Prediction of hypertensive disorders after screening at 36 weeks' gestation: comparison of angiogenic markers with competing-risks model.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance at 35 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks' gestation of screening for delivery with pre-eclampsia (PE) at various timepoints, using one of three approaches: placental growth factor (PlGF) concentration, soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 (sFlt-1) to PlGF concentration ratio, or the competing-risks model, which combines maternal risk factors with biomarkers to estimate patient-specific risk. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of women attending for a routine hospital visit at 35 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks' gestation at one of two maternity hospitals in England between 2016 and 2022. During the visit, maternal demographic characteristics and medical history were recorded and serum PlGF, serum sFlt-1 and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were measured. Detection rates (DRs) were evaluated for delivery with PE (defined as per American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2019 criteria) within 1 week, within 2 weeks or at any time after screening, using the following strategies: (i) low PlGF (< 10th percentile); (ii) high sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (> 90th percentile); or (iii) the competing-risks model, in which maternal factors were combined with multiples of the median values of PlGF ('single test'), PlGF and sFlt-1 ('double test') or PlGF, sFlt-1 and MAP ('triple test'). Risk cut-offs corresponded to a screen-positive rate of 10%. DRs were compared between tests. RESULTS: Of 34 782 pregnancies, 831 (2.4%) developed PE. In screening for delivery with PE at any time from assessment, the DR at 10% screen-positive rate was 47% by low PlGF alone, 54% by the single test, 55% by high sFlt-1/PlGF ratio, 61% by the double test and 68% by the triple test. In screening for delivery with PE within 2 weeks from assessment, the respective values were 67%, 74%, 74%, 80% and 87%. In screening for delivery with PE within 1 week from assessment, the respective values were 77%, 81%, 85%, 88% and 91%. For prediction of PE at any time, the DR was significantly higher with the triple test compared to PlGF alone or the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio, with a DR difference (95% CI) of 20.1% (16.7-23.0%) and 12.4% (9.7-15.3%), respectively. Similar results were seen for prediction of PE within 2 weeks (20.6% (14.9-26.8%) and 12.9% (7.7-17.5%), respectively) and prediction of PE within 1 week (13.5% (5.4-21.6%) and 5.4% (0.0-10.8%), respectively). The double test was superior to the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio and the single test was superior to PlGF alone in the prediction of PE within 2 weeks and at any time from assessment, but not within 1 week of assessment. CONCLUSION: At 35 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks' gestation, the performance of screening for PE by the competing-risks model triple test is superior to that of PlGF alone or the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio for the development of disease within 1 week, within 2 weeks and at any time from screening. © 2023 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Incidence of pre-eclampsia: effect of deprivation.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between the English index of multiple deprivation (IMD) and the incidence of pre-eclampsia (PE), evaluate the distribution of IMD in a cohort of ethnically diverse pregnant women in South East England and assess whether IMD improves the prediction of PE compared with that provided by the 'history-only' competing-risks model (based on maternal characteristics and medical history). METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study of 159 125 women with a singleton pregnancy who attended their first routine hospital visit at 11 + 0 to 13 + 6 weeks' gestation in two maternity hospitals in the UK. The inclusion criteria were delivery at ≥ 24 weeks' gestation of babies without major abnormality. Participants completed a questionnaire on demographic characteristics and obstetric and medical history, which was then reviewed by a doctor together with the woman. Patients were asked to self-identify as white, black, South Asian, East Asian or mixed race. IMD was used as a measure of socioeconomic status, which takes into account income, employment, education, skills and training, health and disability, crime, barriers to housing and services, and living environment. Each neighborhood is ranked according to their level of deprivation relative to that of other areas into one of five equal groups, with Quintile 1 containing the 20% most deprived areas and Quintile 5 containing the 20% least deprived areas. IMD was assigned based on a woman's postcode. Risk factors for PE and its incidence were assessed across IMD using chi-square test or t-test, as appropriate. The relationship between IMD and gestational age at delivery with PE was evaluated by fitting parametric survival models for IMD alone, IMD combined with race and IMD combined with the Fetal Medicine Foundation history-only competing-risks model. RESULTS: The incidence of PE (n = 4088, 2.6%) increased progressively across IMD quintiles, from 2.0% in Quintile 5 (least deprived) to 3.0% in Quintile 1 (most deprived). Compared with white women and those in other racial groups, black women had a higher incidence of PE (4.8%), were less often in IMD Quintiles 4 and 5, and were more often in IMD Quintiles 1 and 2. None of the IMD quintiles improved the prediction of PE compared with that provided by the history-only competing-risks model (which includes race). The history-only competing-risks model with vs without IMD had a similar detection rate for delivery with PE at < 37 weeks' gestation (44.1% (95% CI, 41.1-47.2%) vs 43.9% (95% CI, 40.1-47.0%)) and at any gestational age (35.2% (95% CI, 33.8-36.7%) vs 35.1% (95% CI, 33.7-36.6%)), at a 10% screen-positive rate. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of PE is higher in women living in the most deprived areas in South East England and in black women (vs those of other racial groups), who also live in areas of higher deprivation. However, in screening for PE, inclusion of IMD does not improve the prediction of PE provided by race and other maternal characteristics and elements of medical history. © 2022 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Competing-risks model for pre-eclampsia and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The competing-risks model for assessment of risk for pre-eclampsia (PE) at 35-37 weeks' gestation identifies the majority of women who are at high risk of subsequent delivery with PE. We aimed to examine the incidence and relative risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in patient groups stratified according to the estimated risk of delivery with PE. METHODS: This was a prospective non-interventional, observational study in women with a singleton pregnancy attending for a routine hospital visit at 35 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks' gestation. The risk of delivery with PE for each patient in the study population was estimated using the competing-risks model, combining the prior distribution of gestational age at delivery with PE and the likelihood from multiples of the median values of mean arterial pressure, placental growth factor and soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1. The patients were assigned to one of the following five risk categories: Group A, ≥ 1 in 2; Group B, 1 in 5 to 1 in 3; Group C, 1 in 20 to 1 in 6; Group D, 1 in 50 to 1 in 21; and Group E, < 1 in 50. The outcome measures were delivery with PE, gestational hypertension (GH), small-for-gestational age (SGA) at birth, delivery by Cesarean section, stillbirth, neonatal death, perinatal death and admission to the neonatal unit (NNU) for at least 48 h. In each risk category, the proportion of women with each adverse outcome was determined and relative risks (RR) were calculated as compared with the lowest-risk Group E. RESULTS: In the study population of 29 035 women, 1.6%, 2.7%, 8.2%, 9.8% and 77.8% were categorized into Groups A, B, C, D and E, respectively. Compared with women in Group E, women in the higher-risk groups were more likely to have an adverse outcome. The RR of delivery with PE in Group A compared with Group E was 65.5 (95% CI, 54.1-79.1) and the respective values were 11.9 (95% CI, 9.1-15.5) for GH, 1.8 (95% CI, 1.5-2.1) for delivery by emergency Cesarean section, 1.5 (95% CI, 1.2-1.8) for delivery by elective Cesarean section, 8.9 (95% CI, 7.4-10.8) for SGA with birth weight < 3rd percentile, 4.8 (95% CI, 4.3-5.4) for SGA with birth weight < 10th percentile, 5.3 (95% CI, 1.4-20.5) for stillbirth and 3.4 (95% CI, 2.8-4.2) for NNU admission for ≥ 48 h. The RR for these pregnancy complications in higher-risk groups (vs Group E) was particularly high for cases with delivery within 2 weeks after assessment. In terms of SGA, both for birth weight < 10th and < 3rd percentiles, the trend in all cases was stronger than that observed when the analysis was confined to normotensive pregnancies. The rates of neonatal death were too small to allow meaningful comparisons between risk groups. CONCLUSION: Pregnant women identified by the competing-risks model to be at high risk of PE are also at increased risk of GH, Cesarean section, stillbirth, SGA and NNU admission for ≥ 48 h. © 2022 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Maternal and perinatal outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in unvaccinated pregnancies during Delta and Omicron waves.

