Vasa previa in singleton pregnancies: diagnosis and clinical management based on an international expert consensus.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data to guide the diagnosis and management of vasa previa. Currently, what is known is largely based on case reports or series and cohort studies. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically collect and classify expert opinions and achieve consensus on the diagnosis and clinical management of vasa previa using focus group discussions and a Delphi technique. STUDY DESIGN: A 4-round focus group discussion and a 3-round Delphi survey of an international panel of experts on vasa previa were conducted. Experts were selected on the basis of their publication record on vasa previa. First, we convened a focus group discussion panel of 20 experts and agreed on which issues were unresolved in the diagnosis and management of vasa previa. A 3-round anonymous electronic survey was then sent to the full expert panel. Survey questions were presented on the diagnosis and management of vasa previa, which the experts were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale (from "strongly disagree"=1 to "strongly agree"=5). Consensus was defined as a median score of 5. Following responses to each round, any statements that had median scores of ≤3 were deemed to have had no consensus and were excluded. Statements with a median score of 4 were revised and re-presented to the experts in the next round. Consensus and nonconsensus statements were then aggregated. RESULTS: A total of 68 international experts were invited to participate in the study, of which 57 participated. Experts were from 13 countries on 5 continents and have contributed to >80% of published cohort studies on vasa previa, as well as national and international society guidelines. Completion rates were 84%, 93%, and 91% for the first, second, and third rounds, respectively, and 71% completed all 3 rounds. The panel reached a consensus on 26 statements regarding the diagnosis and key points of management of vasa previa, including the following: (1) although there is no agreement on the distance between the fetal vessels and the cervical internal os to define vasa previa, the definition should not be limited to a 2-cm distance; (2) all pregnancies should be screened for vasa previa with routine examination for placental cord insertion and a color Doppler sweep of the region over the cervix at the second-trimester anatomy scan; (3) when a low-lying placenta or placenta previa is found in the second trimester, a transvaginal ultrasound with Doppler should be performed at approximately 32 weeks to rule out vasa previa; (4) outpatient management of asymptomatic patients without risk factors for preterm birth is reasonable; (5) asymptomatic patients with vasa previa should be delivered by scheduled cesarean delivery between 35 and 37 weeks of gestation; and (6) there was no agreement on routine hospitalization, avoidance of intercourse, or use of 3-dimensional ultrasound for diagnosis of vasa previa. CONCLUSION: Through focus group discussion and a Delphi process, an international expert panel reached consensus on the definition, screening, clinical management, and timing of delivery in vasa previa, which could inform the development of new clinical guidelines.

Time-series analysis of temperature variability and cardiovascular emergency department visits in Atlanta over a 27-year period.

BACKGROUND: Short-term temperature variability, defined as the temperature range occurring within a short time span at a given location, appears to be increasing with climate change. Such variation in temperature may influence acute health outcomes, especially cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Most research on temperature variability has focused on the impact of within-day diurnal temperature range, but temperature variability over a period of a few days may also be health-relevant through its impact on thermoregulation and autonomic cardiac functioning. To address this research gap, this study utilized a database of emergency department (ED) visits for a variety of cardiovascular health outcomes over a 27-year period to investigate the influence of three-day temperature variability on CVD. METHODS: For the period of 1993-2019, we analyzed over 12 million CVD ED visits in Atlanta using a Poisson log-linear model with overdispersion. Temperature variability was defined as the standard deviation of the minimum and maximum temperatures during the current day and the previous two days. We controlled for mean temperature, dew point temperature, long-term time trends, federal holidays, and day of week. We stratified the analysis by age group, season, and decade. RESULTS: All cardiovascular outcomes assessed, except for hypertension, were positively associated with increasing temperature variability, with the strongest effects observed for stroke and peripheral vascular disease. In stratified analyses, adverse associations with temperature variability were consistently highest in the moderate-temperature season (October and March-May) and in the 65 + age group for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that CVD morbidity is impacted by short-term temperature variability, and that patients aged 65 and older are at increased risk. These effects were more pronounced in the moderate-temperature season and are likely driven by the Spring season in Atlanta. Public health practitioners and patient care providers can use this knowledge to better prepare patients during seasons with high temperature variability or ahead of large shifts in temperature.

