The association between discordant umbilical arterial resistance in growth-restricted fetuses and adverse outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Assessing the umbilical artery pulsatility index via Doppler measurements plays a crucial role in evaluating fetal growth impairment. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate perinatal outcomes associated with discordant pulsatility indices of umbilical arteries in fetuses with growth restriction. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, all singleton pregnancies were included if their estimated fetal weight and/or abdominal circumference fell below the 10th percentile for gestational age (2017-2022). Eligible cases included singleton pregnancies with concurrent sampling of both umbilical arteries within 14 days of birth at the ultrasound evaluation closest to delivery. The exclusion criteria included births before 22 weeks of gestation, evidence of absent or reverse end-diastolic flow in either umbilical artery, and known fetal genetic or structural anomalies. The study compared cases with discordant umbilical artery pulsatility index values (defined as 1 umbilical artery pulsatility index at ≤95th percentile and the other umbilical artery pulsatility index at >95th percentile for gestational age) to pregnancies where both umbilical artery pulsatility indices had normal pulsatility index values and those with both umbilical arteries displaying abnormal pulsatility index values. The primary outcome assessed was the occurrence of composite adverse neonatal outcomes. Multivariable logistic regressions were performed, adjusting for relevant covariates. RESULTS: The study encompassed 1014 patients, including 194 patients (19.1%) with discordant umbilical artery pulsatility index values among those who had both umbilical arteries sampled close to delivery, 671 patients (66.2%) with both umbilical arteries having normal pulsatility index values, and 149 patients (14.7%) with both umbilical arteries exhibiting abnormal values. Pregnancies with discordant umbilical artery pulsatility index values displayed compromised sonographic parameters compared with those with both umbilical arteries showing normal pulsatility index values. Similarly, the number of abnormal umbilical artery pulsatility index values was associated with adverse perinatal outcomes in a dose-response manner. Cases with 1 abnormal (discordant) umbilical artery pulsatility index value showed favorable sonographic parameters and perinatal outcomes compared with cases with both abnormal umbilical artery pulsatility index values, and cases with both abnormal umbilical artery pulsatility index values showed worse sonographic parameters and perinatal outcomes compared with cases with discordant UA PI values. Multivariate analysis revealed that discordant umbilical artery pulsatility indices were significantly and independently associated with composite adverse perinatal outcomes, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.75 (95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.47; P = .002). CONCLUSION: Evaluating the resistance indices of both umbilical arteries may provide useful data and assist in assessing adverse perinatal outcomes among fetuses with growth restriction.

Maternal-Newborn Health System Changes and Outcomes in Ontario, Canada, During Wave 1 of the COVID-19 Pandemic-A Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the population-level impact of COVID-19 pandemic-related obstetric practice changes on maternal and newborn outcomes. METHODS: Segmented regression analysis examined changes that occurred 240 weeks pre-pandemic through the first 32 weeks of the pandemic using data from Ontario's Better Outcomes Registry & Network. Outcomes included birth location, length of stay, labour analgesia, mode of delivery, preterm birth, and stillbirth. Immediate and gradual effects were modelled with terms representing changes in intercepts and slopes, corresponding to the start of the pandemic. RESULTS: There were 799 893 eligible pregnant individuals included in the analysis; 705 767 delivered in the pre-pandemic period and 94 126 during the pandemic wave 1 period. Significant immediate decreases were observed for hospital births (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% CI 0.98-0.99), length of stay (median change -3.29 h; 95% CI -3.81 to -2.77), use of nitrous oxide (RR 0.11; 95% CI 0.09-0.13) and general anesthesia (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.58- 0.81), and trial of labour after cesarean (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.83-0.96). Conversely, there were significant immediate increases in home births (RR 1.35; 95% CI 1.21-1.51), and use of epidural (RR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01-1.04) and regional anesthesia (RR 1.01; 95% CI 1.01-1.02). There were no significant immediate changes for any other outcomes, including preterm birth (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.93-1.05) and stillbirth (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.87-1.42). CONCLUSION: Provincial health system changes implemented at the start of the pandemic resulted in immediate clinical practice changes but not insignificant increases in adverse outcomes.

