Lasix for the prevention of de novo postpartum hypertension: A randomized placebo-controlled trial (LAPP Trial).

BACKGROUND: Birthing people with de novo postpartum hypertensive disorders remain among the highest risk for severe maternal morbidity. Randomized controlled trials demonstrate a benefit to oral loop-diuretics in decreasing postpartum hypertensive morbidity in patients with an antenatal diagnosis of preeclampsia. It is not known whether this same therapy benefits patients at risk for new-onset postpartum hypertension OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether oral furosemide can reduce risk for de novo postpartum hypertension (dnPPHTN) among high-risk birthing people by reducing post-delivery blood pressure. STUDY DESIGN: From October 2021 to April 2022, we conducted a randomized triple-masked placebo-controlled clinical trial of individuals at high risk for dnPPHTN at a single university-based tertiary care medical center. A total of 82 postpartum patients with no antenatal diagnosis of chronic hypertension or a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy who were at high-risk for the development of dnPPHTN based on a pre-specified risk factor algorithm were enrolled after childbirth. The participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a five-day course of oral furosemide 20 mg daily or identical-appearing placebo starting within eight hours of delivery. Participants were followed for 6 weeks postpartum using Bluetooth-enabled remote blood pressure monitoring and electronic surveys. The primary outcome was the difference in mean arterial pressure (MAP) averaged over the 24 hours prior to discharge or the 24 hours prior to antihypertensive therapy initiation. The study was powered to detect a 5 mmHg difference in mean MAP (standard deviation 6.4 mmHg) with 90% power at an alpha of 0.05, requiring a sample size of 41 per group. Secondary outcomes included the rate of dnPPHTN, readmission data, other measures of hypertensive and maternal morbidity, breastfeeding data, and drug-related neonatal outcomes. RESULTS: The primary outcome was assessed in 80 of the 82 participants. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. There was no significant difference in mean MAP 24 hours prior to discharge (or antihypertensive initiation) in the furosemide group (88.9 ± 7.4 mmHg) compared to the placebo group (86.8 ± 7.1 mmHg; absolute difference 2.1 mmHg, 95% CI -1.2 to 5.3). Of the 79 participants for whom secondary outcomes were assessed, 10% (n=8) developed dnPPHTN and 9% (n=7) were initiated on antihypertensive therapy. Rates were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: De novo postpartum hypertension is a common phenomenon among at-risk patients, warranting close monitoring for severe hypertension and other maternal morbidity. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that furosemide reduces mean MAP in the 24 hours prior to discharge from the delivery hospitalization (or antihypertensive medication initiation) compared to placebo.

Disparities in Mistreatment During Childbirth.

Importance: Lack of respectful maternity care may be a key factor associated with disparities in maternal health. However, mistreatment during childbirth has not been widely documented in the US. Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of mistreatment by health care professionals during childbirth among a representative multistate sample and to identify patient characteristics associated with mistreatment experiences. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used representative survey data collected from respondents to the 2020 Pregnancy Risk and Monitoring System in 6 states and New York City who had a live birth in 2020 and participated in the Postpartum Assessment of Health Survey at 12 to 14 months' post partum. Data were collected from January 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022. Exposures: Demographic, social, clinical, and birth characteristics that have been associated with patients' health care experiences. Main Outcomes and Measures: Any mistreatment during childbirth, as measured by the Mistreatment by Care Providers in Childbirth scale, a validated measure of self-reported experiences of 8 types of mistreatment. Survey-weighted rates of any mistreatment and each mistreatment indicator were estimated, and survey-weighted logistic regression models estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. Results: The sample included 4458 postpartum individuals representative of 552 045 people who had live births in 2020 in 7 jurisdictions. The mean (SD) age was 29.9 (5.7) years, 2556 (54.4%) identified as White, and 2836 (58.8%) were commercially insured. More than 1 in 8 individuals (13.4% [95% CI, 11.8%-15.1%]) reported experiencing mistreatment during childbirth. The most common type of mistreatment was being "ignored, refused request for help, or failed to respond in a timely manner" (7.6%; 95% CI, 6.5%-8.9%). Factors associated with experiencing mistreatment included being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer identifying (unadjusted OR [UOR], 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4-3.8), Medicaid insured (UOR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8), unmarried (UOR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-1.0), or obese before pregnancy (UOR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.7); having an unplanned cesarean birth (UOR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.2), a history of substance use disorder (UOR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.3-5.1), experienced intimate partner or family violence (UOR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.3-4.2), mood disorder (UOR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.2), or giving birth during the COVID-19 public health emergency (UOR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0). Associations of mistreatment with race and ethnicity, age, educational level, rural or urban geography, immigration status, and household income were ambiguous. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study of individuals who had a live birth in 2020 in 6 states and New York City found that mistreatment during childbirth was common. There is a need for patient-centered, multifaceted interventions to address structural health system factors associated with negative childbirth experiences.

