Omega-3 fatty acid addition during pregnancy Middleton, Philippa; Gomersall, Judith C; Gould, Jacqueline F ...
Cochrane database of systematic reviews,
11/2018, Volume:
11
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Open access
Higher intakes of foods containing omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA), such as fish, during pregnancy have been associated with longer gestations and improved perinatal outcomes. ...This is an update of a review that was first published in 2006.
To assess the effects of omega-3 LCPUFA, as supplements or as dietary additions, during pregnancy on maternal, perinatal, and neonatal outcomes and longer-term outcomes for mother and child.
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (16 August 2018), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing omega-3 fatty acids (as supplements or as foods, stand-alone interventions, or with a co-intervention) during pregnancy with placebo or no omega-3, and studies or study arms directly comparing omega-3 LCPUFA doses or types. Trials published in abstract form were eligible for inclusion.
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias in trials and assessed quality of evidence for prespecified birth/infant, maternal, child/adult and health service outcomes using the GRADE approach.
In this update, we included 70 RCTs (involving 19,927 women at low, mixed or high risk of poor pregnancy outcomes) which compared omega-3 LCPUFA interventions (supplements and food) compared with placebo or no omega-3. Overall study-level risk of bias was mixed, with selection and performance bias mostly at low risk, but there was high risk of attrition bias in some trials. Most trials were conducted in upper-middle or high-income countries; and nearly half the trials included women at increased/high risk for factors which might increase the risk of adverse maternal and birth outcomes.Preterm birth < 37 weeks (13.4% versus 11.9%; risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 0.97; 26 RCTs, 10,304 participants; high-quality evidence) and early preterm birth < 34 weeks (4.6% versus 2.7%; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.77; 9 RCTs, 5204 participants; high-quality evidence) were both lower in women who received omega-3 LCPUFA compared with no omega-3. Prolonged gestation > 42 weeks was probably increased from 1.6% to 2.6% in women who received omega-3 LCPUFA compared with no omega-3 (RR 1.61 95% CI 1.11 to 2.33; 5141 participants; 6 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence).For infants, there was a possibly reduced risk of perinatal death (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.03; 10 RCTs, 7416 participants; moderate-quality evidence: 62/3715 versus 83/3701 infants) and possibly fewer neonatal care admissions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.03; 9 RCTs, 6920 participants; moderate-quality evidence - 483/3475 infants versus 519/3445 infants). There was a reduced risk of low birthweight (LBW) babies (15.6% versus 14%; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.99; 15 trials, 8449 participants; high-quality evidence); but a possible small increase in large-for-gestational age (LGA) babies (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.36; 6 RCTs, 3722 participants; moderate-quality evidence, for omega-3 LCPUFA compared with no omega-3. Little or no difference in small-for-gestational age or intrauterine growth restriction (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.13; 8 RCTs, 6907 participants; moderate-quality evidence) was seen.For the maternal outcomes, there is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of omega-3 on induction post-term (average RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.98; 3 trials, 2900 participants; low-quality evidence), maternal serious adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.72; 2 trials, 2690 participants; low-quality evidence), maternal admission to intensive care (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.63; 2 trials, 2458 participants; low-quality evidence), or postnatal depression (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.77; 2 trials, 2431 participants; low-quality evidence). Mean gestational length was greater in women who received omega-3 LCPUFA (mean difference (MD) 1.67 days, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.39; 41 trials, 12,517 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and pre-eclampsia may possibly be reduced with omega-3 LCPUFA (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.01; 20 trials, 8306 participants; low-quality evidence).For the child/adult outcomes, very few differences between antenatal omega-3 LCPUFA supplementation and no omega-3 were observed in cognition, IQ, vision, other neurodevelopment and growth outcomes, language and behaviour (mostly low-quality to very low-quality evidence). The effect of omega-3 LCPUFA on body mass index at 19 years (MD 0, 95% CI -0.83 to 0.83; 1 trial, 243 participants; very low-quality evidence) was uncertain. No data were reported for development of diabetes in the children of study participants.