Maternal weight gain and pregnancy outcomes in twin gestations.

BACKGROUND: Data on the optimal gestational weight gain in twin pregnancies are limited. As a result, the Institute of Medicine currently provides only provisional recommendations on gestational weight gain in this population. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify the optimal range of gestational weight gain in twin pregnancies and to estimate the association between inappropriate gestational weight gain and adverse pregnancy outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of all women with twin pregnancies that were followed up in a single, tertiary center between 2000 and 2014. We used 2 approaches to identify the optimal range of gestational weight gain: a statistical approach (the interquartile range of gestational weight gain in low-risk pregnancies with normal outcomes) and an outcome-based approach (by identifying thresholds of gestational weight gain below or above which the rate of adverse outcomes increases). The primary outcome was preterm birth. Associations of gestational weight gain below or above the normal range with the study outcomes were estimated using logistic regression analysis and were expressed as adjusted odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals. These associations were stratified by prepregnancy body mass index group. RESULTS: A total of 1274 women with twin pregnancies met the study criteria: 43 were classified as underweight, 777 were normal weight, 278 were overweight, and 176 were obese. Our estimates of the optimal gestational weight gain range were similar to those recommended by the Institute of Medicine except for the obese category, in which our optimal gestational weight gain range at 37 weeks (9.3-16.3 kg) was lower than in the provisional Institute of Medicine recommendations (11.3-19.1 kg). Nearly half of our cohort experienced inappropriate gestational weight gain: 30% (n=381) gained weight below and 17% (n=216) gained weight above current Institute of Medicine recommendations. In the normal weight group, gestational weight gain below recommendations was associated with an increased risk of preterm birth and birthweight at the <10th centile and with a reduction in the risk of hypertensive disorders, whereas gestational weight gain above recommendations was associated with an increased risk of hypertensive disorders and a reduction in the risk of birthweight at the <10th centile. Associations were less consistent in the overweight and obese groups. CONCLUSION: These findings identify gestational weight gain as a potentially modifiable risk factor for preterm birth and other pregnancy complications in twin gestations. Further prospective studies are needed to determine whether interventions aimed at optimizing gestational weight gain can improve the outcomes of these high-risk pregnancies.

Current Practice of Maternal-Fetal Medicine Specialists Regarding the Prevention and Management of Preterm Birth in Twin Gestations.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the current practices of maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) specialists regarding the prevention and management of preterm birth (PTB) in twin pregnancies. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of Canadian MFM specialists. Participants responded to an anonymous survey regarding the prevention and management of PTB in twins, including lifestyle and gestational weight gain recommendations, cervical length screening, PTB prevention, and labour and delivery practices. RESULTS: Of 137 MFM specialists surveyed, 95 (69%) responded. Most MFM specialists recommend against activity restriction (77.9%), avoidance of sexual activity (96.7%), routine progesterone (97.8%), routine prophylactic cerclage (98.9%), and routine administration of antenatal corticosteroids (95.6%). There were considerable inconsistencies with respect to gestational weight gain management. Despite lack of support by guidelines, most MFM specialists reported using routine cervical length screening (97.8%) and progesterone for short cervix (92.3%). Over half (52.7%) of MFM specialists recommend cervical cerclage when the cervix is <15mm. In cases of PTB, most MFM specialists recommend vaginal delivery when twins are in vertex presentation (63%-75%). MFM specialists are less likely to recommend vaginal delivery when twin B is non-vertex (35%-41%). CONCLUSION: There is a considerable variation among MFM specialists regarding the prevention and management of PTB in twins, and the practice of many MFM specialists differs from that recommended by professional societies' guidelines. These findings underscore the necessity for high-quality studies and up-to-date recommendations.

Delivery of monochorionic twins: lessons learned from the Twin Birth Study.

