Impact of point-of-care ultrasound and routine third trimester ultrasound on undiagnosed breech presentation and perinatal outcomes: An observational multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Accurate knowledge of fetal presentation at term is vital for optimal antenatal and intrapartum care. The primary objective was to compare the impact of routine third trimester ultrasound or point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) with standard antenatal care, on the incidence of overall and proportion of all term breech presentations that were undiagnosed at term, and on the related adverse perinatal outcomes. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This was a retrospective multicentre cohort study where we included data from St. George's (SGH) and Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals (NNUH). Pregnancies were grouped according to whether they received routine third trimester scan (SGH) or POCUS (NNUH). Women with multiple pregnancy, preterm birth prior to 37 weeks, congenital abnormality, and those undergoing planned cesarean section for breech presentation were excluded. Undiagnosed breech presentation was defined as follows: (a) women presenting in labour or with ruptured membranes at term subsequently discovered to have a breech presentation; and (b) women attending for induction of labour at term found to have a breech presentation before induction. The primary outcome was the proportion of all term breech presentations that were undiagnosed. The secondary outcomes included mode of birth, gestational age at birth, birth weight, incidence of emergency cesarean section, and the following neonatal adverse outcomes: Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes, unexpected neonatal unit (NNU) admission, hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (HIE), and perinatal mortality (including stillbirths and early neonatal deaths). We employed a Bayesian approach using informative priors from a previous similar study; updating their estimates (prior) with our own data (likelihood). The association of undiagnosed breech presentation at birth with adverse perinatal outcomes was analyzed with Bayesian log-binomial regression models. All analyses were conducted using R for Statistical Software (v.4.2.0). Before and after the implementation of routine third trimester scan or POCUS, there were 16,777 and 7,351 births in SGH and 5,119 and 4,575 in NNUH, respectively. The rate of breech presentation in labour was consistent across all groups (3% to 4%). In the SGH cohort, the percentage of all term breech presentations that were undiagnosed was 14.2% (82/578) before (years 2016 to 2020) and 2.8% (7/251) after (year 2020 to 2021) the implementation of universal screening (p < 0.001). Similarly, in the NNUH cohort, the percentage of all term breech presentations that were undiagnosed was 16.2% (27/167) before (year 2015) and 3.5% (5/142) after (year 2020 to 2021) the implementation of universal POCUS screening (p < 0.001). Bayesian regression analysis with informative priors showed that the rate of undiagnosed breech was 71% lower after the implementation of universal ultrasound (RR, 0.29; 95% CrI 0.20, 0.38) with a posterior probability greater than 99.9%. Among the pregnancies with breech presentation, there was also a very high probability (>99.9%) of reduced rate of low Apgar score (<7) at 5 minutes by 77% (RR, 0.23; 95% CrI 0.14, 0.38). There was moderate to high probability (posterior probability: 89.5% and 85.1%, respectively) of a reduction of HIE (RR, 0.32; 95% CrI 0.0.05, 1.77) and extended perinatal mortality rates (RR, 0.21; 95% CrI 0.01, 3.00). Using informative priors, the proportion of all term breech presentations that were undiagnosed was 69% lower after the initiation of universal POCUS (RR, 0.31; 95% CrI 0.21, 0.45) with a posterior probability greater of 99.9%. There was also a very high probability (99.5%) of a reduced rate of low Apgar score (<7) at 5 minutes by 40% (RR, 0.60; 95% CrI 0.39, 0.88). We do not have reliable data on number of facility-based ultrasound scans via the standard antenatal referral pathway or external cephalic versions (ECVs) performed during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, we observed that both a policy of routine facility-based third trimester ultrasound or POCUS are associated with a reduction in the proportion of term breech presentations that were undiagnosed, with an improvement in neonatal outcomes. The findings from our study support the policy of third trimester ultrasound scan for fetal presentation. Future studies should focus on exploring the cost-effectiveness of POCUS for fetal presentation.

Home uterine monitoring for detecting preterm labour.