OBJECTIVE: There is little evidence related to the effects of the Omicron severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant on pregnancy outcomes, particularly in unvaccinated women. This study aimed to compare pregnancy outcomes of unvaccinated women infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the pre-Delta, Delta and Omicron waves. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at two tertiary care facilities: Sancaktepe Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey, and St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. Included were women who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) during pregnancy, between 1 April 2020 and 14 February 2022. The cohort was divided into three periods according to the date of their positive RT-PCR test: (i) pre-Delta (1 April 2020 to 8 June 2021 in Turkey, and 1 April 2020 to 31 July 2021 in the UK), (ii) Delta (9 June 2021 to 27 December 2021 in Turkey, and 1 August 2021 to 27 December 2021 in the UK) and (iii) Omicron (after 27 December 2021 in both Turkey and the UK). Baseline data collected included maternal age, parity, body mass index, gestational age at diagnosis and comorbidities. The primary outcome was the need for oxygen supplementation, classified as oxygen support via nasal cannula or breather mask, non-invasive mechanical ventilation with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation with intubation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Inferences were made after balancing of confounders, using an evolutionary search algorithm. Selected confounders were maternal age, body mass index and gestational age at diagnosis of infection. RESULTS: During the study period, 1286 unvaccinated pregnant women with RT-PCR-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection were identified, comprising 870 cases during the pre-Delta period, 339 during the Delta wave and 77 during the Omicron wave. In the confounder-balanced cohort, infection during the Delta wave vs during the pre-Delta period was associated with increased need for nasal oxygen support (risk ratio (RR), 2.53 (95% CI, 1.75-3.65); P < 0.001), CPAP or high-flow oxygen (RR, 2.50 (95% CI, 1.37-4.56); P = 0.002), mechanical ventilation (RR, 4.20 (95% CI, 1.60-11.0); P = 0.003) and ECMO (RR, 11.0 (95% CI, 1.43-84.7); P = 0.021). The maternal mortality rate was 3.6-fold higher during the Delta wave compared to the pre-Delta period (5.3% vs 1.5%, P = 0.010). Infection during the Omicron wave was associated with a similar need for nasal oxygen support (RR, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.25-1.55); P = 0.251), CPAP or high-flow oxygen (RR, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.36-3.12); P = 0.906) and mechanical ventilation (RR, 0.44 (95% CI, 0.06-3.45); P = 0.438) with that in the pre-Delta period. The maternal mortality rate was similar during the Omicron wave and the pre-Delta period (1.3% vs 1.3%, P = 0.999). The need for nasal oxygen support during the Omicron wave was significantly lower compared to the Delta wave (RR, 0.26 (95% CI, 0.11-0.64); P = 0.003). Perinatal outcomes were available for a subset of the confounder-balanced cohort. Preterm birth before 34 weeks' gestation was significantly increased during the Delta wave compared with the pre-Delta period (15.4% vs 4.9%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among unvaccinated pregnant women, SARS-CoV-2 infection during the Delta wave, in comparison to the pre-Delta period, was associated with increased requirement for oxygen support (including ECMO) and higher maternal mortality. Disease severity and pregnancy complications were similar between the Omicron wave and pre-Delta period. SARS-CoV-2 infection of unvaccinated pregnant women carries considerable risks of morbidity and mortality regardless of variant, and vaccination remains key. Miscommunication of the risks of Omicron infection may impact adversely vaccination uptake among pregnant women, who are at increased risk of complications related to SARS-CoV-2. © 2022 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