BACKGROUND: The current literature regarding the recommended mode of delivery of monochorionic-diamniotic twins is limited to small numbers, retrospective studies, and comparisons of outcomes of monochorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancies with those of dichorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancies instead of outcomes of trial of labor vs elective cesarean delivery of monochorionic-diamniotic twins. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare perinatal and maternal outcomes of planned cesarean delivery and planned vaginal delivery of monochorionic-diamniotic twins using the Twin Birth Study data. STUDY DESIGN: This study is a secondary analysis of the Twin Birth Study. Women were randomized from 32 weeks and 0 days gestation to 38 weeks and 6 days gestation to planned cesarean delivery or planned vaginal delivery. Twin A in the cephalic presentation and estimated weight of each twin between 1500 and 4000 grams were the inclusion criteria. Pregnancies complicated by fetal reduction after 13 weeks of gestation, lethal fetal anomaly, or contraindication to vaginal delivery were excluded. Elective delivery was planned between 37 weeks and 5 to 7 days of gestation and 38 weeks and 6 to 7 days of gestation. Perinatal and maternal outcomes of monochorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancies were compared between those randomized for planned cesarean delivery and those randomized for planned vaginal delivery. In addition, outcomes of monochorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancies were compared with those of dichorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancies. RESULTS: Out of the 1393 women in each arm, 346 (24.9%) women in the planned cesarean delivery arm and 324 (23.3%) women in the planned vaginal delivery arm had monochorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancies and were eligible for the first analysis. The rate of cesarean delivery was 39.2% in the planned vaginal delivery arm and was 91.3% in the planned cesarean delivery arm. There was no significant difference in gestational age at delivery between the groups (34.4±1.8 weeks vs 34.5±1.8 weeks; P=.78). No difference was found in maternal outcomes. As for perinatal outcomes, the rate of the primary adverse neonatal composite outcomes in twins A or twins B was similar in both the planned vaginal delivery and the planned cesarean delivery arms (twins A, 1.2% vs 1.2% [P=.92]; twins B, 1.2% vs 3.2% [P=.09]). Within the planned cesarean delivery arm, the rate of primary adverse neonatal composite outcome was higher in twins B than twins A (3.2% vs 1.2%; P=.03). There was no difference in the primary adverse neonatal composite outcome between twins A in the monochorionic-diamniotic group and the dichorionic-diamniotic group (1.2% vs 1.3%; P=.89) or between twins B in similar groups (2.3% vs 2.7%; P=.47). CONCLUSION: In monochorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancy between 32 weeks and 0 to 7 days of gestation and 38 weeks and 6 to 7 days of gestation, with twin A in a cephalic presentation, planned cesarean delivery did not decrease or increase the risk of fetal or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity, as compared with planned vaginal delivery.

Examining Cesarean Section Rates in Canada Using the Modified Robson Classification.

OBJECTIVE: Canada's cesarean delivery (CD) rate continues to increase. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada advocates the use of the modified Robson classification for comparisons. This study describes national and provincial CD rates according to this classification system. METHODS: All 2016-2017 in-hospital births in Canada (outside Québec) reported to the Discharge Abstract Database were categorized using the modified Robson classification system. CD rates, group size, and contributions of each group to the overall volume of CD were reported. Rates by province and hospital peer group were also examined (Canadian Task Force Classification III). RESULTS: A total of 286 201 women gave birth; among these, 83 262 (29.1%) had CDs. Robson group 5 (term singleton previous CD) had a CD rate of 80.5% and was the largest contributing group to the overall number of CD (36.6%). Women whose labour was induced (Robson group 2A) had a CD rate almost double the rate of women with spontaneous labour (Robson group 1): 33.5% versus 18.4%. These latter two groups made the next largest contributions to overall CD (15.7% and 14.1%, respectively). There were substantial variations in CD rates across provinces and among hospital peer groups. CONCLUSION: The study found large variations in CD rates across provinces and hospitals within each Robson group, thus suggesting that examining variations to determine the groups contributing the most to CD rates (Robson groups 5, 2A, and 1) may provide valuable insight for reducing CD rates. This study provides a benchmark for measuring the impact of future initiatives to reduce CD rates in Canada.

