Relationship between labour analgesia modalities and types of anaesthetic techniques in categories 2 and 3 intrapartum caesarean deliveries.

General anesthesia (GA) is typically recommended for category 1 emergency cesarean delivery (CD). For categories 2­4 emergencies, either regional or GA can be used. The factors influencing the choice of anesthetic technique in these categories remain poorly understood. We analyzed the association between the type of labor analgesia and subsequent anesthetic techniques employed for intrapartum categories 2 and 3 CD. In a prospective longitudinal cohort study, 300 women were consequently enrolled and categorized according to Lucas's classification of CD urgency. The techniques of anesthesia (GA, spinal, and epidural anesthesia [EA]) employed for CD were analyzed with respect to labor analgesia methods (remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia [remifentanil-PCA], EA, and nitrous oxide [N2O]). EA was the most frequent analgesic option (43.8%), followed by remifentanil-PCA (20.7%) and N2O (5.1%), while 30.4% of parturient women received no analgesia. All anesthetic methods showed a significant relationship with analgesic modalities (P < 0.001). Remifentanil-PCA was associated with a higher incidence of GA. Contraindication to EA was the primary factor related to the transition from remifentanil-PCA to GA. Most parturients who received EA were successfully converted to EA. Spinal anesthesia was the most common technique in women using N2O and those without labor analgesia. GA was associated with lower 5-min Apgar scores. The method of labor analgesia was associated with the anesthesia technique employed for categories 2 and 3 CD. This finding may guide patient counseling and intrapartum anesthetic planning. However, the analysis should be cautiously interpreted as the selection of anesthesia is a complex decision influenced by several clinical considerations.

Fetal death from SARS-CoV-2 mediated acute placental failure.

INTRODUCTION: We demonstrate the nonlinear severity of symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the mother leading to fetal death after acute placental failure. METHODS: Careful clinical evaluation, real-time RT-PCR molecular microbiologic testing, isolation of a viable virus, and autopsy with histologic results were used to investigate the possible vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection from mother to fetus. RESULTS: Histologic changes in the placenta correlate with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Total nucleic acid isolated from vaginal swabs, fresh placental tissue, and deparaffinized tissue showed a high viral load of SARS-CoV-2. Complete genome sequencing confirmed the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant. DISCUSSION: Several methods have been used to confirm SARS-CoV-2-mediated acute placental failure, all of which were conclusive. It should be noted that careful periodic fetal well-being checks are required in women infected with SARS-CoV-2, regardless of the severity of symptoms. Most of the cases described with fetal death occurred in the third trimester.

Clinical chorioamnionitis: where do we stand now?

Intraamniotic infection is an infection resulting in the inflammation of any combination of the amniotic fluid, the placenta, the fetus itself, the fetal membranes, umbilical cord, or the decidua. In the past, an infection of the amnion and chorion or both was dubbed chorioamnionitis. In 2015, a proposal was made by an expert panel that, instead of clinical chorioamnionitis, the name intrauterine inflammation or infection or both be used, abbreviated as Triple I or simply IAI. However, the abbreviation IAI did not gain popularity, and this article uses the term chorioamnionitis. Chorioamnionitis may arise prior to, during, or following labor. It can present as a chronic, subacute, or acute infection. Its clinical presentation is generally referred to as acute chorioamnionitis. The treatment of chorioamnionitis varies widely across the world due to different bacterial causes and the absence of sufficient evidence to support a specific treatment regimen. There are limited randomized controlled trials that have evaluated the superiority of antibiotic regimens for treating amniotic infections during labor. This lack of evidence-based treatment suggests that the current choice of antibiotics is based on limitations in existing research, rather than absolute science. Chorioamnionitis cannot be cured by antibiotic therapy alone without delivery, and therefore it is necessary to make a decision according to the guidelines for induction of labor or acceleration of delivery. When a diagnosis is suspected or established, it is therefore necessary to apply broad-spectrum antibiotics according to the protocol used by each country, and to continue with them until delivery. A commonly recommended first-line treatment for chorioamnionitis is a simple regimen consisting of amoxicillin or ampicillin and once-daily gentamicin. Available information is not sufficient to indicate the best antimicrobial regimen to treat this obstetric condition. However, the evidence that is currently available suggests that patients with clinical chorioamnionitis, primarily women with a gestational age of 34 weeks or more and those in labor, should receive treatment with this regime. However, antibiotic preferences may vary based on local policy, clinician experience and knowledge, bacterial reasons for the infection, antimicrobial resistance patterns, maternal allergies, and drug availability.

European Guidelines on Perinatal Care - Oxytocin for induction and augmentation of labor[Formula: see text].

