In March 2020, as community spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 became increasingly prevalent, pregnant women seemed to be equally susceptible to developing coronavirus disease ...2019. Although the disease course usually appears mild, severe and critical cases of coronavirus disease 2019 seem to lead to substantial morbidity, including intensive care unit admission with prolonged hospital stay, intubation, mechanical ventilation, and even death. Although there are recent reports regarding the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on pregnancy, there is a lack of information regarding the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnant vs nonpregnant women.
We aimed to describe the outcomes of severe and critical cases of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnant vs nonpregnant, reproductive-aged women.
This is a multicenter, retrospective, case-control study of women with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection hospitalized with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in 4 academic medical centers in New York City and 1 in Philadelphia between March 12, 2020, and May 5, 2020. The cases consisted of pregnant women admitted specifically for severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 and not for obstetrical indications. The controls consisted of reproductive-aged, nonpregnant women admitted for severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. The primary outcome was a composite morbidity that includes the following: death, a need for intubation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, or a need for high-flow nasal cannula O2 supplementation. The secondary outcomes included intensive care unit admission, length of stay, a need for discharge to long-term acute care facilities, and discharge with a home O2 requirement.
A total of 38 pregnant women with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 polymerase chain reaction-confirmed infections were admitted to 5 institutions specifically for coronavirus disease 2019, 29 (76.3%) meeting the criteria for severe disease status and 9 (23.7%) meeting the criteria for critical disease status. The mean age and body mass index were markedly higher in the nonpregnant control group. The nonpregnant cohort also had an increased frequency of preexisting medical comorbidities, including diabetes, hypertension, and coronary artery disease. The pregnant women were more likely to experience the primary outcome when compared with the nonpregnant control group (34.2% vs 14.9%; P=.03; adjusted odds ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.2–18.2). The pregnant patients experienced higher rates of intensive care unit admission (39.5% vs 17.0%; P<.01; adjusted odds ratio, 5.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.5–17.5). Among the pregnant women who underwent delivery, 72.7% occurred through cesarean delivery and the mean gestational age at delivery was 33.8±5.5 weeks in patients with severe disease status and 35±3.5 weeks in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 status.
Pregnant women with severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019 are at an increased risk for certain morbidities when compared with nonpregnant controls. Despite the higher comorbidities of diabetes and hypertension in the nonpregnant controls, the pregnant cases were at an increased risk for composite morbidity, intubation, mechanical ventilation, and intensive care unit admission. These findings suggest that pregnancy may be associated with a worse outcome in women with severe and critical cases of coronavirus disease 2019. Our study suggests that similar to other viral infections such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, pregnant women may be at risk for greater morbidity and disease severity.
Pregnant women are at increased risk for morbidity owing to infection with the COVID-19 virus.1 Vaccination presents an important strategy to mitigate illness in this population. However, there is a ...paucity of data on vaccination safety and pregnancy outcomes because pregnant women were excluded from the initial phase III clinical trials. Our objective was to describe the maternal, neonatal, and obstetrical outcomes of women who received a messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccination while pregnant during the first 4 months of vaccine availability.
This was an institutional review board–approved descriptive study of pregnant women at New York University Langone Health who received at least 1 dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccination approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) from the time of the FDA Emergency Use Authorization to April 22, 2021. Eligible women were identified via search of the electronic medical record (EMR) system. Vaccine administration was ascertained via immunization records from the New York State Department of Health. Women were excluded if they were vaccinated before conception or during the postpartum period. Charts were reviewed for maternal demographics and pregnancy outcomes. Descriptive analyses were performed using the R software version 4.0.2 (The R Foundation, Boston, MA).