The Power of Language in Hospital Care for Pregnant and Birthing People: A Vision for Change.

Language is commonly defined as the principal method of human communication made up of words and conveyed by writing, speech, or nonverbal expression. In the context of clinical care, language has power and meaning and reflects priorities, beliefs, values, and culture. Stigmatizing language can communicate unintended meanings that perpetuate socially constructed power dynamics and result in bias. This bias may harm pregnant and birthing people by centering positions of power and privilege and by reflecting cultural priorities in the United States, including judgments of demographic and reproductive health characteristics. This commentary builds on relationship-centered care and reproductive justice frameworks to analyze the role and use of language in pregnancy and birth care in the United States, particularly regarding people with marginalized identities. We describe the use of language in written documentation, verbal communication, and behaviors associated with caring for pregnant people. We also present recommendations for change, including alternative language at the individual, clinician, hospital, health systems, and policy levels. We define birth as the emergence of a new individual from the body of its parent, no matter what intervention or pathology may be involved. Thus, we propose a cultural shift in hospital-based care for birthing people that centers the birthing person and reconceptualizes all births as physiologic events, approached with a spirit of care, partnership, and support.

Obstetric Inpatient and Ultrasound Clinical Personnel Absences during the COVID-19 Pandemic in New York City.

OBJECTIVE: To review obstetric personnel absences at a hospital during the initial peak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection risk in New York City from March 25 to April 21, 2020. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective study evaluated absences at Morgan Stanley Children's Hospital. Clinical absences for (1) Columbia University ultrasonographers, (2) inpatient nurses, (3) labor and delivery operating room (OR) technicians, (4) inpatient obstetric nurse assistants, and (5) attending physicians providing inpatient obstetric services were analyzed. Causes of absences were analyzed and classified as illness, vacation and holidays, leave, and other causes. Categorical variables were compared with the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: For nurses, absences accounted for 1,052 nursing workdays in 2020 (17.2% of all workdays) compared with 670 (11.1%) workdays in 2019 (p < 0.01). Significant differentials in days absent in 2020 compared with 2019 were present for (1) postpartum nurses (21.9% compared with 12.9%, p < 0.01), (2) labor and delivery nurses (14.8% compared with 10.6%, p < 0.01), and (3) antepartum nurses (10.2% compared with 7.4%, p = 0.03). Evaluating nursing assistants, 24.3% of workdays were missed in 2020 compared with 17.4% in 2019 (p < 0.01). For ultrasonographers, there were 146 absences (25.2% of workdays) in 2020 compared with 96 absences (16.0% of workdays) in 2019 (p < 0.01). The proportion of workdays missed by OR technicians was 22.6% in 2020 and 18.3% in 2019 (p = 0.25). Evaluating attending physician absences, a total of 78 workdays were missed due to documented COVID-19 infection. Evaluating the causes of absences, illness increased significantly between 2019 and 2020 for nursing assistants (42.6 vs. 57.4%, p = 0.02), OR technicians (17.1 vs. 55.9%, p < 0.01), and nurses (15.5 vs. 33.7%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 outbreak surge planning represents a major operational issue for medical specialties such as critical care due to increased clinical volume. Findings from this analysis suggest it is prudent to devise backup staffing plans. KEY POINTS: · 1) COVID-19 outbreak surge planning represents a major operational issue for obstetrics.. · 2) Inpatient obstetric volume cannot be reduced.. · 3) Staffing contingencies plans for nurses, sonographers, and physicians may be required..