Outpatient versus inpatient management of preterm prelabor rupture of membranes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: To compare neonatal, obstetrical, and maternal outcomes associated with outpatient versus inpatient management of pregnancies with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database and Central Register from January 1, 1990 to July 31, 2023 identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing outpatient with inpatient management for pregnant persons diagnosed with PPROM before 37 weeks' gestation. No language restriction was applied. We applied a random effects model for meta-analysis. Trustworthiness was assessed using recently published guidance and Risk of bias using the RoB 2.0 tool for RCTs and ROBINS-I tool for cohort studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence (COE). Outcomes of interest included perinatal mortality, neonatal morbidities, latency and gestational age at delivery, and maternal morbidities. RCTs and cohort studies were analyzed separately. This study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviewsr: CRD42022295275. RESULTS: From 2825 records, two RCTs and 10 cohort studies involving 1876 patients were included in the review and meta-analysis. Outpatient management protocols varied but generally included brief initial hospitalization, strict eligibility criteria, and surveillance with laboratory and ultrasound investigations. Outpatient management showed lower rates of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (cohort: RR 0.63 [0.52-0.77, very low COE]), longer latency to delivery (RCT: MD 7.43 days [1.14-13.72 days, moderate COE], cohort: MD 8.78 days [2.29-15.26 days, low COE]), higher gestational age at birth (cohort: MD 7.70 days [2.02-13.38 days, low COE]), lower rates of Apgar scores <7 at 5 min of life (cohort: RR 0.66 [0.50-0.89, very low COE]), and lower rates of histological chorioamnionitis (cohort: RR 0.74 [0.62-0.89, low COE]) without increased risks of adverse neonatal, obstetrical, or maternal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of data from RCTs and cohort studies with very low-to-moderate certainty of evidence indicates that further high-quality research is needed to evaluate the safety and potential benefits of outpatient management for selected PPROM cases, given the moderate-to-high risk of bias in the included studies.

Progestogens in women with threatened miscarriage or recurrent miscarriage: A meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical practice guidelines provide inconsistent recommendations regarding progestogen supplementation for threatened and recurrent miscarriage. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness and safety of progestogens for these patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials up to October 6, 2023 for randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing progestogen supplementation to placebo or no treatment for pregnant women with threatened or recurrent miscarriage. We assessed the risk of bias using a modified version of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Of 15 RCTs (6616 pregnancies) reporting on threatened or recurrent miscarriage, 12 (5610 pregnancies) reported on threatened miscarriage with or without a prior history of miscarriage. Results indicated that progesterone probably increases live births (relative risk (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.10, absolute increase 3.1%, moderate certainty). Of these RCTs, three (1973 pregnancies) reporting on threatened miscarriage with a prior history of miscarriage indicated that progesterone possibly increases live births (RR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.97-1.16, absolute increase 4.4%; low certainty), while four (2540 pregnancies) reporting on threatened miscarriage and no prior miscarriage left the effect very uncertain (RR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.96-1.10, absolute increase 1.7%; very low certainty). Three trials reporting on 1006 patients with a history of two or more prior miscarriages indicated progesterone probably increases live births (RR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.98-1.19, absolute increase 5.7%, moderate certainty). Six RCTs that reported on 2979 patients with at least one prior miscarriage indicated that progesterone probably increases live births (RR 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01-1.13, absolute increase 5.0%; moderate certainty). Progesterone probably has little or no effect on congenital anomalies (RR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.76-1.48, absolute increase 0.1%; moderate certainty), and other serious adverse pregnancy events (RR 1.07, 95% CI: 0.83-1.40, absolute increase 0.2%, moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: In women at increased risk of pregnancy loss, progestogens probably increase live births without increasing adverse maternal and neonatal events. It remains possible that the benefit is restricted to those with prior miscarriages.

Critical Care Services for Pregnant Patients in Ontario: A Province-Wide Survey.

Critically ill pregnant patients require advanced critical care support, but access to these services is variable. We surveyed active Ontario obstetric facilities regarding critical care access. Responses were received from 44 of 80 obstetric units (55%), 13 (30%) being rural. Transport to another facility was required by 59% (majority >1 hour transport time), and differences were noted in the availability of specialty support services such as anesthesia and internal/obstetric medicine, as well as radiology and laboratory facilities, and use of massive transfusion protocols. Training in early supportive care of obstetric complications and optimized facility transport are areas for potential improvement.

Exploring Barriers and Facilitators to COVID-19 Vaccination in People Planning Pregnancy, Trying to Conceive, Pregnant, and Postpartum: A Mixed-Methods Study.