We identified 424 pregnant women who received an mRNA vaccination. Of those, 348 (82.1%) received both doses and 76 (17.9%) received only 1 dose. The maternal characteristics and vaccination information are shown in Table 1. Of the included women, 4.9% had a history of a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis before vaccination. After vaccination, no patient in our cohort was diagnosed with COVID-19. In terms of the pregnancy outcomes, 9 women had spontaneous abortions, 3 terminated their pregnancies, and 327 have ongoing pregnancies. Of the women included, 85 delivered liveborn infants. There were no stillbirths in our population. Of the 9 spontaneous abortions, 8 occurred during the first trimester at a range of 6 to 13 weeks’ gestation. There was 1 second trimester loss. The rate of spontaneous abortion among women vaccinated in the first trimester was 6.5%. The 327 women with ongoing pregnancies have been followed for a median of 4.6 weeks (range, 0–17 weeks) following their most recent dose. A total of 113 (34.6%) women, initiated vaccination during the first trimester, 178 (54.4%) initiated vaccination during the second trimester, and 36 (11.0%) during the third trimester. Following the vaccination, 2 fetuses (0.6%) developed intrauterine growth restriction, whereas 5 (1.5%) were diagnosed with anomalies. Outcomes for the 85 women who delivered are shown in Table 2. Of the women who delivered, 18.8% were diagnosed with a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy. The rate of preterm birth was 5.9%. One preterm delivery was medically indicated, whereas the remaining 3 were spontaneous. A total of 15.3% of neonates required admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Of the NICU admissions, 61.5% were because of hypoglycemia or an evaluation for sepsis. Other reasons for admission included prematurity, hypothermia, and transient tachypnea of the newborn. Of all the neonates, 12.2% were small for gestational age (SGA) per the World Health Organization standards.
This series describes our experience with women who received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy. In line with other published findings,2 we observed no concerning trends. There were no stillbirths. Our 6.5% rate of spontaneous abortion is within the expected rate of 10%,3 and our preterm birth rate of 5.9% is below the national average of 9.5%.4 Our rate of pregnancy-related hypertensive disorders is higher than our baseline institutional rate of 9.5%, however, this may be because of the underlying characteristics of our study population or skewing of our small sample size. Our 12.2% rate of SGA neonates is near the expected value based on the definition that 10% of neonates will be SGA at birth. The NICU admission rate is at par with our institutional rate of 12%. To date, most women in this series have had uncomplicated pregnancies and have delivered at-term. Strengths of this study include using the EMR system to identify subjects and gather data. We did not rely on self-enrollment and self-report, thereby reducing selection and recall bias. By performing manual chart reviews, we obtained detailed and reliable information about individual patients. One limitation of this study is the lack of a matched control group consisting of unvaccinated pregnant women and therefore direct conclusions could not be drawn about the relative risks of complications. In addition, our cohort is small and may not be generalizable. Finally, many women included are healthcare workers who had early access to vaccinations. As more pregnant women become eligible for the COVID-19 vaccinations, there is an urgent need to report on the maternal, neonatal, and obstetrical outcomes of COVID-19 vaccinations during pregnancy. The results of this study can be used to counsel and reassure pregnant patients facing this decision.
Induction of labor is a common procedure undertaken whenever the benefits of prompt delivery outweigh the risks of expectant management. Cervical assessment is essential to determine the optimal ...approach. Indication for induction, clinical presentation and history, safety, cost, and patient preference may factor into the selection of methods. For the unfavorable cervix, several pharmacologic and mechanical methods are available, each with associated advantages and disadvantages. In women with a favorable cervix, combined use of amniotomy and intravenous oxytocin is generally the most effective approach. The goal of labor induction is to ensure the best possible outcome for mother and newborn.
This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between peripartum mean arterial pressure (MAP) and postpartum readmission for preeclampsia with severe features.
This is a retrospective case-control ...study comparing adult parturients readmitted for preeclampsia with severe features to matched nonreadmitted controls. Our primary objective was to evaluate the association between MAP at three time points during the index hospitalization (admission, 24-hour postpartum, and discharge) and readmission risk. We also evaluated readmission risk by age, race, body mass index, and comorbidities. Our secondary aim was to establish MAP thresholds to identify the population at highest risk of readmission. Multivariate logistic regression and chi-squared tests were used to determine the adjusted odds of readmission based on MAP. Receiver operating characteristic analyses were performed to evaluate risk of readmission relative to MAP; optimal MAP thresholds were established to identify those at highest risk of readmission. Pairwise comparisons were made between subgroups after stratifying for history of hypertension, with a focus on readmitted patients with new-onset postpartum preeclampsia.
A total of 348 subjects met inclusion criteria, including 174 controls and 174 cases. We found that elevated MAP at both admission (adjusted odds ratio OR: 1.37 per 10 mm Hg,
< 0.0001) and 24-hour postpartum (adjusted OR: 1.61 per 10 mm Hg,
= 0.0018) were associated with increased risk of readmission. African American race and hypertensive disorder of pregnancy were independently associated with increased risk of readmission. Subjects with MAP > 99.5 mm Hg at admission or >91.5 mm Hg at 24-hour postpartum had a risk of at least 46% of requiring postpartum readmission for preeclampsia with severe features.