From the trenches: inpatient management of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnancy.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has become a pandemic. It has quickly swept across the globe, leaving many clinicians to care for infected patients with limited information about the disease and best practices for care. Our goal is to share our experiences of caring for pregnant and postpartum women with novel coronavirus disease 2019 in New York, which is the coronavirus disease 2019 epicenter in the United States, and review current guidelines. We offer a guide, focusing on inpatient management, including testing policies, admission criteria, medical management, care for the decompensating patient, and practical tips for inpatient antepartum service management.

Telehealth Uptake into Prenatal Care and Provider Attitudes during the COVID-19 Pandemic in New York City: A Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) determine to what degree prenatal care was able to be transitioned to telehealth at prenatal practices associated with two affiliated hospitals in New York City during the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and (2) describe providers' experience with this transition. STUDY DESIGN: Trends in whether prenatal care visits were conducted in-person or via telehealth were analyzed by week for a 5-week period from March 9 to April 12 at Columbia University Irving Medical Center (CUIMC)-affiliated prenatal practices in New York City during the COVID-19 pandemic. Visits were analyzed for maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) and general obstetrical faculty practices, as well as a clinic system serving patients with public insurance. The proportion of visits that were telehealth was analyzed by visit type by week. A survey and semistructured interviews of providers were conducted evaluating resources and obstacles in the uptake of telehealth. RESULTS: During the study period, there were 4,248 visits, of which approximately one-third were performed by telehealth (n = 1,352, 31.8%). By the fifth week, 56.1% of generalist visits, 61.5% of MFM visits, and 41.5% of clinic visits were performed via telehealth. A total of 36 providers completed the survey and 11 were interviewed. Accessing technology and performing visits, documentation, and follow-up using the telehealth electronic medical record were all viewed favorably by providers. In transitioning to telehealth, operational challenges were more significant for health clinics than for MFM and generalist faculty practices with patients receiving public insurance experiencing greater difficulties and barriers to care. Additional resources on the patient and operational level were required to optimize attendance at in-person and video visits for clinic patients. CONCLUSION: Telehealth was rapidly implemented in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic and was viewed favorably by providers. Limited barriers to care were observed for practices serving patients with commercial insurance. However, to optimize access for patients with Medicaid, additional patient-level and operational supports were required. KEY POINTS: · Telehealth uptake differed based on insurance.. · Medicaid patients may require increased assistance for telehealth.. · Quick adoption of telehealth is feasible..

Telehealth for High-Risk Pregnancies in the Setting of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

As New York City became an international epicenter of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, telehealth was rapidly integrated into prenatal care at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, an academic hospital system in Manhattan. Goals of implementation were to consolidate in-person prenatal screening, surveillance, and examinations into fewer in-person visits while maintaining patient access to ongoing antenatal care and subspecialty consultations via telehealth virtual visits. The rationale for this change was to minimize patient travel and thus risk for COVID-19 exposure. Because a large portion of obstetric patients had underlying medical or fetal conditions placing them at increased risk for adverse outcomes, prenatal care telehealth regimens were tailored for increased surveillance and/or counseling. Based on the incorporation of telehealth into prenatal care for high-risk patients, specific recommendations are made for the following conditions, clinical scenarios, and services: (1) hypertensive disorders of pregnancy including preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, and chronic hypertension; (2) pregestational and gestational diabetes mellitus; (3) maternal cardiovascular disease; (4) maternal neurologic conditions; (5) history of preterm birth and poor obstetrical history including prior stillbirth; (6) fetal conditions such as intrauterine growth restriction, congenital anomalies, and multiple gestations including monochorionic placentation; (7) genetic counseling; (8) mental health services; (9) obstetric anesthesia consultations; and (10) postpartum care. While telehealth virtual visits do not fully replace in-person encounters during prenatal care, they do offer a means of reducing potential patient and provider exposure to COVID-19 while providing consolidated in-person testing and services. KEY POINTS: · Telehealth for prenatal care is feasible.. · Telehealth may reduce coronavirus exposure during prenatal care.. · Telehealth should be tailored for high risk prenatal patients..

