Health Outcomes Associated With Clinician-initiated Delivery for Hypertensive Disorders at 34-38 Weeks' Gestation.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians caring for the nearly 10% of patients in the United States with nonsevere hypertensive disorders in late pregnancy need better evidence to balance risks and benefits of clinician-initiated delivery. METHODS: We conducted a record-based cohort study of maternal and infant health outcomes among deliveries from 2002-2013 at Women & Infants Hospital of Rhode Island. Participants had gestational hypertension or nonsevere preeclampsia before 39 weeks' gestation (N=4,295). For each gestational week from 34 to 38, we compared outcomes between clinician-initiated deliveries (induction of labor or prelabor cesarean) and those not initiated in that week, using propensity score models to control confounding by indication. RESULTS: The analysis predicted an increment in risk of adverse maternal and infant outcomes sustained through week 37 if all patients underwent clinician-initiated delivery, with risk differences on the order of 0.2 for maternal outcomes and 0.3 for infant outcomes weeks 34 and 35. For women undergoing clinician-initiated delivery, the analysis identified increased risk of progression to severe disease in weeks 35 and 36, increases in all adverse infant outcomes only in week 34, increases in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit admission and infant hospital stay in weeks 35 and 36, and no meaningful increase in any of the adverse outcomes in weeks 37 or 38. CONCLUSIONS: We estimate that hypertensive pregnancies chosen for intervention were minimally harmed by early delivery after 34 weeks' gestation but predict benefit from extension to 37 weeks. Our study also showed adverse infant health consequences associated with routine delivery prior to 37 weeks.

Significant Incidental Findings in the National Lung Screening Trial.

Importance: Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung screening has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality. Significant incidental findings (SIFs) have been widely reported in patients undergoing LDCT lung screening. However, the exact nature of these SIF findings has not been described. Objective: To describe SIFs reported in the LDCT arm of the National Lung Screening Trial and classify SIFs as reportable or not reportable to the referring clinician (RC) using the American College of Radiology's white papers on incidental findings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective case series study of 26 455 participants in the National Lung Screening Trial who underwent at least 1 screening examination with LDCT. The trial was conducted from 2002 to 2009, and data were collected at 33 US academic medical centers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Significant incident findings were defined as a final diagnosis of a negative screen result with significant abnormalities that were not suspicious for lung cancer or a positive screen result with emphysema, significant cardiovascular abnormality, or significant abnormality above or below the diaphragm. Results: Of 26 455 participants, 10 833 (41.0%) were women, the mean (SD) age was 61.4 (5.0) years, and there were 1179 (4.5%) Black, 470 (1.8%) Hispanic/Latino, and 24 123 (91.2%) White individuals. Participants were scheduled to undergo 3 screenings during the course of the trial; the present study included 75 126 LDCT screening examinations performed for 26 455 participants. A SIF was reported for 8954 (33.8%) of 26 455 participants who were screened with LDCT. Of screening tests with a SIF detected, 12 228 (89.1%) had a SIF considered reportable to the RC, with a higher proportion of reportable SIFs among those with a positive screen result for lung cancer (7632 [94.1%]) compared with those with a negative screen result (4596 [81.8%]). The most common SIFs reported included emphysema (8677 [43.0%] of 20 156 SIFs reported), coronary artery calcium (2432 [12.1%]), and masses or suspicious lesions (1493 [7.4%]). Masses included kidney (647 [3.2%]), liver (420 [2.1%]), adrenal (265 [1.3%]), and breast (161 [0.8%]) abnormalities. Classification was based on free-text comments; 2205 of 13 299 comments (16.6%) could not be classified. The hierarchical reporting of final diagnosis in NLST may have been associated with an overestimate of severe emphysema in participants with a positive screen result for lung cancer. Conclusions and Relevance: This case series study found that SIFs were commonly reported in the LDCT arm of the National Lung Screening Trial, and most of these SIFs were considered reportable to the RC and likely to require follow-up. Future screening trials should standardize SIF reporting.