In the overall analysis, preterm birth < 37 weeks and early preterm birth < 34 weeks were reduced in women receiving omega-3 LCPUFA compared with no omega-3. There was a possibly reduced risk of perinatal death and of neonatal care admission, a reduced risk of LBW babies; and possibly a small increased risk of LGA babies with omega-3 LCPUFA.For our GRADE quality assessments, we assessed most of the important perinatal outcomes as high-quality (e.g. preterm birth) or moderate-quality evidence (e.g. perinatal death). For the other outcome domains (maternal, child/adult and health service outcomes) GRADE ratings ranged from moderate to very low, with over half rated as low. Reasons for downgrading across the domain were mostly due to design limitations and imprecision.Omega-3 LCPUFA supplementation during pregnancy is an effective strategy for reducing the incidence of preterm birth, although it probably increases the incidence of post-term pregnancies. More studies comparing omega-3 LCPUFA and placebo (to establish causality in relation to preterm birth) are not needed at this stage. A further 23 ongoing trials are still to report on over 5000 women, so no more RCTs are needed that compare omega-3 LCPUFA against placebo or no intervention. However, further follow-up of completed trials is needed to assess longer-term outcomes for mother and child, to improve understanding of metabolic, growth and neurodevelopment pathways in particular, and to establish if, and how, outcomes vary by different types of omega-3 LCPUFA, timing and doses; or by characteristics of women.
Abnormal blood flow patterns in fetal circulation detected by Doppler ultrasound may indicate poor fetal prognosis. It is also possible that false positive Doppler ultrasound findings could lead to ...adverse outcomes from unnecessary interventions, including preterm delivery.
The objective of this review was to assess the effects of Doppler ultrasound used to assess fetal well-being in high-risk pregnancies on obstetric care and fetal outcomes.
We updated the search of Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register on 31 March 2017 and checked reference lists of retrieved studies.
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of Doppler ultrasound for the investigation of umbilical and fetal vessels waveforms in high-risk pregnancies compared with no Doppler ultrasound. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.
Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Data entry was checked. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.
Nineteen trials involving 10,667 women were included. Risk of bias in trials was difficult to assess accurately due to incomplete reporting. None of the evidence relating to our main outcomes was graded as high quality. The quality of evidence was downgraded due to missing information on trial methods, imprecision in risk estimates and heterogeneity. Eighteen of these studies compared the use of Doppler ultrasound of the umbilical artery of the unborn baby with no Doppler or with cardiotocography (CTG). One more recent trial compared Doppler examination of other fetal blood vessels (ductus venosus) with computerised CTG.The use of Doppler ultrasound of the umbilical artery in high-risk pregnancy was associated with fewer perinatal deaths (risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.98, 16 studies, 10,225 babies, 1.2% versus 1.7 %, number needed to treat (NNT) = 203; 95% CI 103 to 4352, evidence graded moderate). The results for stillbirths were consistent with the overall rate of perinatal deaths, although there was no clear difference between groups for this outcome (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.04; 15 studies, 9560 babies, evidence graded low). Where Doppler ultrasound was used, there were fewer inductions of labour (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99, 10 studies, 5633 women, random-effects, evidence graded moderate) and fewer caesarean sections (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97, 14 studies, 7918 women, evidence graded moderate). There was no comparative long-term follow-up of babies exposed to Doppler ultrasound in pregnancy in women at increased risk of complications.No difference was found in operative vaginal births (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.14, four studies, 2813 women), nor in Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.24, seven studies, 6321 babies, evidence graded low). Data for serious neonatal morbidity were not pooled due to high heterogeneity between the three studies that reported it (1098 babies) (evidence graded very low).The use of Doppler to evaluate early and late changes in ductus venosus in early fetal growth restriction was not associated with significant differences in any perinatal death after randomisation. However, there was an improvement in long-term neurological outcome in the cohort of babies in whom the trigger for delivery was either late changes in ductus venosus or abnormalities seen on computerised CTG.
Current evidence suggests that the use of Doppler ultrasound on the umbilical artery in high-risk pregnancies reduces the risk of perinatal deaths and may result in fewer obstetric interventions. The results should be interpreted with caution, as the evidence is not of high quality. Serial monitoring of Doppler changes in ductus venosus may be beneficial, but more studies of high quality with follow-up including neurological development are needed for evidence to be conclusive.
Preterm birth is a major complication of pregnancy associated with perinatal mortality and morbidity. Progesterone for the prevention of preterm labour has been advocated.
To assess the benefits and ...harms of progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth for women considered to be at increased risk of preterm birth and their infants.