Pregnant people are at higher risk of morbidity from COVID-19 infection, yet vaccine hesitancy remains prevalent. Our mixed-methods study utilised surveys and interviews to understand decision-making regarding COVID-19 vaccination surrounding pregnancy. The most trusted source of information was health care providers. Five themes relating to vaccination barriers and facilitators were identified: (1) COVID-19 vaccine-related policies; (2) pregnancy-specific considerations; (3) barriers, facilitators, and influencers to vaccination; (4) vaccination decisions based on personal health considerations; (5) attitudes toward COVID-19 and other vaccines. Our study underscores the importance of receiving high-quality information from a trusted source to increase vaccination.

Social Media Misinformation about Pregnancy and COVID-19 Vaccines: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to identify common social media misconceptions about COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy, explain the spread of misinformation, and identify solutions to guide clinical practice and policy. METHODOLOGY: A systematic review was conducted and the databases Embase and Medline were searched from December 2019 to February 8, 2023, using terms related to social media, pregnancy, COVID-19 vaccines and misinformation. The inclusion criteria were original research studies that discussed misinformation about COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy on social media. The exclusion criteria were review articles, no full text, and not published in English. Two independent reviewers conducted screening, extraction, and quality assessment. RESULTS: Our search identified 76 articles, of which 3 fulfilled eligibility criteria. Included studies were of moderate and high quality. The social media platforms investigated included Facebook, Google Searches, Instagram, Reddit, TikTok, and Twitter. Misinformation was related to concerns regarding vaccine safety, and its association with infertility. Misinformation was increased due to lack of content monitoring on social media, exclusion of pregnant women from early vaccine trials, lack of information from reputable health sources on social media, and others. Suggested solutions were directed at pregnancy care providers (PCPs) and public health/government. Suggestions included: (i) integrating COVID-19 vaccination information into antenatal care, (ii) PCPs and public health should increase their social media presence to disseminate information, (iii) address population-specific vaccine concerns in a culturally relevant manner, and others. CONCLUSION: Increased availability of information from reputable health sources through multiple channels could increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the pregnant population and help combat misinformation.

Adverse Fetal Outcomes and Maternal Mortality Following Nonobstetric Abdominopelvic Surgery in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the absolute risks of adverse fetal outcomes and maternal mortality following nonobstetric abdominopelvic surgery in pregnancy. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Surgery is often necessary in pregnancy, but absolute measures of risk required to guide perioperative management are lacking. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EvidenceBased Medicine Reviews from January 1, 2000, to December 9, 2020, for observational studies and randomized trials of pregnant patients undergoing nonobstetric abdominopelvic surgery. We determined the pooled proportions of fetal loss, preterm birth, and maternal mortality using a generalized linear random/mixed effects model with a logit link. RESULTS: We identified 114 observational studies (52 [46%] appendectomy, 34 [30%] adnexal, 8 [7%] cholecystectomy, 20 [17%] mixed types) reporting on 67,111 pregnant patients. Overall pooled proportions of fetal loss, preterm birth, and maternal mortality were 2.8% (95% CI 2.2-3.6), 9.7% (95% CI 8.3-11.4), and 0.04% (95% CI 0.02-0.09; 4/10,000), respectively. Rates of fetal loss and preterm birth were higher for pelvic inflammatory conditions (eg, appendectomy, adnexal torsion) than for abdominal or nonurgent conditions (eg, cholecystectomy, adnexal mass). Surgery in the second and third trimesters was associated with lower rates of fetal loss (0.1%) and higher rates of preterm birth (13.5%) than surgery in the first and second trimesters (fetal loss 2.9%, preterm birth 5.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Absolute risks of adverse fetal outcomes after nonobstetric abdom- inopelvic surgery vary with gestational age, indication, and acuity. Pooled estimates derived here identify high-risk clinical scenarios, and can inform implementation of mitigation strategies and improve preoperative counselling.

Short-term associations between warm-season ambient temperature and emergency department visits for Alzheimer's disease and related dementia in five US states.