Symptoms and Critical Illness Among Obstetric Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Infection.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize symptoms and disease severity among pregnant women with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, along with laboratory findings, imaging, and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Pregnant women with COVID-19 infection were identified at two affiliated hospitals in New York City from March 13 to April 19, 2020, for this case series study. Women were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection based on either universal testing on admission or testing because of COVID-19-related symptoms. Disease was classified as either 1) asymptomatic or mild or 2) moderate or severe based on dyspnea, tachypnea, or hypoxia. Clinical and demographic risk factors for moderate or severe disease were analyzed and calculated as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. Laboratory findings and associated symptoms were compared between those with mild or asymptomatic and moderate or severe disease. The clinical courses and associated complications of women hospitalized with moderate and severe disease are described. RESULTS: Of 158 pregnant women with COVID-19 infection, 124 (78%) had mild or asymptomatic disease and 34 (22%) had moderate or severe disease. Of 15 hospitalized women with moderate or severe disease, 10 received respiratory support with supplemental oxygen and one required intubation. Women with moderate or severe disease had a higher likelihood of having an underlying medical comorbidity (50% vs 27%, OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.26-6.02). Asthma was more common among those with moderate or severe disease (24% vs 8%, OR 3.51, 95% CI 1.26-9.75). Women with moderate or severe disease were significantly more likely to have leukopenia and elevated aspartate transaminase and ferritin. Women with moderate or severe disease were at significantly higher risk for cough and chest pain and pressure. Nine women received ICU or step-down-level care, including four for 9 days or longer. Two women underwent preterm delivery because their clinical status deteriorated. CONCLUSION: One in five pregnant women who contracted COVID-19 infection developed moderate or severe disease, including a small proportion with prolonged critical illness who received ICU or step-down-level care.

A prospective study of quality of life in patients undergoing pelvic exenteration: interim results.

OBJECTIVE: Little prospective data exist on quality of life (QOL) after pelvic exenteration (PE). This ongoing study prospectively examines the QOL changes following this radical procedure using a comprehensive battery of psychological instruments. METHODS: Since 2005, enrolled patients were interviewed (EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-CR38, EORTC QLQ-BLM30, BFI, BPI-SF, IADL, CES-D, IES-R) preoperatively and at 3, 6, and 12 months after PE for physical/psychological symptoms. Data were examined using repeated measure ANOVA. RESULTS: Sixteen women (3 anterior, 1 posterior, and 12 total PEs), with more than 1 year of follow-up, completed all scheduled interviews. Median age was 58 years (range, 28-76 years). Overall QOL (F = 6.3, p < 0.02), ability to perform instrumental daily activities (F = 6.8, p < 0.02), body image (F = 11.9, p < 0.00), and sexual function (F = 8.0, p < 0.01) all declined at 3 months but were near baseline by 12 months after PE. Although, overall, physical function followed a similar trend (F = 14.8, p < 0.00), it did not return to baseline. At the 12-month interview, patients reported increased gastrointestinal symptoms (F = 8.9, p < 0.01) but significantly less stress-related ideation (F = 6.1, p < 0.03) compared to baseline. Pain levels did not change significantly during the study period (F = 0.4, p < 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Although patients report lingering gastrointestinal symptoms and some persistent decline in physical function after PE, most adjust well, returning to almost baseline functioning within a year. Providers can counsel patients that many, though not all, symptoms in the first 3 months following exenteration are likely to improve as they adapt to their changed health status. These preliminary results await confirmation of a larger analysis.