Adverse Maternal Outcomes of Twin Gestations: Do They Differ By Mode of Conception?

Background: Sporadic brain arteriovenous malformations (BAVM) are a major cause of hemorrhagic stroke in younger persons. Prior studies have reported contradictory results regarding the risk of hemorrhage during pregnancy, and there are no standard guidelines for the management of pregnant women who present with BAVM rupture. The purpose of this study is to describe maternal and fetal outcomes and treatment strategies in patients with BAVM hemorrhage during pregnancy. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of the University of California, San Francisco Brain AVM Project database for female patients who were pregnant at the time of BAVM hemorrhage between 2000 and 2017. Clinical and angiographic characteristics at presentation, BAVM treatment, and maternal outcomes using modified Rankin scale (mRS) score at presentation and 2-year follow-up were recorded. Fetal outcomes were abstracted from medical records and maternal reports. Results: Sixteen patients presented with BAVM hemorrhage during pregnancy, 81% (n = 13) of whom were in their second or third trimester. Three patients (19%) who were in their first trimester terminated or miscarried pregnancy prior to BAVM intervention. Of the remaining 13 patients, 77% (n = 10) received emergent BAVM treatment at time of hemorrhage prior to delivery, and 85% of patients achieved BAVM obliteration and good maternal outcomes (mRS 0–2) at 2-year follow-up. All patients had uncomplicated deliveries (69% cesarean and 23% vaginal) with no reports of postnatal cognitive or developmental delays in infants at 2-year follow-up. Conclusions: Our study shows good long-term maternal and fetal outcomes in ruptured BAVM patients presenting during pregnancy, the majority who received BAVM interventional treatment prior to delivery.

Download Full-text

The Impact of Diagnostic Criteria for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus on Adverse Maternal Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal of Clinical Medicine ◽

10.3390/jcm10040666 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (4) ◽

pp. 666

Author(s):

Fahimeh Ramezani Tehrani ◽

Marzieh Saei Ghare Naz ◽

Razieh Bidhendi Yarandi ◽

Samira Behboudi-Gandevani

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Gestational Diabetes ◽

Pregnant Women ◽

Diagnostic Criteria ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Population Based ◽

Maternal Outcomes ◽

Care Providers ◽

Iadpsg Criteria ◽

The Impact

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the impact of different gestational-diabetes (GDM) diagnostic-criteria on the risk of adverse-maternal-outcomes. The search process encompassed PubMed (Medline), Scopus, and Web of Science databases to retrieve original, population-based studies with the universal GDM screening approach, published in English language and with a focus on adverse-maternal-outcomes up to January 2020. According to GDM diagnostic criteria, the studies were classified into seven groups. A total of 49 population-based studies consisting of 1409018 pregnant women with GDM and 7,667,546 non-GDM counterparts were selected for data analysis and knowledge synthesis. Accordingly, the risk of adverse-maternal-outcomes including primary-cesarean, induction of labor, maternal-hemorrhage, and pregnancy-related-hypertension, overall, regardless of GDM diagnostic-criteria and in all diagnostic-criteria subgroups were significantly higher than non-GDM counterparts. However, in meta-regression, the increased risk was not influenced by the GDM diagnostic-classification and the magnitude of the risks among patients, using the IADPSG criteria-classification as the most strict-criteria, was similar to other criteria. In conclusion, a reduction in the diagnostic-threshold increased the prevalence of GDM, but the risk of adverse-maternal-outcome was not different among those women who were diagnosed through more or less intensive strategies. Our review findings can empower health-care-providers to select the most cost-effective approach for the screening of GDM among pregnant women.

Download Full-text

General versus regional anaesthesia for caesarean section indicated for acute foetal distress: a retrospective cohort study

BMC Anesthesiology ◽

10.1186/s12871-021-01289-7 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Junette Arlette Mbengono Metogo ◽

Theophile Njamen Nana ◽

Brian Ajong Ngongheh ◽

Emelinda Berinyuy Nyuydzefon ◽

Christoph Akazong Adjahoung ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cohort Study ◽

