Risk factors for and pregnancy outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 in pregnancy according to disease severity: A nationwide cohort study with validation of the SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.

INTRODUCTION: We identified risk factors and outcomes associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy in a universally tested population according to disease severity and validated information on SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy in national health registers in Denmark. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cohort study using data from national registers and medical records including all pregnancies between March 1, 2020 and February 28, 2021. We compared women with a validated positive SARS-CoV-2 test during pregnancy with non-infected pregnant women. Risk factors and pregnancy outcomes were assessed by Poisson and Cox regression models and stratified according to disease severity defined by hospital admission status and admission reason (COVID-19 symptoms or other). Using medical record data on actual period of pregnancy, we calculated predictive values of the SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in pregnancy in the registers. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 infection was detected in 1819 (1.6%) of 111 185 pregnancies. Asthma was associated with infection (relative risk [RR] 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28-2.07). Risk factors for severe COVID-19 disease requiring hospital admission were high body mass index (median ratio 1.06, 95% CI 1.04-1.09), asthma (RR 7.47, 95% CI 3.51-15.90) and gestational age at the time of infection (gestational age 28-36 vs < 22: RR 3.53, 95% CI 1.75-7.10). SARS-CoV-2-infected women more frequently had hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.31, 95% CI 1.04-1.64), early pregnancy loss (aHR 1.37, 95% CI 1.00-1.88), preterm delivery before gestational age 28 (aHR 2.31, 95% CI 1.01-5.26), iatrogenically preterm delivery before gestational age 37 (aHR 1.49, 95% CI 1.01-2.19) and small-for-gestational age children (aHR 1.28, 95% CI 1.05-1.54). The associations were stronger among women admitted to hospital for any reason. The validity of the SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in relation to pregnancy in the registers compared with medical records showed a negative predictive value of 99.9 (95% CI 99.9-100.0) and a positive predictive value of 82.1 (95% CI 80.4-83.7). CONCLUSIONS: Women infected with SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy were at increased risk of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, early pregnancy loss, preterm delivery and having children small for gestational age. The validity of Danish national registers was acceptable for identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy.

The effect on the birth experience of women and partners of giving birth in a "birth environment room": A secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate women and partners' experience of birth in a "birth environment room" compared to a standard birth room. DESIGN: A single centre parallel randomised controlled trial. Women and partners were enrolled during a 3-year period (May 2015 to March 2018). SETTING: The Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Herning Hospital, Denmark. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTION: A total of 680 Danish speaking nulliparous women, more than 18 years old, with a singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, and a spontaneous onset of labour, and their partners were randomly assigned to give birth in a "birth environment room" (n = 340) or in a standard birth room (n = 340) on arrival at the birth unit. MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS: Outcomes were the overall birth experience and overall satisfaction with care, measured on a Likert scale, obtained in the postpartum questionnaire sent to the women 6 weeks after birth and to their partners 1/2 weeks after birth. Other outcomes were "staff support for partner", "undisturbed contact with new-born", "feeling of being listened to", "level of information", "attention to psychological needs", "suggestions for pain-relief", "participation in decision-making", "midwife present when wanted", "support from midwife", "birth wishes were met", "loss of internal control" (only women), "loss of external control", "support from partner" (partners: "being supportive for partner"), "importance of physical environment for birth" and "importance of physical environment for staff´s ability to involve the women" (only women). All outcomes were prespecified. We applied Mann Whitney U test for comparing the two groups. Data were collected from 326 women and 236 partners in the intervention group and from 315 women and 209 partners in the control group. The intention-to-treat analysis revealed no difference in the overall experience of birth for women or partners (p 0.81 and p 0.17, respectively). Partners in the intervention group reported more overall satisfaction with care compared to partners in the control group (p 0.048). In the intervention group, fewer women and partners responded they had not had the opportunity for undisturbed contact with their new-born in the first hours after birth (RR 0.19 (95% CI 0.04-0.87) and OR 0.00 CI (0.00-0.83), respectively). Otherwise, there were no differences between groups. The thematic analysis revealed that many women and partners felt they were not able to benefit from the features in "the birth environment room" in the most intense hours of birth. KEY CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: "The birth environment room" did not improve the overall experience of birth for women and partners. Partners in the intervention group were overall more satisfied with care. These findings are of importance in the developing of physical birth environments that support the mental/emotional process of labour.

SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy in Denmark-characteristics and outcomes after confirmed infection in pregnancy: A nationwide, prospective, population-based cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Assessing the risk factors for and consequences of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during pregnancy is essential to guide clinical care. Previous studies on SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy have been among hospitalized patients, which may have exaggerated risk estimates of severe outcomes because all cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the pregnant population were not included. The objectives of this study were to identify risk factors for and outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy independent of severity of infection in a universally tested population, and to identify risk factors for and outcomes after severe infection requiring hospital admission. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a prospective population-based cohort study in Denmark using data from the Danish National Patient Register and Danish Microbiology Database and prospectively registered data from medical records. We included all pregnancies between March 1 and October 31, 2020 and compared women with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test during pregnancy to non-infected pregnant women. Cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy were both identified prospectively and through register linkage to ensure that all cases were identified and that cases were pregnant during infection. Main outcome measures were pregnancy, delivery, maternal, and neonatal outcomes. Severe infection was defined as hospital admission due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms. RESULTS: Among 82 682 pregnancies, 418 women had SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, corresponding to an incidence of 5.1 per 1000 pregnancies, 23 (5.5%) of which required hospital admission due to COVID-19. Risk factors for infection were asthma (odds ratio [OR] 2.19, 95% CI 1.41-3.41) and being foreign born (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.70-2.64). Risk factors for hospital admission due to COVID-19 included obesity (OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.00-7.51), smoking (OR 4.69, 95% CI 1.58-13.90), infection after gestational age (GA) 22 weeks (GA 22-27 weeks: OR 3.77, 95% CI 1.16-12.29; GA 28-36 weeks: OR 4.76, 95% CI 1.60-14.12), and having asthma (OR 4.53, 95% CI 1.39-14.79). We found no difference in any obstetrical or neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Only 1 in 20 women with SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy required admission to hospital due to COVID-19. Risk factors for admission comprised obesity, smoking, asthma, and infection after GA 22 weeks. Severe adverse outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy were rare.

Does giving birth in a "birth environment room" versus a standard birth room lower augmentation of labor? - Results from a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: In the last decade, there has been an increased interest in exploring the impact of the physical birth environment on midwifery practice and women's birth experiences. This study is based on the hypothesis that the environment for birth needs greater attention to improve some of the existing challenges in modern obstetric practice, for example the increasing use of augmentation and number of interventions during delivery. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial was carried out to study the effect of giving birth in a specially designed "birth environment room" on the use of augmentation during labor. The study took place at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Herning Hospital, Denmark and included 680 nulliparous women in spontaneous labor at term with a fetus in cephalic presentation. Women were randomly allocated to either the "birth environment room" or a standard birth room. The primary outcome was augmentation of labor by use of oxytocin. Secondary outcomes were duration of labor, use of pharmacological pain relief, and mode of birth. Differences were estimated as relative risks (RR) and presented with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: No difference was found on the primary outcome, augmentation of labor (29.1% in the "birth environment room" versus 30.6% in the standard room, RR 0.97; 0.89-1.08). More women in the "birth environment room" used the bathtub (60.6% versus 52.4%, RR 1.18; 1.02-1.37), whereas a tendency to lower use of epidural analgesia (22.6% versus 28.2%) did not reach statistical significance (RR 0.87; 0.74-1.02). The chance of an uncomplicated birth was almost similar in the two groups (70.6% in the "birth environment room" versus 72.6% in the standard room, RR 0.97; 0.88-1.07) as were duration of labor (mean 7.9 hours in both groups). CONCLUSIONS: Birthing in a specially designed physical birth environment did not lower use of oxytocin for augmentation of labor. Neither did it have any effect on duration of labor, use of pharmacological pain relief, and chance of birthing without complications. We recommend that future trials are conducted in birth units with greater improvement potentials.