External cephalic version: Success rates with and without nitrous oxide.

BACKGROUND: External cephalic version (ECV) is a technique used to reduce the incidence of cesarean deliveries due to malpresentation. Nitrous oxide is an inhaled analgesic that may be used for pain relief for women undergoing external cephalic version. OBJECTIVE: To compare the conversion rate of non-cephalic to cephalic presentation in ECV with and without nitrous oxide. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed including all singleton, term gestation ECVs between January 2016 and June 2017 at a single institution. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare women who had ECV with nitrous oxide versus ECV without nitrous oxide. The primary outcome was successful rate of conversion to cephalic presentation and the secondary outcome was the rate of vaginal delivery. RESULTS: During the study period, 167 women underwent ECV: 77 with nitrous oxide and 90 without nitrous oxide. Of the 77 women who used nitrous oxide, 25 (32.5%) were successful and 17 of these women delivered vaginally (68%). Of the women who underwent ECV without nitrous oxide, 29 (32.2%) successfully converted and 21 of these delivered vaginally (72%). After controlling for confounders, the use of nitrous oxide had no clinically or statistically significant difference on ECV success rates (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.52-2.23). CONCLUSION: Nitrous oxide does not seem to affect conversion rate to cephalic presentation in ECV. Further studies are needed to determine the impact of nitrous oxide on women's decision to undergo ECV and on patient satisfaction and tolerability.

Prioritizing cervical cancer screening services during the COVID-19 pandemic: Response of an academic medical center and a public safety net hospital in California.

The expeditious diagnosis and treatment of high-grade cervical precancers are fundamental to cervical cancer prevention. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic healthcare systems have at times restricted in-person visits to those deemed urgent. Professional societies provided some guidance to clinicians regarding ways in which traditional cervical cancer screening might be modified, but many gaps remained. To address these gaps, leaders of screening programs at an academic medical center and an urban safety net hospital in California formed a rapid-action committee to provide guidance to its practitioners. Patients were divided into 6 categories corresponding to various stages in the screening process and ranked by risk of underlying high-grade cervical precancer and cancer. Tiers corresponding to the intensity of the local pandemic were constructed, and clinical delays were lengthened for the lowest-risk patients as tiers escalated. The final product was a management grid designed to escalate and de-escalate with changes in the local epidemiology of the COVID-19 pandemic. While this effort resulted in substantial delays in clinical screening services as mandated by the healthcare systems, the population effects of delaying on both cervical cancer outcomes as well as the beneficial effects related to decreasing transmission of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 have yet to be elucidated.

Implementation of Evidence-Based Cervical Ripening Protocol: Outcomes and Next Steps.

Objective A prominent randomized controlled trial demonstrated that low-dose misoprostol with the concurrent cervical Foley shortened the median time to delivery when compared with either method alone. Our study aims to address implementation of this protocol and evaluate its impact on time to delivery. Study Design This was a retrospective before-and-after study of nulliparous women who delivered nonanomalous, term, singletons at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) in two separate 2-year periods before and after changes in UCSF's cervical ripening protocol. The primary outcome was time from first misoprostol dose to delivery. Results A total of 1,496 women met inclusion criteria, with 698 in the preimplementation group and 798 in the postimplementation group. There were no statistically significant differences in time to delivery (29 vs. 30 hours, p = 0.69), rate of cesarean delivery (30 vs. 26%, p = 0.09), or cesarean delivery for fetal indications (11 vs. 8%, p = 0.15) between the groups. Conclusion Implementing evidence-based low-dose misoprostol with the concurrent cervical Foley did not change the time to delivery, time to vaginal-delivery, or likelihood of vaginal delivery in our population. This may be due to differences in labor management practices and incomplete fidelity to the protocol. Real-world effectiveness of these interventions will vary and should be considered when choosing an induction method.