Pregnant Women ◽

Retrospective Cohort Study ◽

Medical Records ◽

Regional Anaesthesia ◽

Retrospective Cohort ◽

Statistical Significance ◽

Neonatal Resuscitation ◽

Maternal Outcomes ◽

Foetal Distress

Abstract Background Acute foetal distress (AFD) is a life-threatening foetal condition complicating 2% of all pregnancies and accounting for 8.9% of caesarean sections (CS) especially in developing nations. Despite the severity of the problem, no evidence exists as to the safest anaesthetic technique for the mother and foetus couple undergoing CS for AFD. We aimed to compare general anaesthesia (GA) versus regional (spinal and epidural) anaesthesia in terms of their perioperative maternal and foetal outcomes. Methods We carried out a retrospective cohort study by reviewing the medical records of all women who underwent CS indicated for AFD between 2015 to 2018 at the Douala General Hospital, Cameroon. Medical records of neonates were also reviewed. We sought to investigate the association between GA, and regional anaesthesia administered during CS for AFD and foetal and maternal outcomes. The threshold of statistical significance was set at 0.05. Results We enrolled the medical records of 117 pregnant women who underwent CS indicated for AFD. Their mean age and mean gestational age were 30.5 ± 4.8 years and 40 weeks respectively. Eighty-three (70.9%), 29 (24.8%) and 05 (4.3%) pregnant women underwent CS under SA, GA and EA respectively. Neonates delivered by CS under GA were more likely to have a significantly low APGAR score at both the 1st (RR = 1.93, p = 0.014) and third-minute (RR = 2.52, p = 0.012) and to be resuscitated at birth (RR = 2.15, p = 0.015). Past CS, FHR pattern on CTG didn’t affect these results in multivariate analysis. Adverse maternal outcomes are shown to be higher following SA when compared to GA. Conclusion The study infers an association between CS performed for AFD under GA and foetal morbidity. This, however, failed to translate into a difference in perinatal mortality when comparing GA vs RA. This finding does not discount the role of GA, but we emphasize the need for specific precautions like adequate anticipation for neonatal resuscitation to reduce neonatal complications associated with CS performed for AFD under GA.

Download Full-text

Do Hospitals with a Higher Level of Maternal Care Designation Have Better Maternal Outcomes?

American Journal of Perinatology ◽

10.1055/s-0038-1672140 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 36 (06) ◽

pp. 653-658 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Sindhu Srinivas ◽

Katy Kozhimannil ◽

Peiyin Hung ◽

Laura Attanasio ◽

Judy Jou ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Maternal Care ◽

Maternal Morbidity ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Severe Maternal Morbidity ◽

Maternal Outcomes ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Discharge Data ◽

Logistic Regression Models ◽

The Impact

Background A recent document by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine introduced the concept of uniform levels of maternal care (LMCs). Objective We assessed LMC across hospitals and measured their association with maternal morbidity, focusing on women with high-risk conditions. Study Design We collected data from hospitals from May to November 2015 and linked survey responses to Statewide Inpatient Databases (SID) hospital discharge data in a retrospective cross-sectional study of 247,383 births admitted to 236 hospitals. Generalized logistic regression models were used to examine the associations between hospitals' LMC and the risk of severe maternal morbidity. Stratified analyses were conducted among women with high-risk conditions. Results High-risk pregnancies were more likely to be managed in hospitals with higher LMC (p < 0.001). Women with cardiac conditions had lower odds of maternal morbidity when delivered in level I compared with level IV units (adjusted odds ratio: 0.29; 95% confidence interval: 0.08–0.99; p = 0.049). There were no other significant associations between the LMC and severe maternal morbidity. Conclusion A higher proportion of high-risk pregnancies were managed within level IV units, although there was no overall evidence that these births had superior outcomes. Further prospective evaluation of LMC designation with patient outcomes is necessary to determine the impact of regionalization on maternal outcomes.

Download Full-text

How Nurses on an Obstetric Unit Improved Maternal Outcomes in Indiana

Journal of Obstetric Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing ◽

10.1016/j.jogn.2020.09.069 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 49 (6) ◽

pp. S40

Author(s):

Jody Shiveley ◽

Lori Hardie ◽

Amanda Gill

Keyword(s):

Maternal Outcomes

Download Full-text

Impact of metformin treatment during pregnancy on maternal outcomes: a systematic review/meta-analysis

Scientific Reports ◽

10.1038/s41598-021-88650-5 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Jane L. Tarry-Adkins ◽

Susan E. Ozanne ◽

Catherine E. Aiken

Keyword(s):

Side Effects ◽

Pregnancy Outcomes ◽

Gestational Hypertension ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Maternal Outcomes ◽

Metformin Treatment ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Treatment Groups ◽

Gastrointestinal Side Effects ◽

The Impact

AbstractWe systematically assessed the impact of metformin treatment on maternal pregnancy outcomes. PubMed, Ovid Embase, Medline, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane databases were systematically searched (inception-1st February 2021). Randomised controlled trials reporting pregnancy outcomes in women randomised to metformin versus any other treatment for any indication were included. Outcomes included gestational weight gain (GWG), pre-eclampsia, gestational hypertension, preterm birth, gestational age at delivery, caesarean section, gestational diabetes, glycaemic control, and gastrointestinal side-effects. Two independent reviewers conducted screening, with a third available to evaluate disagreements. Risk-of-bias and GRADE assessments were conducted using Cochrane Risk-of-Bias and GRADE-pro software. Thirty-five studies (n = 8033 pregnancies) met eligibility criteria. GWG was lower in pregnancies randomised to metformin versus other treatments (1.57 kg ± 0.60 kg; I2 = 86%, p < 0.0001), as was likelihood of pre-eclampsia (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50–0.95; I2 = 55%, p = 0.02). The risk of gastrointestinal side-effects was greater in metformin-exposed versus other treatment groups (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.53–3.84; I2 = 76%, p = 0.0002). The risk of other maternal outcomes assessed was not significantly different between metformin-exposed versus other treatment groups. Metformin for any indication during pregnancy is associated with lower GWG and a modest reduced risk of pre-eclampsia, but increased gastrointestinal side-effects compared to other treatments.

Download Full-text