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (14 January 2013) and reviewed the reference list of all articles.
Randomised controlled trials, in which progesterone was given for preventing preterm birth.
Two review authors independently evaluated trials for methodological quality and extracted data.
Thirty-six randomised controlled trials (8523 women and 12,515 infants) were included. Progesterone versus placebo for women with a past history of spontaneous preterm birth Progesterone was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of perinatal mortality (six studies; 1453 women; risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.75), preterm birth less than 34 weeks (five studies; 602 women; average RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.69), infant birthweight less than 2500 g (four studies; 692 infants; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.79), use of assisted ventilation (three studies; 633 women; RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.90), necrotising enterocolitis (three studies; 1170 women; RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.89), neonatal death (six studies; 1453 women; RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.76), admission to neonatal intensive care unit (three studies; 389 women; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.40), preterm birth less than 37 weeks (10 studies; 1750 women; average RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.74) and a statistically significant increase in pregnancy prolongation in weeks (one study; 148 women; mean difference (MD) 4.47, 95% CI 2.15 to 6.79). No differential effects in terms of route of administration, time of commencing therapy and dose of progesterone were observed for the majority of outcomes examined. Progesterone versus placebo for women with a short cervix identified on ultrasound Progesterone was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of preterm birth less than 34 weeks (two studies; 438 women; RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.90), preterm birth at less than 28 weeks' gestation (two studies; 1115 women; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.93) and increased risk of urticaria in women when compared with placebo (one study; 654 women; RR 5.03, 95% CI 1.11 to 22.78). It was not possible to assess the effect of route of progesterone administration, gestational age at commencing therapy, or total cumulative dose of medication. Progesterone versus placebo for women with a multiple pregnancy Progesterone was associated with no statistically significant differences for the reported outcomes. Progesterone versus no treatment/placebo for women following presentation with threatened preterm labour Progesterone, was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of infant birthweight less than 2500 g (one study; 70 infants; RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.98). Progesterone versus placebo for women with 'other' risk factors for preterm birth Progesterone, was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of infant birthweight less than 2500 g (three studies; 482 infants; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.91).
The use of progesterone is associated with benefits in infant health following administration in women considered to be at increased risk of preterm birth due either to a prior preterm birth or where a short cervix has been identified on ultrasound examination. However, there is limited information available relating to longer-term infant and childhood outcomes, the assessment of which remains a priority.Further trials are required to assess the optimal timing, mode of administration and dose of administration of progesterone therapy when given to women considered to be at increased risk of early birth.
Introduction
Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) affect up to 10% of all pregnancies annually and are associated with an increased risk of maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. This ...guideline represents an update of the Society of Obstetric Medicine of Australia and New Zealand (SOMANZ) guidelines for the management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy 2014 and has been approved by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) under section 14A of the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992. In approving the guideline recommendations, NHMRC considers that the guideline meets NHMRC's standard for clinical practice guidelines.
Main recommendations
A total of 39 recommendations on screening, preventing, diagnosing and managing HDP, especially preeclampsia, are presented in this guideline. Recommendations are presented as either evidence‐based recommendations or practice points. Evidence‐based recommendations are presented with the strength of recommendation and quality of evidence. Practice points were generated where there was inadequate evidence to develop specific recommendations and are based on the expertise of the working group.
Changes in management resulting from the guideline
This version of the SOMANZ guideline was developed in an academically robust and rigorous manner and includes recommendations on the use of combined first trimester screening to identify women at risk of developing preeclampsia, 14 pharmacological and two non‐pharmacological preventive interventions, clinical use of angiogenic biomarkers and the long term care of women who experience HDP. The guideline also includes six multilingual patient infographics which can be accessed through the main website of the guideline. All measures were taken to ensure that this guideline is applicable and relevant to clinicians and multicultural women in regional and metropolitan settings in Australia and New Zealand.
Studies consistently show a relationship between social disadvantage and low birthweight. Many countries have programmes offering special assistance to women thought to be at risk for giving birth to ...a low birthweight infant. These programmes, collectively referred to in this review as additional social support, may include emotional support, which gives a person a feeling of being loved and cared for, tangible/instrumental support, in the form of direct assistance/home visits, and informational support, through the provision of advice, guidance and counselling. The programmes may be delivered by multidisciplinary teams of health professionals, specially trained lay workers, or a combination of lay and professional workers. This is an update of a review first published in 2003 and updated in 2010.