External validation of prognostic models to predict stillbirth using International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications (IPPIC) Network database: individual participant data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Stillbirth is a potentially preventable complication of pregnancy. Identifying women at high risk of stillbirth can guide decisions on the need for closer surveillance and timing of delivery in order to prevent fetal death. Prognostic models have been developed to predict the risk of stillbirth, but none has yet been validated externally. In this study, we externally validated published prediction models for stillbirth using individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to assess their predictive performance. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, DH-DATA and AMED databases were searched from inception to December 2020 to identify studies reporting stillbirth prediction models. Studies that developed or updated prediction models for stillbirth for use at any time during pregnancy were included. IPD from cohorts within the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications (IPPIC) Network were used to validate externally the identified prediction models whose individual variables were available in the IPD. The risk of bias of the models and cohorts was assessed using the Prediction study Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). The discriminative performance of the models was evaluated using the C-statistic, and calibration was assessed using calibration plots, calibration slope and calibration-in-the-large. Performance measures were estimated separately in each cohort, as well as summarized across cohorts using random-effects meta-analysis. Clinical utility was assessed using net benefit. RESULTS: Seventeen studies reporting the development of 40 prognostic models for stillbirth were identified. None of the models had been previously validated externally, and the full model equation was reported for only one-fifth (20%, 8/40) of the models. External validation was possible for three of these models, using IPD from 19 cohorts (491 201 pregnant women) within the IPPIC Network database. Based on evaluation of the model development studies, all three models had an overall high risk of bias, according to PROBAST. In the IPD meta-analysis, the models had summary C-statistics ranging from 0.53 to 0.65 and summary calibration slopes ranging from 0.40 to 0.88, with risk predictions that were generally too extreme compared with the observed risks. The models had little to no clinical utility, as assessed by net benefit. However, there remained uncertainty in the performance of some models due to small available sample sizes. CONCLUSIONS: The three validated stillbirth prediction models showed generally poor and uncertain predictive performance in new data, with limited evidence to support their clinical application. The findings suggest methodological shortcomings in their development, including overfitting. Further research is needed to further validate these and other models, identify stronger prognostic factors and develop more robust prediction models. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Prediction of stillbirth: an umbrella review of evaluation of prognostic variables.

