Intravenous iron for treatment of iron deficiency anemia during pregnancy and associated maternal outcomes.

BACKGROUND: More than 40% of pregnant patients worldwide are anemic, with at least half resulting from iron deficiency anemia (IDA). Anemia in pregnancy is linked with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Treatment for IDA is iron supplementation; however, the optimal route of administration remains unclear. We sought to investigate whether patients with IDA who received intravenous iron (IVI) had decreased odds of maternal morbidity compared to patients who did not. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of pregnant patients with presumed IDA with term deliveries at a tertiary hospital from 2013-2021. Data were extracted from the hospital's electronic medical record using standardized definitions and billing codes. Patients who received antepartum IVI were compared to patients who did not. The primary outcome was a maternal morbidity composite inclusive of receipt of blood transfusion, hysterectomy, admission to the intensive care unit or death. Bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regression modelling were performed adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Of 45,345 pregnancies, 5054 (11.1%) met eligibility criteria. Of these, 944 (18.7%) patients received IVI while 4110 (81.3%) did not. Patients who received IVI had higher risk baseline characteristics. They experienced a greater increase in hematocrit from pregnancy nadir to delivery admission (4.5% vs. 3.3%, p < .01). Despite this, patients who received IVI had higher odds of the maternal morbidity composite (OR 1.47, 95%CI 1.11-1.95). This finding persisted after adjusting for potential confounders, although the strength of the association became attenuated (aOR 1.37, 95%CI 1.02-1.85). Odds of the morbidity composite were not elevated among patients who received a full IVI treatment course (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.83-1.90). DISCUSSION: Odds of the maternal morbidity composite were increased among patients who received IVI despite greater increases in hematocrit. The effect was attenuated after adjusting for potential confounders and was not significant among patients who completed a full treatment course.

Low-Interventional Approaches to Intrapartum Care: Hospital Variation in Practice and Associated Factors.

INTRODUCTION: Despite evidence supporting the safety of low-interventional approaches to intrapartum care, defined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as "practices that facilitate a physiologic labor process and minimize intervention," little is known about how frequently such practices are utilized. We examined hospital use of low-interventional practices, as well as variation in utilization across hospitals. METHODS: Data came from 185 California hospitals completing a survey of intrapartum care, including 9 questions indicating use of low- versus high-interventional practices (eg, use of intermittent auscultation, nonpharmacologic pain relief, and admission of women in latent labor). We performed a group-based latent class analysis to identify distinct groups of hospitals exhibiting different levels of utilization on these 9 measures. Multivariable logistic regression identified institutional characteristics associated with a hospital's likelihood of using low-interventional practices. Procedure rates and patient outcomes were compared between the hospital groups using bivariate analysis. RESULTS: We identified 2 distinct groups of hospitals that tended to use low-interventional (n = 44, 23.8%) and high-interventional (n = 141, 76.2%) practices, respectively. Hospitals more likely to use low-interventional practices included those with midwife-led or physician-midwife collaborative labor management (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 7.52; 95% CI, 2.53-22.37; P < .001) and those in rural locations (aOR, 3.73; 95% CI, 1.03-13.60; P = .04). Hospitals with a higher proportion of women covered by Medicaid or other safety-net programs were less likely to use low-interventional practices (aOR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99; P = .004), as were hospitals in counties with higher medical liability insurance premiums (aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.85; P = .008). Hospitals in the low-intervention group had comparable rates of severe maternal and newborn morbidities but lower rates of cesarean birth and episiotomy compared with hospitals in the high-intervention group. DISCUSSION: Only one-quarter of hospitals used low-interventional practices. Attention to hospital culture of care, incorporating the midwifery model of care, and addressing medical-legal concerns may help promote utilization of low-interventional intrapartum practices.