The worst of both worlds-combined deliveries in twin gestations: a subanalysis of the Twin Birth Study, a randomized, controlled, prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: The reported incidence of combined twin delivery (vaginal delivery of twin A followed by cesarean delivery for twin B) ranges between 5% and 10%. These estimates are based mostly on small studies or retrospective data. We aimed to evaluate to incidence and risk factors for and outcomes of combined twin deliveries, using a subanalysis of the Twin Birth Study, a randomized, controlled, prospective study. STUDY DESIGN: The Twin Birth Study included women with twin gestation between 32+0 and 38+6 weeks, with the first twin in vertex presentation at randomization. Women were randomized to planned cesarean delivery or planned vaginal delivery. For the purpose of this subanalysis, we included women who had a vaginal delivery of twin A. Women who had a combined delivery (cesarean delivery for twin B) were compared with women who had a vaginal delivery of both twins. Our primary objective was to identify risk factors for combined twin deliveries. Our secondary objective was to assess the rate of fetal/neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity in combined deliveries. RESULTS: Of the 2786 women included in the original study, 842 women delivered twin A by a vaginal delivery and were included in the current analysis, of whom 59 (7%) had a combined delivery. Women in the combined delivery group had a lower rate of nulliparity (22.0% vs 34.7%, P = 0.047) and higher rates of noncephalic presentation of twin B at delivery (61.0% vs 27.3%, P < 0.001) and spontaneous version from presentation at randomization of twin B (72.9% vs 44.3%, P < 0.0001). In a multivariable model, the only risk factor significantly associated with a combined delivery was transverse/oblique lie of twin B following delivery of twin A (adjusted odds ratio, 47.7; 95% confidence interval, 15.4-124.5). Twins B in the combined delivery group had a higher rate of fetal/neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity (13.6% vs 2.3%, P < 0.001), 5-minute Apgar score <7, neonatal intensive care unit admission, abnormal level of consciousness, and assisted ventilation. CONCLUSION: Transverse/oblique lie of twin B following vaginal delivery of twin A is a risk factor for combined delivery. Combined delivery is associated with higher risk of adverse neonatal outcomes of twin B. These data may be used to better counsel women with twin gestation who consider a trial of labor.

Planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for women in spontaneous labor with a twin pregnancy: A secondary analysis of the Twin Birth Study.

BACKGROUND: The Twin Birth Study, a multicenter randomized controlled trial, found no differences in neonatal outcomes in women with twins randomized to planned cesarean or vaginal delivery. Nevertheless, women who present in spontaneous labor might expect a better outcome following a trial of vaginal delivery than undergoing cesarean delivery. In this secondary analysis, we aimed to compare neonatal outcomes of women who presented in spontaneous labor in the two arms of the Twin Birth Study. METHODS: Women in whom the first twin was in the cephalic presentation were randomized between 32 + 0 and 38 + 6 weeks to planned vaginal delivery or cesarean. The primary outcome was a composite of fetal or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity. RESULTS: Of the 2804 women included in the Twin Birth Study, 823 women in the planned vaginal delivery arm and 612 in the planned cesarean arm presented in spontaneous labor. Although the odds ratio favored planned vaginal delivery, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of primary outcome between the vaginal delivery and cesarean arms (1.8% vs 2.7%, respectively; P = 0.16; OR 1.49; 95% CI, 0.87-2.55). Similarly, the rates of the individual components of the primary outcome and of maternal adverse outcome were similar between the two arms. CONCLUSION: In women with twins who present in spontaneous labor between 32 + 0 and 38 + 6 weeks' gestation, where the first twin is cephalic, a policy of planned vaginal delivery or cesarean is not associated with significant differences in neonatal or maternal outcomes.

Continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (CONCEPTT): a multicentre international randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women with type 1 diabetes are a high-risk population who are recommended to strive for optimal glucose control, but neonatal outcomes attributed to maternal hyperglycaemia remain suboptimal. Our aim was to examine the effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on maternal glucose control and obstetric and neonatal health outcomes. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we recruited women aged 18-40 years with type 1 diabetes for a minimum of 12 months who were receiving intensive insulin therapy. Participants were pregnant (≤13 weeks and 6 days' gestation) or planning pregnancy from 31 hospitals in Canada, England, Scotland, Spain, Italy, Ireland, and the USA. We ran two trials in parallel for pregnant participants and for participants planning pregnancy. In both trials, participants were randomly assigned to either CGM in addition to capillary glucose monitoring or capillary glucose monitoring alone. Randomisation was stratified by insulin delivery (pump or injections) and baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from randomisation to 34 weeks' gestation in pregnant women and to 24 weeks or conception in women planning pregnancy, and was assessed in all randomised participants with baseline assessments. Secondary outcomes included obstetric and neonatal health outcomes, assessed with all available data without imputation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01788527. FINDINGS: Between March 25, 2013, and March 22, 2016, we randomly assigned 325 women (215 pregnant, 110 planning pregnancy) to capillary glucose monitoring with CGM (108 pregnant and 53 planning pregnancy) or without (107 pregnant and 57 planning pregnancy). We found a small difference in HbA1c in pregnant women using CGM (mean difference -0·19%; 95% CI -0·34 to -0·03; p=0·0207). Pregnant CGM users spent more time in target (68% vs 61%; p=0·0034) and less time hyperglycaemic (27% vs 32%; p=0·0279) than did pregnant control participants, with comparable severe hypoglycaemia episodes (18 CGM and 21 control) and time spent hypoglycaemic (3% vs 4%; p=0·10). Neonatal health outcomes were significantly improved, with lower incidence of large for gestational age (odds ratio 0·51, 95% CI 0·28 to 0·90; p=0·0210), fewer neonatal intensive care admissions lasting more than 24 h (0·48; 0·26 to 0·86; p=0·0157), fewer incidences of neonatal hypoglycaemia (0·45; 0·22 to 0·89; p=0·0250), and 1-day shorter length of hospital stay (p=0·0091). We found no apparent benefit of CGM in women planning pregnancy. Adverse events occurred in 51 (48%) of CGM participants and 43 (40%) of control participants in the pregnancy trial, and in 12 (27%) of CGM participants and 21 (37%) of control participants in the planning pregnancy trial. Serious adverse events occurred in 13 (6%) participants in the pregnancy trial (eight [7%] CGM, five [5%] control) and in three (3%) participants in the planning pregnancy trial (two [4%] CGM and one [2%] control). The most common adverse events were skin reactions occurring in 49 (48%) of 103 CGM participants and eight (8%) of 104 control participants during pregnancy and in 23 (44%) of 52 CGM participants and five (9%) of 57 control participants in the planning pregnancy trial. The most common serious adverse events were gastrointestinal (nausea and vomiting in four participants during pregnancy and three participants planning pregnancy). INTERPRETATION: Use of CGM during pregnancy in patients with type 1 diabetes is associated with improved neonatal outcomes, which are likely to be attributed to reduced exposure to maternal hyperglycaemia. CGM should be offered to all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy. This study is the first to indicate potential for improvements in non-glycaemic health outcomes from CGM use. FUNDING: Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Canadian Clinical Trials Network, and National Institute for Health Research.