BACKGROUND: Ambient temperatures are projected to increase in the future due to climate change. Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Alzheimer's disease-related dementia (ADRD) affect millions of individuals and represent substantial health burdens in the US. High temperature may be a risk factor for AD/ADRD outcomes with several recent studies reporting associations between temperature and AD mortality. However, the link between heat and AD morbidity is poorly understood. METHODS: We examined short-term associations between warm-season daily ambient temperature and AD/ADRD emergency department (ED) visits for individuals aged 45 years or above during the warm season (May to October) for up to 14 years (2005-2018) in five US states: California, Missouri, North Carolina, New Jersey, and New York. Daily ZIP code-level maximum, average and minimum temperature exposures were derived from 1 km gridded Daymet products. Associations are assessed using a time-stratified case-crossover design using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: We found consistent positive short-term effects of ambient temperature among 3.4 million AD/ADRD ED visits across five states. An increase of the 3-day cumulative temperature exposure of daily average temperature from the 50th to the 95th percentile was associated with a pooled odds ratio of 1.042 (95% CI: 1.034, 1.051) for AD/ADRD ED visits. We observed evidence of the association being stronger for patients 65-74 years of age and for ED visits that led to hospital admissions. Temperature associations were also stronger among AD/ADRD ED visits compared to ED visits for other reasons, particularly among patients aged 65-74 years. CONCLUSION: People with AD/ADRD may represent a vulnerable population affected by short-term exposure to high temperature. Our results support the development of targeted strategies to reduce heat-related AD/ADRD morbidity in the context of global warming.

Stellate ganglion block for non-pain indications: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Stellate ganglion block (SGB) is performed to relieve head, face, neck, or upper limb pain, and several non-pain indications for performing this block have emerged over the years. To date, there has been no attempt to synthesize evidence on SGB for treating non-pain indications. This scoping review presents a summary of the efficacy and adverse effects of SGB when performed for 6 non-pain indications. METHODS: This scoping review was accomplished through the use of Arksey and O'Malley framework. A literature search was conducted for relevant articles in medical databases to identify publications on SGB and specified study types. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias for randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized comparative studies, and case series. Results were summarized and recommendations were made on the basis of the strength of the available evidence according to the US Preventative Services Task Force grading system. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies (19 randomized controlled trials and 5 nonrandomized studies) were included in this review. On the basis of the evidence, SGB is recommended for obtunding cardiovascular sympathetic stimulation, improving perfusion in limbs, and alleviating menopausal symptoms with a Grade B or C recommendation and a moderate-to-low level of certainty. There was insufficient evidence to recommend SGB for the other indications. CONCLUSIONS: SGB can be considered for obtunding cardiovascular sympathetic stimulation and stress response, reducing vascular tone to improve vascular insufficiency in the limbs and perioperative hemodynamic stability, and alleviating hot flashes in menopause, in conditions refractory to conventional medical management.

Inpatient vs outpatient management of pregnancies with vasa previa: A historical cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Vasa previa, a condition where unprotected fetal blood vessels lie in proximity to the internal cervical opening, is a potentially lethal obstetric complication. The precarious situation of these vessels increases the risk of fetal hemorrhage with spontaneous or artificial rupture of membranes, frequently causing fetal/neonatal demise or severe morbidity. As a result, in many centers, inpatient management forms the mainstay when vasa previa is diagnosed antenatally. This study aimed to determine whether a subpopulation of pregnancies diagnosed antenatally with vasa previa could be safely managed as outpatients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We reviewed all cases of vasa previa in singleton pregnancies, with no fetal anomalies, diagnosed at Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, from January 2008 to December 2017. Cases were categorized into three arms for analysis: outpatients (OP), asymptomatic hospitalized (ASH) and symptomatic hospitalized (SH). The SH arm included patients admitted with any antepartum bleeding or suspicious fetal non-stress test. Those that presented with symptomatic uterine activity/threatened preterm labor and delivered within 7 days of diagnosis were excluded from the study. Records were analyzed for details on hospitalization, antenatal corticosteroid administration, cervical length measurements, and fetal/neonatal mortality and morbidity. RESULTS: Of the 84 antenatally-diagnosed cases of vasa previa, 47 fulfilled eligibility criteria. A total of 15 cases were managed as OP, 22 as ASH and 10 as SH. Unplanned cesareans were highest in the SH arm (40% vs. 0% ASH vs. 13.3% OP). Those in the SH arm delivered earliest (median 33.8 weeks, interquartile range (IQR) 33.2-34.3 weeks). Of the asymptomatic patients, those in the ASH arm delivered earlier than those in the OP arm (35.3 [34.6-36.2] weeks vs. 36.7 [35.6-37.2] weeks, p = 0.037). There were no cases of fetal/neonatal death, anemia or severe neonatal morbidity and no significant differences between groups based on cervical length or antenatal corticosteroid administration. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that asymptomatic women with an antenatal diagnosis of vasa previa, singleton pregnancies, and at low risk for preterm birth may safely managed as outpatients, as long as they are able to access hospital promptly in the event of antepartum bleeding or early labor.