OF RECOMMENDATIONS1. Oxytocin for induction or augmentation of labor should not be started when there is a previous scar on the body of the uterus (such as previous classical cesarean section, uterine perforation or myomectomy when uterine cavity is reached) or in any other condition where labor or vaginal delivery are contraindicated. (Moderate quality evidence +++-; Strong recommendation).2. Oxytocin should not be started before at least 1 h has elapsed since amniotomy, 6 h since the use of dinoprostone (30 min if vaginal insert) and 4 h since the use of misoprostol (Low quality evidence ++- -; Moderate recommendation).3. Cardiotocography (CTG) should be performed and a normal pattern without tachysystole should be documented for at least 30 min before oxytocin is used. Continuous CTG, with adequate monitoring of both fetal heart rate and uterine contractions, should be maintained for as long as oxytocin is used, and thereafter until delivery (Low ++- - to moderate +++- quality evidence; Strong recommendation).4. For labor induction, at least 1-h should be allowed after amniotomy before oxytocin infusion is started, to evaluate whether adequate uterine contractility has meanwhile ensued. For augmentation of labor, if the membranes are intact and there are conditions for a safe amniotomy, the latter should be considered before oxytocin is started (Very low quality evidence +- --; Weak recommendation).5. Oxytocin should be administered intravenously using the following regimen: 5 IU oxytocin diluted in 500 mL of 0.9% normal saline (NaCl) (each mL contains 10 mIU of oxytocin), in an infusion pump at increasing rates, as shown in Table 1, until a frequency of 3-4 contractions per 10 min is reached, a non-reassuring CTG pattern ensues, or maximum rates are reached (Low quality evidence ++ - -; Strong recommendation). If the frequency of contractions exceeds 5 in 10 min, the infusion rate should be reduced, even if a normal CTG pattern is present. With a non-reassuring CTG pattern, urgent clinical assessment by an obstetrician is indicated, and strong consideration should be given to reducing or stopping the oxytocin infusion. The minimal effective dose of oxytocin should always be used. (Low ++- - to Moderate +++- - quality evidence; Strong recommendation).[Table: see text]6. Use of oxytocin for induction and augmentation of labor should be regularly audited (Low quality evidence ++--; Strong recommendation).

Perinatal outcomes in women with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection: comparison with contemporary and matched pre-COVID-19 controls.

OBJECTIVES: To compare perinatal outcomes in women with vs. without severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. METHODS: Perinatal outcomes in SARS-CoV-2 positive pregnant women who delivered at our institution between October 27th 2020 and January 31st 2021 were compared to SARS-CoV-2 negative pregnancies (contemporary controls) and historical 2019 controls matched by maternal age, pre-pregnancy body mass index and parity. Testing was performed based on symptoms or close contact at any time during pregnancy and as part of universal screening at hospital admission. Multivariable log-linear regression models were used adjusting for potential confounders (p < 0.05 statistically significant). RESULTS: One thousand three hundred seventeen women delivered at our institution during the study period. 1,124 (85%) tested negative and 193 (15%) positive for SARS-CoV-2. 189 (98%) were infected during third trimester. 19 (10%) were asymptomatic, 171 (89%) had mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and 3 (2%) were critically ill with one case of maternal death. There were no significant differences in preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth weight, congenital anomalies, operative delivery, intrapartum hypoxia, and perinatal mortality in SARS-CoV-2 positive pregnancies compared to contemporary reference group or historical controls from pre-COVID-19 period. Labor was more commonly induced in SARS-CoV-2 positive women compared to reference SARS-CoV-2 negative group (68 [35%] vs. 278 [25%], adjusted odds ratio 1.62; 95% confidence interval 1.14-2.28). CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy was not strongly associated with adverse perinatal outcomes. While the majority of SARS-CoV-2 positive women had no or mild/moderate symptoms, 2% were critically ill, with one case of maternal death.

Maternal and perinatal outcomes in high compared to low risk pregnancies complicated by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection (phase 2): the World Association of Perinatal Medicine working group on coronavirus disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: It has still to be ascertained whether severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in pregnancy is associated with worse maternal and fetal outcomes compared to low risk gestations. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate maternal and perinatal outcomes in high- and low-risk pregnancies complicated by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. STUDY DESIGN: This was a multinational retrospective cohort study involving women with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection from 76 centers from 25 countries in Europe, the United States, South America, Asia, and Australia from April 4, 2020, to October 28, 2020. The primary outcome was a composite measure of maternal mortality and morbidity, including admission to the intensive care unit, use of mechanical ventilation, or death. The secondary outcome was a composite measure of adverse perinatal outcome, including miscarriage, fetal loss, neonatal and perinatal death, and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit. All outcomes were assessed in high- and low-risk pregnancies. Pregnancies were considered high risk in case of either preexisting chronic medical conditions in pregnancy or obstetrical disorders occurring in pregnancy. The Fisher exact test and logistic regression analysis were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: A total of 887 singleton pregnancies who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction of nasal and pharyngeal swab specimens were included in the study. The risk of composite adverse maternal outcomes was higher in high-risk pregnancies than in low-risk pregnancies (odds ratio, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.24; P=.035). In addition, women carrying high-risk pregnancies were at higher risk of hospital admission (odds ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.04; P=.002), presence of severe respiratory symptoms (odds ratio, 2.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-3.21; P=.001), admission to the intensive care unit (odds ratio, 2.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-4.88), and invasive mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 2.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-5.94; P=.002). When exploring perinatal outcomes, high-risk pregnancies were at high risk of adverse perinatal outcomes (odds ratio, 1.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-2.72; P=.009). However, such association was mainly because of the higher incidence of miscarriage in high-risk pregnancies compared with that in low-risk pregnancies (5.3% vs 1.6%, P=.008); furthermore, there was no difference in other explored outcomes between the 2 study groups. At logistic regression analysis, maternal age (odds ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.22; P=.023) and high-risk pregnancy (odds ratio, 4.21; 95% confidence interval, 3.90-5.11; P<.001) were independently associated with adverse maternal outcomes. CONCLUSION: High-risk pregnancies complicated by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were at higher risk of adverse maternal outcomes than low-risk pregnancies complicated by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection.

