Potassium Channels in the Uterine Vasculature: Role in Healthy and Complicated Pregnancies.

A progressive increase in maternal uterine and placental blood flow must occur during pregnancy to sustain the development of the fetus. Changes in maternal vasculature enable an increased uterine blood flow, placental nutrient and oxygen exchange, and subsequent fetal development. K+ channels are important modulators of vascular function, promoting vasodilation, inducing cell proliferation, and regulating cell signaling. Different types of K+ channels, such as Ca2+-activated, ATP-sensitive, and voltage-gated, have been implicated in the adaptation of maternal vasculature during pregnancy. Conversely, K+ channel dysfunction has been associated with vascular-related complications of pregnancy, including intrauterine growth restriction and pre-eclampsia. In this article, we provide an updated and comprehensive literature review that highlights the relevance of K+ channels as regulators of uterine vascular reactivity and their potential as therapeutic targets.

A retrospective analysis of factors associated with deep contraceptive implant removals compared to superficial removals.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with the need for a deep etonogestrel contraceptive implant removal as compared to superficial removal. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing contraceptive implant removal from January 2014 to January 2023. We extracted key patient characteristics from electronic health record review and compared patients requiring deep removal versus routine superficial removal using Chi-squared, Fischer's exact, and Mann-Whitney U test. A multivariate logistic regression identified variables associated with increased odds of requiring a deep implant removal. RESULTS: The deep and superficial removal groups included 162 and 585 patients, respectively. Deep removal was associated with younger age at removal (median 25.0 vs 26.0 years, p = 0.005), lower body mass index (BMI) at insertion (median 23.2 kg/m2 vs 26.6 kg/m2, p = 0.024), BMI≥ 40 kg/m2 at removal (15.2% vs 7.0%, p = 0.007), weight gain during implant use (median 6.6 vs 1.8 kg, p ≤ 0.001), longer duration of use (median 36.0 vs 27.5 months, p < 0.001), implant exchange (37.3% vs 17.4%, p < 0.001), and insertion by non-physician (43.3% vs 19.3%, p < 0.001) or non-obstetrican and gynecologist (31.4% vs 11.8%, p < 0.001). Lower BMI at insertion (aOR 0.92, [95% CI 0.87-0.98]), weight gain during use (aOR 1.06 [95% CI 1.02-1.10]), and longer duration of use (aOR 1.05 [95% CI 1.02-1.07]) remained significantly associated with deep removal in regression analysis. CONCLUSION(S): We identified lower BMI at insertion, weight gain during use, and longer duration of use as independent factors associated with increased likelihood of needing a deep contraceptive implant removal. IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians should utilize proper technique when inserting contraceptive implants, especially in patients at risk for deep insertion, and ensure immediate referral to Centers of Experience for patients with non-palpable implants.

Access to Urogynecologic Care in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Mystery Caller Study.

IMPORTANCE: Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) play an important role in providing care to underserved populations. However, little is known about the availability of urogynecology services at FQHCs. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the availability of appointments for urogynecology care and to determine the prevalence of FQHCs offering urogynecologic services. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 362 FQHCs across the United States were randomly selected from the Health Resources and Services Administration website, based on specific inclusion criteria. Researchers called the FQHCs and requested the earliest available appointment for pelvic organ prolapse. The availability of urogynecologic services such as pessary fittings, pelvic floor physical therapy, and urodynamic studies was also inquired. RESULTS: A total of 362 FQHCs located in 46 states and the District of Columbia were called. On average, the 362 FQHCs had been established for 19.9 (SD ±15) years, were located in urban areas, and served a median county population of 24,573. Of the 220 FQHCs successfully contacted, 81% (180/220) reported that they could provide care for a patient with pelvic organ prolapse at an appointment 29.1 business days (SD ±30 days) from the date of the call, on average. However, only a small percentage of these FQHCs offered in-office pessary fittings (11%), complex multichannel urodynamics testing (8.6%), or pelvic floor physical therapy (5%). CONCLUSION: The availability of treatments for pelvic floor disorders at FQHCs is limited. These findings highlight a potential disparity in access to urogynecology services for individuals with public insurance.

Access to general obstetrics and gynecology care among Medicaid beneficiaries and the privately insured: a nationwide mystery caller study in the USA.

BACKGROUND: The mean wait time for new patient appointments has been growing across specialties, including obstetrics and gynecology, in recent years. This study aimed to assess the impact of insurance type (Medicaid versus commercial insurance) on new patient appointment wait times in general obstetrics and gynecology practices. METHODS: A cross-sectional study used covert mystery calls to general obstetrician gynecologists. Physicians were selected from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists directory and stratified by districts to ensure nationwide representation. Wait times for new patient appointments were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Regardless of insurance type, the mean wait time for all obstetrician gynecologists was 29.9 business days. Medicaid patients experienced a marginally longer wait time of 4.8% (Ratio: 1.048). While no statistically significant difference in wait times based on insurance type was observed (P=0.39), the data revealed other impactful factors. Younger physicians and those in university-based practices had longer wait times. The gender of the physician also influenced wait times, with female physicians having a mean wait time of 34.7 days compared to 22.7 days for male physicians (P=0.03). Additionally, geographical variations were noted, with physicians in American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists District I (Atlantic Provinces, CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) having the longest mean wait times and those in District III (DE, NJ, PA) the shortest. CONCLUSIONS: While the type of insurance did not significantly influence the wait times for general obstetrics and gynecology appointments, physician demographic and geographic factors did.