Predicting adverse outcomes in pregnant patients positive for SARS-CoV-2: a machine learning approach- a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant people are particularly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection and to ensuing severe illness. Predicting adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes could aid clinicians in deciding on hospital admission and early initiation of treatment in affected individuals, streamlining the triaging processes. METHODS: An international repository of 1501 SARS-CoV-2-positive cases in pregnancy was created, consisting of demographic variables, patient comorbidities, laboratory markers, respiratory parameters, and COVID-19-related symptoms. Data were filtered, preprocessed, and feature selection methods were used to obtain the optimal feature subset for training a variety of machine learning models to predict maternal or fetal/neonatal death or critical illness. RESULTS: The Random Forest model demonstrated the best performance among the trained models, correctly identifying 83.3% of the high-risk patients and 92.5% of the low-risk patients, with an overall accuracy of 89.0%, an AUC of 0.90 (95% Confidence Interval 0.83 to 0.95), and a recall, precision, and F1 score of 0.85, 0.94, and 0.89, respectively. This was achieved using a feature subset of 25 features containing patient characteristics, symptoms, clinical signs, and laboratory markers. These included maternal BMI, gravidity, parity, existence of pre-existing conditions, nicotine exposure, anti-hypertensive medication administration, fetal malformations, antenatal corticosteroid administration, presence of dyspnea, sore throat, fever, fatigue, duration of symptom phase, existence of COVID-19-related pneumonia, need for maternal oxygen administration, disease-related inpatient treatment, and lab markers including sFLT-1/PlGF ratio, platelet count, and LDH. CONCLUSIONS: We present the first COVID-19 prognostication pipeline specifically for pregnant patients while utilizing a large SARS-CoV-2 in pregnancy data repository. Our model accurately identifies those at risk of severe illness or clinical deterioration, presenting a promising tool for advancing personalized medicine in pregnant patients with COVID-19.

Prediction of successful labor induction in persons with a low Bishop score using machine learning: Secondary analysis of two randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this paper was to identify predictors of a vaginal birth in individuals with singleton pregnancies and a Bishop Score <4, following Induction of Labor (IoL) using dinoprostone vaginal insert (DVI). Secondarily, we sought to understand the association between oxytocin use for labor augmentation and IoL outcomes. METHODS: We developed and internally validated a multivariate prediction model using machine learning (ML) applied to data from two Phase-III randomized controlled double-blind trials (NCT01127581, NCT00308711). The model was internally validated using 10-fold cross-validation. RESULTS: This study included 1107 participants. Despite unfavorable cervical status and inclusion of high-risk pregnancies, 72% of participants had vaginal births. The model's area under receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.73. The following factors increased the chance of vaginal birth: being parous; being between 37 and 41 weeks of gestation; having a lower Body Mass Index; having a lower maternal age; having fewer maternal comorbidities; and having a higher Bishop score. Parity alone correctly predicted the outcome in ~50% of cases, at a ~10% false-negative rate. Participants whose labors progressed without requiring oxytocin had a higher probability of vaginal birth than those requiring oxytocin for either induction or augmentation (81% vs 70% vs 77%, respectively). DISCUSSION: Even in high-risk pregnancies and with low Bishop scores, the use of DVI results in a high chance of vaginal birth. Parity is a critical predictor of success. The judicious use of oxytocin for labor induction or augmentation can increase the chance of vaginal birth. Our study validates the use of ML and predictive modeling for treatment response prediction when considering IoL.