BACKGROUND: To reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with preterm birth, home uterine activity monitoring aims for early detection of increased contraction frequency, and early intervention with tocolytic drugs to inhibit labour and prolong pregnancy. However, the effectiveness of such monitoring is disputed. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether home uterine activity monitoring is effective in improving the outcomes for women and their infants considered to be at high risk of preterm birth, when compared with care that does not include home uterine activity monitoring. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2016), CENTRAL (Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1966 to 28 June 2016), Embase (1974 to 28 June 2016), CINAHL (1982 to 28 June 2016), and scanned reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised control trials of home uterine activity monitoring, with or without patient education programmes, for women at risk of preterm birth, compared with care that does not include home uterine activity monitoring. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risks of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We did not attempt to contact authors to resolve queries. We assessed the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: There were 15 included studies (6008 enrolled participants); 13 studies contributed data. Women using home uterine monitoring were less likely to experience preterm birth at less than 34 weeks (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.99; three studies, 1596 women; fixed-effect analysis) (GRADE high). This difference was not evident when we carried out a sensitivity analysis, restricting the analysis to studies at low risk of bias based on study quality (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.00; one study, 1292 women). There was no difference in the rate of perinatal mortality (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.72; two studies, 2589 babies) (GRADE low).There was no difference in the number of preterm births at less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.85, CI 0.72 to 1.01; eight studies, 4834 women; random-effects, Tau2 = 0.03, I2 = 68%) (GRADE very low). Infants born to women using home uterine monitoring were less likely to be admitted to neonatal intensive care unit (average RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.96; five studies, 2367 babies; random-effects, Tau2 = 0.02, I2 = 32%) (GRADE moderate). This difference was not maintained when we restricted the analysis to studies at low risk of bias (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.01; one study, 1292 babies). Women using home uterine monitoring made more unscheduled antenatal visits (mean difference (MD) 0.48, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.64; two studies, 1994 women) (GRADE moderate). Women using home uterine monitoring were also more likely to have prophylactic tocolytic drug therapy (average RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.45; seven studies, 4316 women; random-effects, Tau2 = 0.03, I2 = 62%), but this difference was no longer evident when we restricted the analysis to studies at low risk of bias (average RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.65; three studies, 3749 women; random-effects, Tau2 = 0.05, I2 = 76%) (GRADE low). The number of antenatal hospital admissions did not differ between home groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.11; three studies, 1494 women (GRADE low)). We found no data on maternal anxiety or acceptability. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Home uterine monitoring may result in fewer admissions to a neonatal intensive care unit but in more unscheduled antenatal visits and tocolytic treatment; the level of evidence is generally low to moderate. Important group differences were not evident when we undertook sensitivity analysis using only trials at low risk of bias. There is no impact on maternal and perinatal outcomes such as perinatal mortality or incidence of preterm birth.

Home uterine monitoring for detecting preterm labour.

BACKGROUND: To reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with preterm birth, home uterine activity monitoring aims for early detection of increased contraction frequency, and early intervention with tocolytic drugs to inhibit labour and prolong pregnancy. However, the effectiveness of such monitoring is disputed. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether home uterine activity monitoring is effective in improving the outcomes for women and their infants considered to be at high risk of preterm birth, when compared with conventional or other care packages that do not include home uterine monitoring. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2014), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1966 to 31 August 2014), EMBASE (1974 to 31 August 2014), CINAHL (1982 to 31 August 2014) and scanned reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised control trials of home uterine activity monitoring, with or without patient education programmes, for women at risk for preterm birth, in comparison to the same care package without home uterine activity monitoring. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We did not attempt to contact authors to resolve queries. MAIN RESULTS: There were 15 included studies (total number of enrolled participants 6008); 13 studies contributed data. Women using home uterine monitoring were less likely to experience preterm birth at less than 34 weeks (risk ratio (RR) 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.99; three studies, n = 1596; fixed-effect analysis) (GRADE high). The significant difference was not evident when we carried out a sensitivity analysis, restricting the analysis to studies at low risk of bias based on study quality (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.00, one study, 1292 women). There was no significant difference in the rate of perinatal mortality (RR 1.22; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.72; two studies, n = 2589) (GRADE low)There was no significant difference in the number of preterm births at less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.85; CI 0.72 to 1.01; eight studies, n = 4834; random-effects, T² = 0.03, I² = 68%) (GRADE very low). Infants born to women using home uterine monitoring were less likely to be admitted to neonatal intensive care unit (average RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.96; five studies, n = 2367; random-effects, T² = 0.02, I² = 32%) (GRADE moderate). The difference was not statistically significant when only high quality studies were included (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.01; one study, n = 1292). Women using home uterine monitoring made more unscheduled antenatal visits (mean difference (MD) 0.49; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.62; two studies, n = 3707) (GRADE moderate). Women using home uterine monitoring were also more likely to have prophylactic tocolytic drug therapy (average RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.45; seven studies, n = 4316; random-effects. T² = 0.03, I² = 62%) but this difference was no longer significant when the analysis was restricted to higher quality studies (average RR 1.22; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.65, three studies, n = 3749,random-effects, T² = 0.05, I² = 76%) (GRADE low). One small study reported that the home uterine monitoring group spent fewer days in hospital antenatally. No data on maternal anxiety or acceptability were found. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Home uterine monitoring may result in fewer admissions to a neonatal intensive care unit but more unscheduled antenatal visits and tocolytic treatment, but the level of evidence is generally low to moderate. Important group differences were not evident when sensitivity analysis was undertaken using only high quality trials. There is no impact on maternal and perinatal outcomes such as perinatal mortality or incidence of preterm birth.