BACKGROUND: Stillbirth accounts for over 2 million deaths a year worldwide and rates remains stubbornly high. Multivariable prediction models may be key to individualised monitoring, intervention or early birth in pregnancy to prevent stillbirth. OBJECTIVES: To collate and evaluate systematic reviews of factors associated with stillbirth in order to identify variables relevant to prediction model development. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, Embase, DARE and Cochrane Library databases and reference lists were searched up to November 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included systematic reviews of association of individual variables with stillbirth without language restriction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Abstract screening and data extraction were conducted in duplicate. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR and QUIPS criteria. The evidence supporting association with each variable was graded. RESULTS: The search identified 1198 citations. Sixty-nine systematic reviews reporting 64 variables were included. The most frequently reported were maternal age (n = 5), body mass index (n = 6) and maternal diabetes (n = 5). Uterine artery Doppler appeared to have the best performance of any single test for stillbirth. The strongest evidence of association was for nulliparity and pre-existing hypertension. CONCLUSION: We have identified variables relevant to the development of prediction models for stillbirth. Age, parity and prior adverse pregnancy outcomes had a more convincing association than the best performing tests, which were PAPP-A, PlGF and UtAD. The evidence was limited by high heterogeneity and lack of data on intervention bias. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Review shows key predictors for use in developing models predicting stillbirth include age, prior pregnancy outcome and PAPP-A, PLGF and Uterine artery Doppler.

Can risk prediction models help us individualise stillbirth prevention? A systematic review and critical appraisal of published risk models.

BACKGROUND: Stillbirth prevention is an international priority - risk prediction models could individualise care and reduce unnecessary intervention, but their use requires evaluation. OBJECTIVES: To identify risk prediction models for stillbirth, and assess their potential accuracy and clinical benefit in practice. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, Embase, DH-DATA and AMED databases were searched from inception to June 2019 using terms relevant to stillbirth, perinatal mortality and prediction models. The search was compliant with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies developing and/or validating prediction models for risk of stillbirth developed for application during pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study screening and data extraction were conducted in duplicate, using the CHARMS checklist. Risk of bias was appraised using the PROBAST tool. RESULTS: The search identified 2751 citations. Fourteen studies reporting development of 69 models were included. Variables consistently included were: ethnicity, body mass index, uterine artery Doppler, pregnancy-associated plasma protein and placental growth factor. For almost all models there were significant concerns about risk of bias. Apparent model performance (i.e. in the development dataset) was highest in models developed for use later in pregnancy and including maternal characteristics, and ultrasound and biochemical variables, but few were internally validated and none were externally validated. CONCLUSIONS: Almost all models identified were at high risk of bias. There are first-trimester models of possible clinical benefit in early risk stratification; these require validation and clinical evaluation. There were few later pregnancy models but, if validated, these could be most relevant to individualised discussions around timing of birth. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Prediction models using maternal factors, blood tests and ultrasound could individualise stillbirth prevention, but existing models are at high risk of bias.

The impact of pre-eclampsia definitions on the identification of adverse outcome risk in hypertensive pregnancy - analyses from the CHIPS trial (Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy Study).