The impact of funding models on the integration of Ontario midwives: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 30 years post legalisation and introduction, midwifery is still not optimally integrated within the health system of Canada's largest province, Ontario. Funding models have been identified as one of the main barriers. METHODS: Using a constructivist perspective, we conducted a qualitative descriptive study to examine how antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum funding arrangements in Ontario impact midwifery integration. We conceptualized optimal 'integration' as circumstances in which midwives' knowledge, skills, and model of care are broadly respected and fully utilized, interprofessional collaboration and referral support the best possible care for patients, and midwives feel a sense of belonging within hospitals and the greater health system. We collected data through semi-structured telephone interviews with midwives, obstetricians, family physicians, and nurses. The data was examined using thematic analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 20 participants, including 5 obstetricians, 5 family physicians, 5 midwives, 4 nurses, and 1 policy expert. We found that while course-of-care-based midwifery funding is perceived to support high levels of midwifery client satisfaction and excellent clinical outcomes, it lacks flexibility. This limits opportunities for interprofessional collaboration and for midwives to use their knowledge and skills to respond to health system gaps. The physician fee-for-service funding model creates competition for births, has unintended consequences that limit midwives' scope and access to hospital privileges, and fails to appropriately compensate physician consultants, particularly as midwifery volumes grow. Siloing of midwifery funding from hospital funding further restricts innovative contributions from midwives to respond to community healthcare needs. CONCLUSIONS: Significant policy changes, such as adequate remuneration for consultants, possibly including salary-based physician funding; flexibility to compensate midwives for care beyond the existing course of care model; and a clearly articulated health human resource plan for sexual and reproductive care are needed to improve midwifery integration.

Individualized treatment of preterm premature rupture of membranes to prolong the latency period, reduce the rate of preterm birth, and improve neonatal outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Preterm premature rupture of membranes complicates approximately 3% of pregnancies. Currently, in the absence of chorioamnionitis or placental abruption, expectant management, including antenatal steroids for lung maturation and prophylactic antibiotic treatment, is recommended. The benefits of individualized management have not been adequately explored. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the impact of 2 different management strategies of preterm premature rupture of membranes in 2 tertiary obstetrical centers on latency of >7 days, latency to birth, chorioamnionitis, funisitis, and short-term adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: This was a multicenter retrospective study of women with singleton pregnancies with preterm premature rupture of membranes from 23 0/7 to 33 6/7 weeks of gestation between 2014 and 2018 and undelivered within 24 hours after hospital admission managed at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, Canada (standard management group), and BCNatal (Hospital Clínic of Barcelona and Hospital Sant Joan de Déu Barcelona), Barcelona, Spain (individualized management group), following local protocols. The standard management group received similar management for all patients, which included a standard antibiotic regimen and routine maternal and fetal surveillance, whereas the individualized management group received personalized management on the basis of amniocentesis at hospital admission (if possible), to rule out microbial invasion of the amniotic cavity and targeted treatment. The exclusion criteria were cervical dilatation >2 cm, active labor, contraindications to expectant management (acute chorioamnionitis, placental abruption, or abnormal fetal tracing), and major fetal anomalies. The primary outcome was latency of >7 days, and the secondary outcomes included latency to birth, chorioamnionitis, and short-term adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Statistical comparisons between groups were conducted with propensity score weighting. RESULTS: A total of 513 pregnancies with preterm premature rupture of membranes were included in this study: 324 patients received standard management, and 189 patients received individualized management, wherein amniocentesis was performed in 112 cases (59.3%). After propensity score weighting, patients receiving individualized management had a higher latency of >7 days (76.0% vs 41.6%; P<.001) and latency to birth (18.1±14.7 vs 9.7±9.7 days; P<.001). Although a higher rate of clinical chorioamnionitis was suspected in the individualized management group than the standard group (34.5% vs 22.0%; P<.01), there was no difference between the groups in terms of histologic chorioamnionitis (67.2% vs 73.4%; P=.16), funisitis (57.6% vs 58.1%; P=.92), or composite infectious maternal outcomes (9.1% vs 7.9%; P=.64). Prolonged latency in the individualized management group was associated with a significant reduction of preterm birth at <32 weeks of gestation (72.1% vs 90.5%; P<.001), neonatal intensive care unit admission (75.6% vs 83.0%; P=.046), and neonatal respiratory support at 28 days of life (16.1% vs 26.1%; P<.01) compared with that in the standard management group. Moreover, prolonged latency was not associated with neonatal severe morbidity at discharge (survival without severe morbidity, 80.4% vs 73.5%; P=.09). CONCLUSION: Individualized management of preterm premature rupture of membranes may prolong pregnancy and reduce preterm birth at <32 weeks of gestation, the need for neonatal support, and neonatal intensive care unit admissions, without an increase in histologic chorioamnionitis, funisitis, neonatal infection-related morbidity, and short-term adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Developing air pollution concentration fields for health studies using multiple methods: Cross-comparison and evaluation.