Admission and 24-hour postpartum MAP correlate with risk of postpartum readmission for preeclampsia with severe features. Evaluating MAP at these time points may be useful for identifying women at higher risk for postpartum readmission. These women may otherwise be missed based on standard clinical approaches and may benefit from heightened surveillance.
· Existing literature focuses on management of antenatal hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.. · Elevated peripartum MAP is associated with increased odds of readmission for preeclampsia.. · Peripartum MAP may predict readmission risk for de novo postpartum preeclampsia..
The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has had an impact on healthcare systems around the world with 3 million people contracting the disease and 208,000 cases resulting in death as of this writing. ...Information regarding coronavirus infection in pregnancy is still limited.
This study aimed to describe the clinical course of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019 in hospitalized pregnant women with positive laboratory testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.
This is a cohort study of pregnant women with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 hospitalized at 12 US institutions between March 5, 2020, and April 20, 2020. Severe disease was defined according to published criteria as patient-reported dyspnea, respiratory rate >30 per minute, blood oxygen saturation ≤93% on room air, ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen <300 mm Hg, or lung infiltrates >50% within 24–48 hours on chest imaging. Critical disease was defined as respiratory failure, septic shock, or multiple organ dysfunction or failure. Women were excluded from the study if they had presumed coronavirus disease 2019, but laboratory testing was negative. The primary outcome was median duration from hospital admission to discharge. Secondary outcomes included need for supplemental oxygen, intubation, cardiomyopathy, cardiac arrest, death, and timing of delivery. The clinical courses are described by the median disease day on which these outcomes occurred after the onset of symptoms. Treatment and neonatal outcomes are also reported.
Of 64 hospitalized pregnant women with coronavirus disease 2019, 44 (69%) had severe disease, and 20 (31%) had critical disease. The following preexisting comorbidities were observed: 25% had a pulmonary condition, 17% had cardiac disease, and the mean body mass index was 34 kg/m2. Gestational age was at a mean of 29±6 weeks at symptom onset and a mean of 30±6 weeks at hospital admission, with a median disease day 7 since first symptoms. Most women (81%) were treated with hydroxychloroquine; 7% of women with severe disease and 65% of women with critical disease received remdesivir. All women with critical disease received either prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation during their admission. The median duration of hospital stay was 6 days (6 days severe group and 10.5 days critical group; P=.01). Intubation was usually performed around day 9 on patients who required it, and peak respiratory support for women with severe disease was performed on day 8. In women with critical disease, prone positioning was required in 20% of cases, the rate of acute respiratory distress syndrome was 70%, and reintubation was necessary in 20%. There was 1 case of maternal cardiac arrest, but there were no cases of cardiomyopathy or maternal death. Thirty-two of 64 (50%) women with coronavirus disease 2019 in this cohort delivered during their hospitalization (34% severe group and 85% critical group). Furthermore, 15 of 17 (88%) pregnant women with critical coronavirus disease 2019 delivered preterm during their disease course, with 16 of 17 (94%) pregnant women giving birth through cesarean delivery; overall, 15 of 20 (75%) women with critical disease delivered preterm. There were no stillbirths or neonatal deaths or cases of vertical transmission.
In pregnant women with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, admission into the hospital typically occurred about 7 days after symptom onset, and the duration of hospitalization was 6 days (6 severe group vs 12 critical group). Women with critical disease had a high rate of acute respiratory distress syndrome, and there was 1 case of cardiac arrest, but there were no cases of cardiomyopathy or maternal mortality. Hospitalization of pregnant women with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 resulted in delivery during the clinical course of the disease in 50% of this cohort, usually in the third trimester. There were no perinatal deaths in this cohort.
SARS-CoV-2 is known to impact multiple organ systems, with growing data to suggest the potential for placental infection and resultant pathology. Understanding how maternal COVID-19 disease can ...affect placental histopathology has been limited by small study cohorts with mild disease, review by multiple pathologists, and potential confounding by maternal-fetal comorbidities that can also influence placental findings. This study aims to identify pathologic placental findings associated with COVID-19 disease and severity, as well as to distinguish them from changes related to coexisting maternal-fetal comorbidities.