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between pre-eclampsia definition and pregnancy outcome. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy Study (CHIPS) trial data. SETTING: International multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT). POPULATION: In all, 987 women with non-severe non-proteinuric pregnancy hypertension. METHODS: We evaluated the association between pre-eclampsia definitions and adverse pregnancy outcomes, stratified by hypertension type and blood pressure control. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main CHIPS trial outcomes: primary (perinatal loss or high-level neonatal care for >48 hours), secondary (serious maternal complications), birthweight <10th centile, severe maternal hypertension, delivery at <34 or <37 weeks, and maternal hospitalisation before birth. RESULTS: Of 979/987 women with informative data, 280 (28.6%) progressed to pre-eclampsia defined restrictively by new proteinuria, and 471 (48.1%) to pre-eclampsia defined broadly as proteinuria or one/more maternal symptoms, signs or abnormal laboratory tests. The broad (versus restrictive) definition had significantly higher sensitivities (range 62-79% versus 36-50%), lower specificities (range 53-65% versus 72-82%), and similar or higher diagnostic odds ratios and 'true-positive' to 'false-positive' ratios. Stratified analyses showed similar results. Addition of available fetoplacental manifestations (stillbirth or birthweight <10th centile) to the broad pre-eclampsia definition improved sensitivity (74-87%). CONCLUSIONS: A broad (versus restrictive) pre-eclampsia definition better identifies women who develop adverse pregnancy outcomes. These findings should be replicated in a prospective study within routine healthcare to ensure that the anticipated increase in surveillance and intervention in a larger number of women with pre-eclampsia is associated with improved outcomes, reasonable costs and congruence with women's values. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: A broad (versus restrictive) pre-eclampsia definition better identifies the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Maternity services in the UK during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: a national survey of modifications to standard care.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the modifications to maternity services across the UK, in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, in the context of the pandemic guidance issued by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), Royal College of Midwives (RCM) and NHS England. DESIGN: National survey. SETTING: UK maternity services during the COVID-19 pandemic. POPULATION OR SAMPLE: Healthcare professionals working within maternity services. METHODS: A national electronic survey was developed to investigate local modifications to general and specialist maternity care during the COVID-19 pandemic, in the context of the contemporaneous national pandemic guidance. After a pilot phase, the survey was distributed through professional networks by the RCOG and co-authors. The survey results were presented descriptively in tabular and graphic formats, with proportions compared using chi-square tests. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Service modifications made during the pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 81 respondent sites, 42% of the 194 obstetric units in the UK, were included. They reported substantial and heterogeneous maternity service modifications. Seventy percent of units reported a reduction in antenatal appointments and 56% reported a reduction in postnatal appointments; 89% reported using remote consultation methods. A change to screening pathways for gestational diabetes mellitus was reported by 70%, and 59% had temporarily removed the offer of births at home or in a midwife-led unit. A reduction in emergency antenatal presentations was experienced by 86% of units. CONCLUSIONS: This national survey documents the extensive impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on maternity services in the UK. More research is needed to understand the impact on maternity outcomes and experience. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: A national survey showed that UK maternity services were modified extensively and heterogeneously in response to COVID-19.

A core outcome set for pre-eclampsia research: an international consensus development study.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a core outcome set for pre-eclampsia. DESIGN: Consensus development study. SETTING: International. POPULATION: Two hundred and eight-one healthcare professionals, 41 researchers and 110 patients, representing 56 countries, participated. METHODS: Modified Delphi method and Modified Nominal Group Technique. RESULTS: A long-list of 116 potential core outcomes was developed by combining the outcomes reported in 79 pre-eclampsia trials with those derived from thematic analysis of 30 in-depth interviews of women with lived experience of pre-eclampsia. Forty-seven consensus outcomes were identified from the Delphi process following which 14 maternal and eight offspring core outcomes were agreed at the consensus development meeting. Maternal core outcomes: death, eclampsia, stroke, cortical blindness, retinal detachment, pulmonary oedema, acute kidney injury, liver haematoma or rupture, abruption, postpartum haemorrhage, raised liver enzymes, low platelets, admission to intensive care required, and intubation and ventilation. Offspring core outcomes: stillbirth, gestational age at delivery, birthweight, small-for-gestational-age, neonatal mortality, seizures, admission to neonatal unit required and respiratory support. CONCLUSIONS: The core outcome set for pre-eclampsia should underpin future randomised trials and systematic reviews. Such implementation should ensure that future research holds the necessary reach and relevance to inform clinical practice, enhance women's care and improve the outcomes of pregnant women and their babies. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: 281 healthcare professionals, 41 researchers and 110 women have developed #preeclampsia core outcomes @HOPEoutcomes @jamesmnduffy. [Correction added on 29 June 2020, after first online publication: the order has been corrected.].

Effect of sildenafil on maternal hemodynamics in pregnancies complicated by severe early-onset fetal growth restriction: planned subgroup analysis from a multicenter randomized placebo-controlled double-blind trial.

