Cerebroplacental Ratio Prediction of Intrapartum Fetal Compromise according to the Interval to Delivery.

INTRODUCTION: A controversy exists about the accuracy of the cerebroplacental ratio (CPR) for the prediction of cesarean section for intrapartum fetal compromise (CS-IFC). Our aim was to evaluate whether the interval to delivery modifies the accuracy of CPR either as a single marker or combined with estimated fetal weight centile (EFWc), type of labor onset (TLO), and other clinical variables. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective study of 5,193 women with singleton pregnancies who underwent an ultrasound scan at 35+0-41+0 weeks and gave birth within 1 month of examination, at any of the participating hospitals in Spain, UK, and Italy. CS-IFC was diagnosed in case of an abnormal intrapartum fetal heart rate or intrapartum fetal scalp pH <7.20, requiring urgent cesarean section. The diagnostic ability of CPR in multiples of the median (CPR MoM) was evaluated at different intervals to delivery, alone and combined with EFWc, TLO, and other pregnancy data such as maternal age, maternal body mass index, parity, and fetal sex, for the prediction of CS-IFC by means of ROC curves and logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The predictive ability of CPR MoM for CS-IFC worsened with the interval to delivery. In general, the best prediction was obtained prior to labor and by adding information related to EFWc and TLO (AUC 0.71 [95% CI: 0.64-0.79], 0.73 [95% CI: 0.66-0.80], and 0.75 [95% CI: 0.69-0.81]; p < 0.0001). Addition of more clinical data did not improve prediction. In addition, results did not vary when only cases with spontaneous onset of labor were studied. CONCLUSION: CPR MoM prediction of CS-IFC at the end of pregnancy worsens with the interval to delivery. Accordingly, it should be done in the short term and considering EFWc and TLO.

Antioxidants in Pregnancy: Do We Really Need More Trials?

Human pregnancy can be affected by numerous pathologies, from those which are mild and reversible to others which are life-threatening. Among these, gestational diabetes mellitus and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy with subsequent consequences stand out. Health problems experienced by women during pregnancy and postpartum are associated with significant costs to health systems worldwide and contribute largely to maternal mortality and morbidity. Major risk factors for mothers include obesity, advanced maternal age, cardiovascular dysfunction, and endothelial damage; in these scenarios, oxidative stress plays a major role. Markers of oxidative stress can be measured in patients with preeclampsia, foetal growth restriction, and gestational diabetes mellitus, even before their clinical onset. In consequence, antioxidant supplements have been proposed as a possible therapy; however, results derived from large scale randomised clinical trials have been disappointing as no positive effects were demonstrated. This review focuses on the latest evidence on oxidative stress in pregnancy complications, their early diagnosis, and possible therapies to prevent or treat these pathologies.

An internally validated prediction model for critical COVID-19 infection and intensive care unit admission in symptomatic pregnant women.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women are at an increased risk of mortality and morbidity owing to COVID-19. Many studies have reported on the association of COVID-19 with pregnancy-specific adverse outcomes, but prediction models utilizing large cohorts of pregnant women are still lacking for estimating the risk of maternal morbidity and other adverse events. OBJECTIVE: The main aim of this study was to develop a prediction model to quantify the risk of progression to critical COVID-19 and intensive care unit admission in pregnant women with symptomatic infection. STUDY DESIGN: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study including 8 hospitals from 4 countries (the United Kingdom, Austria, Greece, and Turkey). The data extraction was from February 2020 until May 2021. Included were consecutive pregnant and early postpartum women (within 10 days of birth); reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome was progression to critical illness requiring intensive care. The secondary outcomes included maternal death, preeclampsia, and stillbirth. The association between the primary outcome and 12 candidate predictors having a known association with severe COVID-19 in pregnancy was analyzed with log-binomial mixed-effects regression and reported as adjusted risk ratios. All the potential predictors were evaluated in 1 model and only the baseline factors in another. The predictive accuracy was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: Of the 793 pregnant women who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 and were symptomatic, 44 (5.5%) were admitted to intensive care, of whom 10 died (1.3%). The 'mini-COvid Maternal Intensive Therapy' model included the following demographic and clinical variables available at disease onset: maternal age (adjusted risk ratio, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.95; P=.015); body mass index (adjusted risk ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.66; P=.010); and diagnosis in the third trimester of pregnancy (adjusted risk ratio, 3.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.78-8.46; P=.001). The optimism-adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.73. The 'full-COvid Maternal Intensive Therapy' model included body mass index (adjusted risk ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.95; P=.015), lower respiratory symptoms (adjusted risk ratio, 5.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.81-21.4; P=.007), neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (adjusted risk ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-1.89; P<.001); and serum C-reactive protein (adjusted risk ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.44; P<.001), with an optimism-adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.85. Neither model showed signs of a poor fit. Categorization as high-risk by either model was associated with a shorter diagnosis to intensive care unit admission interval (log-rank test P<.001, both), higher maternal death (5.2% vs 0.2%; P<.001), and preeclampsia (5.7% vs 1.0%; P<.001). A spreadsheet calculator is available for risk estimation. CONCLUSION: At presentation with symptomatic COVID-19, pregnant and recently postpartum women can be stratified into high- and low-risk for progression to critical disease, even where resources are limited. This can support the nature and place of care. These models also highlight the independent risk for severe disease associated with obesity and should further emphasize that even in the absence of other comorbidities, vaccination is particularly important for these women. Finally, the model also provides useful information for policy makers when prioritizing national vaccination programs to quickly protect those at the highest risk of critical and fatal COVID-19.

Perinatal Outcomes of Small for Gestational Age in Twin Pregnancies: Twin vs. Singleton Charts.

Twin pregnancies are commonly assessed using singleton growth and birth weight reference charts. This practice has led to a significant number of twins labelled as small for gestational age (SGA), causing unnecessary interventions and increased risk of iatrogenic preterm birth. However, the use of twin-specific charts remains controversial. This study aims to assess whether twin-specific estimated fetal weight (EFW) and birth weight (BW) charts are more predictive of adverse outcomes compared to singleton charts. Centiles of EFW and BW were calculated using previously published singleton and twin charts. Categorical data were compared using Chi-square or McNemar tests. The study included 1740 twin pregnancies, with the following perinatal adverse outcomes recorded: perinatal death, preterm birth <34 weeks, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) and admissions to the neonatal unit (NNU). Twin-specific charts identified prenatally and postnatally a smaller proportion of infants as SGA compared to singleton charts. However, twin charts showed a higher percentage of adverse neonatal outcomes in SGA infants than singleton charts. For example, perinatal death (SGA 7.2% vs. appropriate for gestational age (AGA) 2%, p < 0.0001), preterm birth <34 weeks (SGA 42.1% vs. AGA 16.4%, p < 0.0001), HDP (SGA 21.2% vs. AGA 13.5%, p = 0.015) and NNU admissions (SGA 69% vs. AGA 24%, p < 0.0001), when compared to singleton charts (perinatal death: SGA 2% vs. AGA 1%, p = 0.029), preterm birth <34 weeks: (SGA 20.6% vs. AGA 17.4%, p = 0.020), NNU admission: (SGA 34.5% vs. AGA 23.9%, p < 0.000). There was no significant association between HDP and SGA using the singleton charts (p = 0.696). In SGA infants, according to the twin charts, the incidence of abnormal umbilical artery Doppler was significantly more common than in SGA using the singleton chart (27.0% vs. 8.1%, p < 0.001). In conclusion, singleton charts misclassify a large number of twins as at risk of fetal growth restriction. The evidence suggests that the following twin-specific charts could reduce unnecessary medical interventions prenatally and postnatally.