This is an observational study of 61 pregnant women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who delivered and had a placental histological evaluation at NYU Langone Health between March 19, 2020 and June 30, 2020. Primary outcomes were the prevalence of placental histopathologic features and their association with maternal-fetal comorbidities and severity of COVID-19 related hypoxia. Analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test and t-test with p < 0.05 considered significant.
Sixty-one placentas were included in the study cohort, 71% from pregnancies complicated by at least one maternal-fetal comorbidity. Twenty-five percent of placentas were small for gestational age and 77% exhibited at least one feature of maternal vascular malperfusion. None of the histopathologic features in the examined placentas were associated with the presence of any specific maternal-fetal comorbidity. Thirteen percent of the cohort required maternal respiratory support for COVID-19 related hypoxia. Villous trophoblast necrosis was associated with maternal supplemental oxygen requirement (67 vs. 33%, p = 0.04) and intubation (67 vs. 33%, p = 0.01).
In pregnancies complicated by COVID-19 disease, there was a high prevalence of placental histopathologic changes identified, particularly features of maternal vascular malperfusion, which could not be attributed solely to the presence of maternal-fetal comorbidities. The significantly increased prevalence of villous trophoblast necrosis in women needing respiratory support suggests a connection to the severity of COVID-19 illness.
Purpose
The purpose of this narrative review was to assess the limited literature on fetal anomalies diagnosed in the second trimester of pregnancy and parental decision-making and identify sources ...of information deemed as facilitators and barriers to medical decisions.
Methods
This was a literature review of source material and information about fetal anomalies diagnosed in the second trimester of pregnancy, decision-making, decision tools or aids, and sources of information for anomalies. The search string used explored related peer-reviewed publications and systematic reviews between 2007 and 2024. We also reviewed references from publications meeting inclusion criteria. The search was conducted between June 2022 and February 2024. Exclusion criteria included conference abstracts, non-peer reviewed literature, and articles not available in English language. A total of 77 publications were identified by searching multiple databases using a predefined search string. The search encompassed full text articles from 2007 to 2024 and 11 full-text publications were ultimately included in the review. A list of 45 co-occurring keywords was generated from the included texts, with each keyword having a minimum of two co-occurrences.
Results
Key themes identified included (1) the role of the clinician and need for development of professional knowledge and empathy surrounding discussion of fetal anomalies with patients; (2) information gathering, with individuals reporting use of multiple strategies to obtain information; while the majority found information satisfying, they preferred more details on diagnosis, long-term outcomes of the fetus/child and management of the pregnancy or termination process; and (3) decision-making, the path and process of how individuals made decisions about the pregnancy including quality of life, future fertility, and seeking other people’s experiences.
Conclusion
Many factors contribute to an individual’s decision-making after a diagnosis of a fetal anomalies diagnosed in the second trimester of pregnancy, ranging from personal beliefs and goals to shared experiences of others and access to care. Understanding how sources of information may be deemed both as facilitators and barriers to different individuals during the decision-making process is important for healthcare providers in order to understand how to most effectively support patients. There is a dearth of information on training healthcare professionals to provide support to patients facing these decisions.
Purpose
The objective of this study was to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes when the diagnosis of FGR was based on isolated abdominal circumference < 10th percentile for gestational age (GA) ...(iAC group) versus overall estimated fetal weight < 10th percentile (EFW group).
Methods
This was a retrospective cohort study of singleton gestations who underwent growth ultrasounds and delivered at a single health system from 1/1/19–9/4/20. The study group was comprised of patients with AC < 10th percentile and EFW ≥ than the 10th percentile (iAC group). The control group included patients with overall EFW < 10th percentile (EFW group). Outcomes evaluated included GA at delivery, mode of delivery, fetal and neonatal outcomes. Data was analyzed using Mann Whitney
U
,
X
2
, and Fisher exact tests with significance defined as
p
< 0.05.
Results
635 women met the inclusion criteria, 259 women in the iAC group and 376 women in the EFW group. The iAC group was noted to have a later GA at diagnosis and delivery. iAC was associated with lower rates of preterm birth (PTB), NICU admission, SGA at delivery and umbilical artery cord gas < 7.0.
Conclusion
Using iAC as a definition of FGR increased the number of FGR cases by 1.69-fold over EFW criteria alone. However, obstetrical and neonatal outcomes for the iAC group appear to be significantly better than those in the EFW group, with low rates of PTB, NICU admission, and umbilical artery cord gas < 7.0.
PDF