Home uterine monitoring for detecting preterm labour.

BACKGROUND: To reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with preterm birth, home uterine activity monitoring aims for early detection of increased contraction frequency, and early intervention with tocolytic drugs to inhibit labour and prolong pregnancy. However, the effectiveness of such monitoring is disputed. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether home uterine activity monitoring is effective in improving the outcomes for women and their infants considered to be at high risk of preterm birth, when compared with conventional or other care packages that do not include home uterine monitoring. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2011), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4 of 4), MEDLINE (1966 to 30 November 2011), EMBASE (1974 to 30 November 2011), CINAHL (1982 to 30 November 2011) and scanned reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised control trials of home uterine activity monitoring, with or without patient education programmes, for women at risk for preterm birth, in comparison to the same care package without home uterine activity monitoring. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were checked for accuracy. We did not attempt to contact authors to resolve queries. MAIN RESULTS: There were 15 included studies (total number of enrolled participants 6008); 13 studies contributed data. Women using home uterine monitoring were less likely to experience preterm birth at less than 34 weeks (risk ratio (RR) 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.99; three studies, n = 1596; fixed-effect analysis). However, this significant difference was not evident when we carried out a sensitivity analysis, restricting the analysis to studies at low risk of bias based on study quality (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.00, one study, 1292 women). There was no significant difference in the rate of perinatal mortality (RR 1.22; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.72; two studies, n = 2589).There was no significant difference in the number of preterm births at less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.85; CI 0.72 to 1.01; eight studies, n = 4834; random effects, T(2) = 0.03, I(2) = 68%). Infants born to women using home uterine monitoring were less likely to be admitted to neonatal intensive care unit (average RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.96; five studies, n = 2367; random-effects, T(2) = 0.02, I(2) = 32%). Although this difference was not statistically significant when only high quality studies were included (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.01; one study, n = 1292). Women using home uterine monitoring made more unscheduled antenatal visits (mean difference (MD) 0.49; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.62; two studies, n = 2807). Women using home uterine monitoring were also more likely to have prophylactic tocolytic drug therapy (average RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.45; seven studies, n = 4316; random-effects. T(2) = 0.03, I(2) = 62%) but this difference was no longer significant when the analysis was restricted to high quality studies (average RR 1.22; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.65, three studies, n = 3749,random effects, T(2) = 0.05, I(2) = 76%). One small study reported that the home uterine monitoring group spent fewer days in hospital antenatally. No data on maternal anxiety or acceptability were found. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Home uterine monitoring may result in fewer admissions to a neonatal intensive care unit but more unscheduled antenatal visits and tocolytic treatment. There is no impact on maternal and perinatal outcomes such as perinatal mortality or incidence of preterm birth.

Platelet activation in the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether platelet activation occurs only in preeclampsia or also in normal pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: Thirty women with preeclampsia, 30 women with gestational hypertension, 20 women with essential hypertension, 30 pregnant women with normotension, and 30 nonpregnant women were recruited at St George Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Platelet activation was determined by flow cytometry on whole blood samples. RESULTS: Platelet activation was similar in all groups, except the group with preeclampsia. Compared with normal pregnant women, women with preeclampsia had significantly greater CD62 expression (1.35% vs 0.61%; P =.002), CD63 expression (1.73% vs 0.95%; P <.0001) and annexin V binding (1.03% vs 0.66%;P =.03) and significantly fewer circulating platelet microparticles (33 vs 49 x10(9)/L; P =.001). This was unrelated to other parameters that included platelet counts. Women with gestational hypertension in whom preeclampsia developed did not have enhanced platelet activation profiles. CONCLUSION: Platelet activation is increased in preeclampsia but not in other hypertensive disorders or in normal pregnancy. This may be part of the pathophysiologic factors of preeclampsia complications but is not predictable by the platelet count and is not apparent in all women with preeclampsia.