Maternal and obstetrical factors associated with short cervical length at midtrimester in women with no history of preterm delivery.

AIM: To evaluate associations between maternal characteristics and a short cervix in patients without history of preterm delivery, and to determine if these characteristics can predict the presence of a short cervix. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study that included 18,592 women with singleton pregnancies without history of previous preterm deliveries who underwent universal transvaginal cervical length (TVCL) screening between 18 + 0 and 23 + 6 weeks/days of gestation. A short cervix was defined as a cervical length (CL) ≤25 mm, ≤20 mm, and ≤15 mm. Associations between maternal age, weight, height, body mass index (BMI), previous term deliveries, and history of previous miscarriages, with a short cervix were evaluated using logistic regression models. RESULTS: The prevalence of a short cervix in our population was: CL ≤25 mm, 2.2% (n = 403); CL ≤20 mm, 1.2% (n = 224); and CL ≤15 mm, 0.9% (n = 161). Women with BMI >30 and/or previous abortions constituted 45.5% of the total population (8463/18,582). Significant associations with short cervix were observed for women with BMI ≥30, and for women with at least one previous abortion (p < .001). Parous women had a significantly lower association with a short cervix than nulliparous women (p < .001). Maternal age or height were not associated with a short cervix. Prediction of short cervix based on presence of any of the following: BMI ≥ 30 or previous abortions showed sensitivities of 55.8% (≤25 mm), 61.6% (≤20 mm), and 63.4% (≤15 mm) with similar specificity (50.1-54.6%) and likelihood ratio positive (1.2-1.5); and prediction based on BMI ≥ 30 and previous abortions showed sensitivities of 11.1% (≤25 mm), 14.7% (≤20 mm), and 16.7% (≤15 mm) with specificity 93%. CONCLUSIONS: Among low risk women for spontaneous preterm delivery, those with a BMI ≥30 and/or previous miscarriages had a significantly increased risk for a short cervix at 18 + 0 and 23 + 6 weeks/days of gestation. Despite these significant associations, screening by maternal risk factors in a low risk population of pregnant women should not be an alternative to mid-trimester universal CL measurement.

In pregnant women evaluated at 18/0 and 23/6 weeks + days of gestation without history of preterm delivery, a 16.7% detection rate for short cervix ≤15 mm can be achieved by risk factors BMI ≥30, and at least one previous miscarriage. Nevertheless, screening for short cervix by risk factors among low risk women might not be an effective alternative to universal cervical length screening.

Impact of Maternal Obesity on Perinatal Outcomes in Preterm Prelabor Rupture of Membranes ≥34 Weeks.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare pregnancy outcomes in obese and nonobese women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM) ≥34 weeks. STUDY DESIGN: The present study is a secondary analysis of a multicenter retrospective cohort of singletons with PPROM from 2011 to 2017. Women with a delivery body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2 (obese) were compared with women with a BMI < 30 kg/m2 (nonobese). Pregnancies were stratified based on delivery policies of expectant management until 35 weeks versus immediate delivery ≥34 weeks. The primary outcome was a composite neonatal outcome (neonatal sepsis, antibiotic administration for duration >72 hours after delivery or respiratory support). Univariate analysis and general estimating equations models including maternal age, delivery timing, mode of delivery, hospital, and gestational age were used with p < 0.05 level of significance. RESULTS: Among 259 pregnancies, 47% were obese. Pregnant women with obesity had increased composite neonatal outcome versus nonobese pregnancies (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.48 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-2.17]). Obesity was also associated with increased neonatal antibiotic administration for a duration >72 hours after delivery, respiratory support, ventilation, oxygen supplementation, and surfactant administration. When stratified by delivery policies there was no significant difference in perinatal outcomes based on obesity. CONCLUSION: Obese women with PPROM ≥34 weeks have an increased odds of adverse neonatal respiratory and infectious outcomes compared with nonobese women.

Preterm Prelabor Rupture of Membranes: Outcomes with Expectant Management until 34 versus 35 Weeks.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes with expectant management of preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM) until 35 weeks versus immediate delivery at ≥34 weeks. STUDY DESIGN: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study of singletons with preterm PROM at >20 weeks from 2011 through 2017. Groups were defined as expectant management until 35 weeks versus immediate delivery at ≥34 weeks. Primary outcome was composite neonatal morbidity: need for respiratory support, culture positive neonatal sepsis, or antibiotic administration for >72 hours. Univariate and general estimating equation models were used with p < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 280 mother-infant dyads were included. There was no difference in composite neonatal outcome in pregnancies managed with expectant management compared with immediate delivery (43.4 vs. 37.5%; p = 0.32). Those with expectant management had shorter length of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission but higher rates of neonatal antibiotics for > 72 hours, endometritis, and histological chorioamnionitis. There were no cases of fetal demise, neonatal death, or maternal sepsis, and only three cases of neonatal sepsis. CONCLUSION: There is no difference in composite neonatal morbidity in pregnancies with preterm PROM managed with expectant management until 35 weeks as compared with immediate delivery at 34 weeks. Expectant management is associated with a decreased length of NICU admission but increased short-term infectious morbidity.

Genesurance Counseling: Patient Perspectives.

Genetic counselors (GCs) have reported an increase in discussion of insurance-related, or "genesurance," topics during genetic counseling sessions. Despite increasing frequency, there have been no studies examining patient expectations of GCs in these discussions. This study aimed to explore patient expectations of GCs in these discussions, as well as examine factors that may impact expectations. A 38-item survey was administered prior to patients receiving prenatal or cancer genetic counseling at 11 clinic sites across UTHealth, Baylor College of Medicine, and Sanford Health, with 360 responses analyzed. Key variables were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square analysis, and multivariate logistic regression to assess associations between factors and control for potential confounders. Over 75% of patients expected GCs to discuss genesurance topics during a genetic counseling session. The majority of patients (78%) expected GCs to provide an estimated out-of-pocket cost, know if a test is a covered benefit (77%), and provide referral information for further questions (76%). Two additional expectations, considered to be unrealistic in most clinical settings, included expecting GCs to know the patient's specific insurance plan and coverage information (57%) and provide an exact out-of-pocket cost (41%). Ethnicity was the only significant predictor of response for these two expectations, as African Americans and Hispanics were more likely than Caucasians to have these beliefs. While the patient participants felt that GCs were primarily responsible for initiating these conversations, they also reported a personal sense of responsibility for raising questions. This study demonstrates that patients may expect GCs to address genesurance topics in a genetic counseling session, with specific expectations about the cost and coverage of genetic tests. Further studies will establish the most effective way to communicate this information to patients and examine whether and where within the scope of GC practice, genesurance discussions fall.