Past air pollution epidemiological studies have used a wide range of methods to develop concentration fields for health analyses. The fields developed differ considerably among these methods. The reasons for these differences and comparisons of their strengths, as well as the limitations for estimating exposures, remains under-investigated. Here, we applied nine methods to develop fields of eight pollutants (carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone (O3), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and three speciated PM2.5 constituents including elemental carbon (EC), organic carbon (OC), and sulfate (SO4)) for the metropolitan Atlanta region for five years. The nine methods are Central Monitor (CM), Site Average (SA), Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW), Kriging (KRIG), Land Use Regression (LUR), satellite Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD), CMAQ model, CMAQ with kriging adjustment (CMAQ-KRIG), and CMAQ based data fusion (CMAQ-DF). Additionally, we applied an increasingly popular method, Random Forest (RF), and compared its results for NO2 and PM2.5 with other methods. For statistical evaluation, we focused our discussion on the temporal coefficient of determination, although other metrics are also calculated. Raw output from the CMAQ model contains modeling biases and errors, which are partially mitigated by fusing observational data in the CMAQ-KRIG and CMAQ-DF methods. Based on analyses that simulated model responses to more limited input data, the RF model is more robust and outperforms LUR for PM2.5. These results suggest RF may have potential in air pollution health studies, especially when limited measurement data are available. The RF method has several important weaknesses, including a relatively poor performance for NO2, diagnostic challenges, and computational intensiveness. The results of this study will help to improve our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of different methods for estimating air pollutant exposures in epidemiological studies.

Acute association between heatwaves and stillbirth in six US states.

BACKGROUND: Heatwaves are becoming more frequent and may acutely increase the risk of stillbirth, a rare and severe pregnancy outcome. OBJECTIVES: Examine the association between multiple heatwave metrics and stillbirth in six U.S. states. METHODS: Data were collected from fetal death and birth records in California (1996-2017), Florida (1991-2017), Georgia (1994-2017), Kansas (1991-2017), New Jersey (1991-2015), and Oregon (1991-2017). Cases were matched to controls 1:4 based on maternal race/ethnicity, maternal education, and county, and exposure windows were aligned (gestational week prior to stillbirth). County-level temperature data were obtained from Daymet and linked to cases and controls by residential county and the exposure window. Five heatwave metrics (1 categorical, 3 dichotomous, 1 continuous) were created using different combinations of the duration and intensity of hot days (mean daily temperature exceeding the county-specific 97.5th percentile) during the exposure window, as well as a continuous measure of mean temperature during the exposure window modeled using natural splines to allow for nonlinear associations. State-specific odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using conditional logistic regression models. State-specific results were pooled using a fixed-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: In our data set of 140,428 stillbirths (553,928 live birth controls), three of the five heatwave metrics examined were not associated with stillbirth. However, four consecutive hot days during the previous week was associated with a 3% increase in stillbirth risk (CI: 1.01, 1.06), and a 1 °C average increase over the threshold was associated with a 10% increase in stillbirth risk (CI: 1.04, 1.17). In continuous temperature analyses, there was a slight increased risk of stillbirth associated with extremely hot temperatures (≥ 35 °C). DISCUSSION: Most heat wave definitions examined were not associated with acute changes in stillbirth risk; however, the most extreme heatwave durations and temperatures were associated with a modest increase in stillbirth risk.

COVID-19 pandemic and population-level pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in general population: A living systematic review and meta-analysis (Update#2: November 20, 2021).