Usefulness of COVID-19 screen-and-test approach in pregnant women: an experience from a country with low COVID-19 burden.

OBJECTIVES: Information on the usefulness of screen-and-test strategies of pregnant women for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is lacking. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the Ljubljana Maternity Hospital database and searched for pregnant women, who were admitted to the hospital between March 15 and May 16, 2020, for a planned procedure or hospitalization. Their medical records were examined and SARS-CoV-2 test results were retrieved. RESULTS: During the two-month period analyzed, there were a total of 265 scheduled admissions of pregnant women to our hospital. Two hundred two (76.2%) were tested for SARS-CoV-2 1 day prior to admission. All tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, regardless of having coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-compatible signs or symptoms (n=28) or not (n=174). CONCLUSIONS: In a population with a low SARS-CoV-2 burden, usefulness of universal testing of pregnant women before admission to the hospital is limited. We recommend that obstetric units in regions with low SARS-CoV-2 burden enforce rational use of personal protective equipment and diligent screening protocols using targeted questionnaires, whereas SARS-CoV-2 laboratory testing should be performed only in screen-positives: those with high clinical suspicion of COVID-19 and/or suspected epidemiological history.

The contribution of twins conceived by assisted reproduction technology to the very preterm birth rate: a population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the contribution of ART twins to the very preterm birth rate in Slovenia. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective population-based study we stratified by plurality and gestational age (<32 weeks vs >32 week) all deliveries >24 weeks in women who conceived by ART. We counted the frequencies of all ART liveborn twins among all liveborn infants and among all liveborn twins and frequencies in the subgroup of very preterm births. RESULTS: During the period 1987-2010, there were 13,293 twins (2.73%, range 1.93-3.62%, a nearly 2-fold increase from 1987 to 2010), 6939 infants born after ART (1.42%, range 0.03-2.62%, an 87-fold increase from 1987 to 2010), including 2317 (33.4%, range 14.28-44.83%, a 3-fold increase from 1987 to 2010) twins (0.47% of all deliveries). A total of 425 twin infants (0.99%, range: 1.07-1.2%, insignificant increase) were born at <32 weeks' gestation, including 261 after ART (61.4%, range 20-100%, 5-fold increase). Twins after ART born at <32 weeks comprised 0.05% of all births (range 0.004-0.11%) and increased 27-fold from 1987 to 2010. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of twins after ART born at <32 weeks increased 27-fold from 1987 to 2010 and has not reduced from its peak incidence over the last decade.

Overexpression of caspase-9 triggers its activation and apoptosis in vitro.

AIM: To investigate the consequences of increased expression of caspase-9: 1) whether the caspase-9 overexpression resulted in cell death through apoptosis, 2) whether apoptosis could be triggered in normal and tumor cells, and 3) what is the role of caspase-9 in the process. METHODS: The caspase-9 fused to green fluorescent protein was expressed in primary cultures of anterior pituitary cells and of HeLa tumor cells. The expressed caspase-9 and the number of apoptotic and necrotic cells were determined using fluorescence microscopy. RESULTS: Overexpression of caspase-9 resulted in cell death of primary pituitary cells and HeLa cells. More than 94% of the cells died of apoptosis, which was triggered by the activation of caspase-9, since the cell deaths were prevented in the presence of caspase-9 specific inhibitor. HeLa cells were about 50% more resistant to apoptosis than pituitary cells. CONCLUSIONS: Caspase-9 overexpression and its activation leads to apoptosis. It occurs both in normal and tumor cells. Since the majority of cancer therapy treatments initiate apoptosis through the caspase-9 activation, the modulation of caspase-9 expression may be exploited in designing new ways to control apoptosis in neurodegenerative or malignant diseases.