No. 369-Management of Pregnancy Subsequent to Stillbirth.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this consensus statement is to develop consensus statements to guide clinical practice and recommendations for antenatal care, intrapartum care, and the psychosocial considerations necessary in the care of pregnant women with a history of stillbirth. INTENDED USERS: Clinicians involved in the obstetric management of women with a history of stillbirth or other causes of perinatal loss TARGET POPULATION: Women and families presenting for care following a pregnancy affected by stillbirth or other causes perinatal loss EVIDENCE: This document presents a summary of the literature and a general consensus on the management of pregnancies subsequent to stillbirth and perinatal loss. Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched using the following key words: previous stillbirth, perinatal loss, subsequent pregnancy. The results were then studied, and relevant papers were reviewed. The references of the reviewed studies were also searched, as were documents citing pertinent studies. The evidence was then presented at a consensus meeting, and statements were developed. Due to lack of evidence, care pathways of specialty clinics were consulted. VALIDATION METHODS: The content and guidelines were developed by the primary authors in consultation with the meeting attendees. The Board of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada approved the final draft for publication. The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology framework (Table 1). The interpretation of strong and weak recommendations is described in Table 2. The Summary of Findings is available upon request. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: A multidisciplinary approach in the provision of antenatal and intrapartum care to women and families with a history of stillbirth and perinatal loss was explored. While there is a lack of evidence in this area, members of the working group are providing care to women and families around the world and are sharing their knowledge and experience to help guide care. GUIDELINE UPDATE: Evidence will be reviewed 5 years after publication to evaluate whether all or part of the guideline should be updated. However, if important new evidence is published prior to the 5-year cycle, the review process may be accelerated for a more rapid update of some recommendations. SPONSORS: This guideline was developed with resources funded by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada and the Women and Babies Program at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.

No 369 - Prise en charge de la grossesse aprés une mortinaissance.

OBJECTIF: L'objectif principal de la présente déclaration de consensus est d'élaborer des énoncés de consensus qui guideront la pratique clinique et des recommandations pour les soins prénataux et les soins intrapartum, et les considérations psychosociales dont il faut tenir compte pour prendre soin des femmes enceintes ayant des antécédents de mortinaissance. UTILISATEURS CIBLES: Les cliniciens participant à la prise en charge obstétrique des femmes ayant des antécédents de mortinaissance ou d'autres formes de décès périnatal. POPULATION CIBLE: Les femmes et les familles recevant des soins après une grossesse s'étant soldée par une mortinaissance ou une autre forme de décès périnatal. ÉVIDENCE: La présente directive clinique résume la littérature publiée et énonce un consensus général sur la prise en charge des grossesses suivant une mortinaissance ou un décès périnatal. Nous avons interrogé les bases de données MEDLINE, Embase et Cochrane au moyen des mots-clés : « previous stillbirth ¼, « perinatal loss ¼ et « subsequent pregnancy ¼. Nous avons ensuite étudié les résultats et lu les articles pertinents. Nous avons également consulté les références des articles retenus et les documents citant des études pertinentes. Les données ont ensuite été présentées pendant une réunion de consensus, et les énoncés ont été formulés. En raison du manque de données probantes, nous avons également consulté les cheminements de soins de cliniques spécialisées. VALIDATION: Le contenu et les lignes directrices ont été élaborés par les auteurs principaux en consultation avec les participants à la rencontre. Le Conseil d'administration de la Société des obstétriciens et gynécologues du Canada a approuvé la version finale avant publication. La qualité des données probantes a été évaluée au moyen des critères de l'approche GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) [tableau 1]. L'interprétation des recommandations solides et conditionnelles est décrite dans le tableau 2. Le résumé des conclusions peut être fourni sur demande. AVANTAGES, INCONVéNIENTS, COûTS: Nous avons exploré une approche multidisciplinaire de prestation des soins prénataux et intrapartum aux femmes et aux familles ayant des antécédents de mortinaissance ou de décès périnatal. Bien qu'il manque de données probantes dans ce domaine, certains membres du groupe de travail fournissent ces soins à des femmes et à des familles dans plusieurs pays et nous ont fait part de leurs connaissances et de leurs expériences dans le but de guider les soins. MIS-à-JOUR: Une revue des données probantes sera menée cinq ans après la publication de la présente directive clinique afin d'évaluer si une mise à jour complète ou partielle s'impose. Cependant, si de nouvelles données probantes importantes sont publiées avant la fin du cycle de cinq ans, le processus pourrait être accéléré afin que certaines recommandations soient mises à jour rapidement. COMMANDITAIRES: La présente directive clinique a été élaborée à l'aide de ressources financées par la Société des obstétriciens et gynécologues du Canada et le Programme pour les femmes et les bébés du Centre Sunnybrook des sciences et la santé tableau 1,2. DéCLARATIONS SOMMAIRES ET RECOMMANDATIONS.