OBJECTIVES: Fetal growth restriction (FGR) is associated with maternal cardiovascular changes. Sildenafil, a phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitor, potentiates the actions of nitric oxide, and it has been suggested that it alters maternal hemodynamics, potentially improving placental perfusion. Recently, the Dutch STRIDER trial was stopped prematurely owing to excess neonatal mortality secondary to pulmonary hypertension. The main aim of this study was to investigate the effect of sildenafil on maternal hemodynamics in pregnancies with severe early-onset FGR. METHODS: This was a cardiovascular substudy within a UK multicenter, placebo-controlled trial, in which 135 women with a singleton pregnancy and severe early-onset FGR (defined as a combination of estimated fetal weight or abdominal circumference below the 10th centile and absent/reversed end-diastolic flow in the umbilical artery on Doppler velocimetry, diagnosed between 22 + 0 and 29 + 6 weeks' gestation) were assigned randomly to receive either 25 mg sildenafil three times daily or placebo until 32 + 0 weeks' gestation or delivery. Maternal blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), augmentation index, pulse wave velocity (PWV), cardiac output, stroke volume (SV) and total peripheral resistance were recorded before randomization, 1-2 h and 48-72 h post-randomization, and 24-48 h postnatally. For continuous data, analysis was performed using repeated measures ANOVA methods including terms for timepoint, treatment allocation and their interaction. RESULTS: Included were 134 women assigned randomly to sildenafil (n = 69) or placebo (n = 65) who had maternal BP and HR recorded at baseline. At 1-2 h post-randomization, compared with baseline values, sildenafil increased maternal HR by 4 bpm more than did placebo (mean difference, 5.00 bpm (95% CI, 1.00-12.00 bpm) vs 1.25 bpm (95% CI, -5.38 to 7.88 bpm); P = 0.004) and reduced systolic BP by 1 mmHg more (mean difference, -4.13 mmHg (95% CI, -9.94 to 1.44 mmHg) vs -2.75 mmHg (95% CI, -7.50 to 5.25 mmHg); P = 0.048). Even after adjusting for maternal mean arterial pressure, sildenafil reduced aortic PWV by 0.60 m/s more than did placebo (mean difference, -0.90 m/s (95% CI, -1.31 to -0.51 m/s) vs -0.26 m/s (95% CI, -0.75 to 0.59 m/s); P = 0.001). Sildenafil was associated with a non-significantly greater decrease in SV index after 1-2 h post-randomization than was placebo (mean difference, -5.50 mL/m2 (95% CI, -11.00 to -0.50 mL/m2 ) vs 0.00 mL/m2 (95% CI, -5.00 to 4.00 mL/m2 ); P = 0.056). CONCLUSIONS: Sildenafil in a dose of 25 mg three times daily increases HR, reduces BP and reduces arterial stiffness in pregnancies complicated by severe early-onset FGR. These changes are short term, modest and consistent with the anticipated vasodilatory effect. They have no short- or long-term clinical impact on the mother. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Community health workers' knowledge and practice in relation to pre-eclampsia in Ogun State, Nigeria: an essential bridge to maternal survival.

BACKGROUND: Pre-eclampsia is a leading cause of maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality worldwide. Early detection and treatment have been instrumental in reducing case fatality in high-income countries. To achieve this in a low-income country, like Nigeria, community health workers who man primary health centres must have adequate knowledge and skills to identify and provide emergency care for women with pre-eclampsia. This study aimed to determine community health workers' knowledge and practice in the identification and treatment of pre-eclampsia, as they are essential providers of maternal care services in Nigeria. METHODS: This study was part of a multi-country evaluation of community treatment of pre-eclampsia. Qualitative data were obtained from four Local Government Areas of Ogun State, in south western Nigeria by focus group discussions (N = 15) and in-depth interviews (N = 19). Participants included a variety of community-based health care providers - traditional birth attendants, community health extension workers, nurses and midwives, chief nursing officers, medical officers - and health administrators. Data were transcribed and validated with field notes and analysed with NVivo 10.0. RESULTS: Community-based health care providers proved to be aware that pre-eclampsia was due to the development of hypertension and proteinuria in pregnant women. They had a good understanding of the features of the condition and were capable of identifying women at risk, initiating care, and referring women with this condition. However, some were not comfortable managing the condition because of the limitation in their 'Standing Order'; these guidelines do not explicitly authorize community health extension workers to treat pre-eclampsia in the community. CONCLUSION: Community-based health care providers were capable of identifying and initiating appropriate care for women with pre-eclampsia. These competencies combined with training and equipment availability could improve maternal health in the rural areas. There is a need for regular training and retraining to enable successful task-sharing with these cadres. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01911494 .