INTRODUCTION: Conflicting reports of increases and decreases in rates of preterm birth (PTB) and stillbirth in the general population during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have surfaced. The objective of our study was to conduct a living systematic review and meta-analyses of studies reporting pregnancy and neonatal outcomes by comparing the pandemic and pre-pandemic periods. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched the PubMed and Embase databases and reference lists of articles published up until November 20, 2021, and included English language studies that compared outcomes between the COVID-19 pandemic time period with pre-pandemic time periods. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis using the inverse variance method. RESULTS: Fifty-two studies with low-to-moderate risk of bias, reporting on 2 372 521 pregnancies during the pandemic period and 28 518 300 pregnancies during the pre-pandemic period, were included. There was significant reduction in unadjusted estimates of PTB (43 studies, unadjusted odds ratio [uaOR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.93-0.98), but not in adjusted estimates (five studies, adjusted OR [aOR] 0.94, 95% CI 0.74-1.19). This reduction was noted in studies from single centers/health areas (29 studies, uaOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85-0.94) but not in regional/national studies (14 studies, uaOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.01). There was reduction in spontaneous PTB (nine studies, uaOR 0.91, 95% CI 0.88-0.94) but not in induced PTB (eight studies, uaOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79-1.01). There was no difference in the odds of stillbirth between the pandemic and pre-pandemic time periods (32 studies, uaOR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97-1.18 and three studies, aOR 1.18, 95% CI 0.86-1.63). There was an increase in mean birthweight during the pandemic period compared with the pre-pandemic period (nine studies, mean difference 21 g, 95% CI 13-30 g). The odds of maternal mortality were increased (five studies, uaOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05-1.26); however, only unadjusted estimates were available, and the result was mostly influenced by one study from Mexico. There was significant publication bias for the outcome of PTB. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic may be associated with a reduction in PTB; however, referral bias cannot be excluded. There was no statistically significant difference in stillbirths between pandemic and pre-pandemic periods.

Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in general population: A living systematic review and meta-analysis (updated Aug 14, 2021).

INTRODUCTION: Conflicting reports of increases and decreases in rates of preterm birth (PTB) and stillbirth in the general population during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have surfaced. The objective of our study was to conduct a living systematic review and meta-analyses of studies reporting pregnancy and neonatal outcomes by comparing the pandemic and pre-pandemic periods. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase databases, reference lists of articles published up until August 14, 2021 and included English language studies that compared outcomes between the COVID-19 pandemic time period and the pre-pandemic time periods. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis using the inverse variance method. RESULTS: Forty-five studies with low-to-moderate risk of bias, reporting on 1 843 665 pregnancies during the pandemic period and 23 564 552 pregnancies during the pre-pandemic period, were included. There was significant reduction in unadjusted estimates of PTB (35 studies, unadjusted odds ratio [uaOR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.98), but not in adjusted estimates (six studies, adjusted OR [aOR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.80-1.13). This reduction was noted in studies from single centers/health areas (25 studies, uaOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86-0.96) but not in regional/national studies (10 studies, uaOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95-1.02). There was reduction in spontaneous PTB (six studies, uaOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81-0.96) and induced PTB (five studies, uaOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81-0.97). There was no difference in the odds of stillbirth between the pandemic and pre-pandemic time periods (24 studies, uaOR 1.11, 95% CI 0.97-1.26 and four studies, aOR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81-1.38). There was an increase in mean birthweight during the pandemic period compared with the pre-pandemic period (six studies, mean difference 17 g, 95% CI 7-28 g). The odds of maternal mortality were increased (four studies, uaOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05-1.26); however, only unadjusted estimates were available and the result was mostly influenced by one study from Mexico. There was significant publication bias for the outcome of PTB. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic may be associated with a reduction in PTB; however, referral bias cannot be excluded. There was no statistically significant difference in stillbirth between pandemic and pre-pandemic periods.

Adapting obstetric and neonatal services during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The provision of care to pregnant persons and neonates must continue through pandemics. To maintain quality of care, while minimizing physical contact during the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-related Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV2) pandemic, hospitals and international organizations issued recommendations on maternity and neonatal care delivery and restructuring of clinical and academic services. Early in the pandemic, recommendations relied on expert opinion, and offered a one-size-fits-all set of guidelines. Our aim was to examine these recommendations and provide the rationale and context to guide clinicians, administrators, educators, and researchers, on how to adapt maternity and neonatal services during the pandemic, regardless of jurisdiction. METHOD: Our initial database search used Medical subject headings and free-text search terms related to coronavirus infections, pregnancy and neonatology, and summarized relevant recommendations from international society guidelines. Subsequent targeted searches to December 30, 2020, included relevant publications in general medical and obstetric journals, and updated society recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 846 titles and abstracts, of which 105 English-language publications fulfilled eligibility criteria and were included in our study. A multidisciplinary team representing clinicians from various disciplines, academics, administrators and training program directors critically appraised the literature to collate recommendations by multiple jurisdictions, including a quaternary care Canadian hospital, to provide context and rationale for viable options. INTERPRETATION: There are different schools of thought regarding effective practices in obstetric and neonatal services. Our critical review presents the rationale to effectively modify services, based on the phase of the pandemic, the prevalence of infection in the population, and resource availability.