in secondary care were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 820 GDM women were included, 360 (44%) women required additional insulin therapy. The factors predicting the need for insulin therapy were: previous GDM, family history of diabetes, a previous infant weighing ≥ 4500 gram, Middle-East/North-African descent, multiparity, pre-gestational BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2, and an increased fasting glucose level ≥ 5.5 mmol/l (OR 6.03;CI 3.56-10.22) and two-hour glucose level ≥ 9.4 mmol/l after a 75-gram oral glucose tolerance test at GDM diagnosis. In total 125 (54%) women treated with diet only had pregnancy complications. Primiparity and higher weight gain during pregnancy were the best predictors for complications (predictive probability 0.586 and 0.603). CONCLUSION: In this GDM population we found various relevant factors predicting the need for insulin therapy. A fasting glucose level ≥ 5.5 mmol/l at GDM diagnosis was by far the strongest predictor. Women with GDM who had good glycaemic control on diet only with a higher parity and less weight gain had a lower risk for pregnancy complications.

Subsequent pregnancy outcome after previous foetal death.

OBJECTIVE: A history of foetal death is a risk factor for complications and foetal death in subsequent pregnancies as most previous risk factors remain present and an underlying cause of death may recur. The purpose of this study was to evaluate subsequent pregnancy outcome after foetal death and to compare cases of recurrent foetal death. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study in a tertiary referral centre. All women with a stillbirth beyond 16 weeks of gestation between January 1999 and December 2004 (n=193) were identified. After providing informed consent, the medical records of 163 women were reviewed until August 2006 in terms of clinical, medical, obstetric and paediatric data of the pregnancy after the index pregnancy that resulted in foetal death. The cause of death for reported cases of foetal death and recurrent foetal death were classified by a multidisciplinary team according to the Tulip classification. RESULTS: Recurrent foetal death occurred in 11 cases, and various causes were identified. The cause of death was explained in seven cases. An association was found between the index foetal death and subsequent foetal death in some cases, especially in early gestation. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates the importance of classifying the cause of recurrent foetal death and contributing risk factors using the same classification system. This provides more insight into the pathophysiological pathways leading to foetal death, and enables meaningful comparisons to be made in recurrent foetal death. This is required before preventive strategies can be instituted and implemented to reduce the risk of foetal death.

The Tulip classification of perinatal mortality: introduction and multidisciplinary inter-rater agreement.

OBJECTIVE: To introduce the pathophysiological Tulip classification system for underlying cause and mechanism of perinatal mortality based on clinical and pathological findings for the purpose of counselling and prevention. DESIGN: Descriptive. SETTING: Tertiary referral teaching hospital. POPULATION: Perinatally related deaths. METHODS: A classification consisting of groups of cause and mechanism of death was drawn up by a panel through the causal analysis of the events related to death. Individual classification of cause and mechanism was performed by assessors. Panel discussions were held for cases without consensus. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Inter-rater agreement for cause and mechanism of death. RESULTS: The classification consists of six main causes with subclassifications: (1) congenital anomaly (chromosomal, syndrome and single- or multiple-organ system), (2) placenta (placental bed, placental pathology, umbilical cord complication and not otherwise specified [NOS]), (3) prematurity (preterm prelabour rupture of membranes, preterm labour, cervical dysfunction, iatrogenous and NOS), (4) infection (transplacental, ascending, neonatal and NOS), (5) other (fetal hydrops of unknown origin, maternal disease, trauma and out of the ordinary) and (6) unknown. Overall kappa coefficient for agreement for cause was 0.81 (95% CI 0.80-0.83). Six mechanisms were drawn up: cardio/circulatory insufficiency, multi-organ failure, respiratory insufficiency, cerebral insufficiency, placental insufficiency and unknown. Overall kappa for mechanism was 0.72 (95% CI 0.70-0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Classifying perinatal mortality to compare performance over time and between centres is useful and necessary. Interpretation of classifications demands consistency. The Tulip classification allows unambiguous classification of underlying cause and mechanism of perinatal mortality, gives a good inter-rater agreement, with a low percentage of unknown causes, and is easily applicable in a team of clinicians when guidelines are followed.