Control of Hypertension In Pregnancy Study randomised controlled trial-are the results dependent on the choice of labetalol or methyldopa?

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the difference in outcomes between 'less tight' (target diastolic blood pressure [dBP] of 100 mmHg) versus 'tight' control (target dBP of 85 mmHg) in the CHIPS Trial (ISRCTN 71416914, http://pre-empt.cfri.ca/;CHIPS) depended on the choice of labetalol or methyldopa, the two most commonly used antihypertensive agents in CHIPS. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of CHIPS Trial data. SETTING: International multicentre randomised controlled trial (94 sites, 15 countries). POPULATION OR SAMPLE: A total of 987 women with non-severe non-proteinuric pregnancy hypertension. METHODS: Logistic regression was used for comparisons of 'less tight' versus 'tight' control among women treated with labetalol (but not methydopa) versus methyldopa (but not labetalol). Analyses were adjusted for the influence of baseline factors, including use of any antihypertensive therapy at randomisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main CHIPS Trial outcomes: primary (perinatal loss or high-level neonatal care for > 48 hours), secondary (serious maternal complications), birthweight < 10th centile, severe maternal hypertension, pre-eclampsia, and delivery at < 34 or < 37 weeks. RESULTS: Of 987 women in CHIPS, antihypertensive therapy was taken by 566 women at randomisation (labetalol 111 ['less tight'] versus 127 ['tight'] or methyldopa 126 ['less tight'] versus 117 ['tight']) and 815 women after randomisation (labetalol 186 ['less tight'] versus 247 ['tight'] and methyldopa by 98 ['less tight'] versus 126 ['tight']). Following adjustment, odds ratios for outcomes in 'less tight' versus 'tight' control were similar between antihypertensive groups according to 'at randomisation' and 'after randomisation' therapy. CONCLUSION: Outcomes for 'less tight' versus 'tight' control were not dependent on use of methyldopa or labetalol. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: In the CHIPS Trial, maternal and infant outcomes were not dependent on use of labetalol or methyldopa.

Do labetalol and methyldopa have different effects on pregnancy outcome? Analysis of data from the Control of Hypertension In Pregnancy Study (CHIPS) trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare pregnancy outcomes, accounting for allocated group, between methyldopa-treated and labetalol-treated women in the CHIPS Trial (ISRCTN 71416914) of 'less tight' versus 'tight' control of pregnancy hypertension. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of CHIPS Trial cohort. SETTING: International randomised controlled trial (94 sites, 15 countries). POPULATION OR SAMPLE: Of 987 CHIPS recruits, 481/566 (85.0%) women treated with antihypertensive therapy at randomisation. Of 981 (99.4%) women followed to delivery, 656/745 (88.1%) treated postrandomisation. METHODS: Logistic regression to compare outcomes among women who took methyldopa or labetalol, adjusted for the influence of baseline factors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: CHIPS primary (perinatal loss or high level neonatal care for >48 hours) and secondary (serious maternal complications) outcomes, birthweight <10th centile, severe maternal hypertension, pre-eclampsia and delivery at <34 or <37 weeks. RESULTS: Methyldopa and labetalol were used commonly at randomisation (243/987, 24.6% and 238/987, 24.6%, respectively) and post-randomisation (224/981, 22.8% and 433/981, 44.1%, respectively). Following adjusted analyses, methyldopa (versus labetalol) at randomisation was associated with fewer babies with birthweight <10th centile [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.48; 95% CI 0.20-0.87]. Methyldopa (versus labetalol) postrandomisation was associated with fewer CHIPS primary outcomes (aOR 0.64; 95% CI 0.40-1.00), birthweight <10th centile (aOR 0.54; 95% CI 0.32-0.92), severe hypertension (aOR 0.51; 95% CI 0.31-0.83), pre-eclampsia (aOR 0.55; 95% CI 0.36-0.85), and delivery at <34 weeks (aOR 0.53; 95% CI 0.29-0.96) or <37 weeks (aOR 0.55; 95% CI 0.35-0.85). CONCLUSION: These nonrandomised comparisons are subject to residual confounding, but women treated with methyldopa (versus labetalol), particularly those with pre-existing hypertension, may have had better outcomes. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: There was no evidence that women treated with methyldopa versus labetalol had worse outcomes.