The primary objective was to assess the effects of programmes offering additional social support (emotional, instrumental/tangible and informational) compared with routine care, for pregnant women believed to be at high risk for giving birth to babies that are either preterm (less than 37 weeks' gestation) or weigh less than 2500 g, or both, at birth. Secondary objectives were to determine whether the effectiveness of support was mediated by timing of onset (early versus later in pregnancy) or type of provider (healthcare professional or lay person).
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 5 February 2018, and reference lists of retrieved studies.
Randomised trials of additional social support during at-risk pregnancy by either a professional (social worker, midwife, or nurse) or specially trained lay person, compared to routine care. We defined additional social support as some form of emotional support (e.g. caring, empathy, trust), tangible/instrumental support (e.g. transportation to clinic appointments, home visits complemented with phone calls, help with household responsibilities) or informational support (advice and counselling about nutrition, rest, stress management, use of alcohol/recreational drugs).
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
This updated review includes a total of 25 studies, with outcome data for 11,246 mothers and babies enrolled in 21 studies. We assessed the overall risk of bias of included studies to be low or unclear, mainly because of limited reporting or uncertainty in how randomisation was generated or concealed (which led us to downgrade the quality of most outcomes to moderate), and the impracticability of blinding participants.When compared with routine care, programmes offering additional social support for at-risk pregnant women may slightly reduce the number of babies born with a birthweight less than 2500 g from 127 per 1000 to 120 per 1000 (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.04; 16 studies, n = 11,770; moderate-quality evidence), and the number of babies born with a gestational age less than 37 weeks at birth from 128 per 1000 to 117 per 1000 (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01, 14 studies, n = 12,282; moderate-quality evidence), though the confidence intervals for the pooled effect for both of these outcomes just crossed the line of no effect, suggesting any effect is not large. There may be little or no difference between interventions for stillbirth/neonatal death (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.41; 15 studies, n = 12,091; low-quality evidence). Secondary outcomes of moderate quality suggested that there is probably a reduction in caesarean section (from 215 per 1000 to 194 per 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; 15 studies, n = 9550), a reduction in the number of antenatal hospital admissions per participant (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.91; 4 studies; n = 787), and a reduction in the mean number of hospitalisation episodes (mean difference -0.05, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.04; 1 study, n = 1525) in the social support group, compared to the controls.Postnatal depression and women's satisfaction were reported in different ways in the studies that considered these outcomes and so we could not include data in a meta-analysis. In one study postnatal depression appeared to be slightly lower in the support group in women who screened positively on the Edinbugh Postnatal Depression Scale at eight to 12 weeks postnatally (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.01; 1 study, n = 1008; moderate-quality evidence). In another study, again postnatal depression appeared to be slightly lower in the support group and this was a self-report measure assessed at six weeks postnatally (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; 1 study, n = 458; low-quality evidence). A higher proportion of women in one study reported that their prenatal care was very helpful in the supported group (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.30; 1 study, n = 223; moderate-quality evidence), although in another study results were similar. Another study assessed satisfaction with prenatal care as being "not good" in 51 of 945 in the additional support group, compared with 45 of 942 in the usual care group.No studies considered long-term morbidity for the infant. No single outcome was reported in all studies. Subgroup analysis demonstrated consistency of effect when the support was provided by a healthcare professional or a trained lay worker.The descriptions of the additional social support were generally consistent across all studies and included emotional support, tangible support such as home visits, and informational support.
Pregnant women need the support of caring family members, friends, and health professionals. While programmes that offer additional social support during pregnancy are unlikely to have a large impact on the proportion of low birthweight babies or birth before 37 weeks' gestation and no impact on stillbirth or neonatal death, they may be helpful in reducing the likelihood of caesarean birth and antenatal hospital admission.
The variant rs4769613 T/C within the enhancer element near
, an acknowledged gene in preeclampsia, was previously identified as a risk factor for preeclampsia in the genome-wide association study ...(GWAS) targeting placental genotypes. We aimed to test the robustness of this association in 2 Estonian cohorts. Both placental sample sets HAPPY PREGNANCY (Development of novel non-invasive biomarkers for fertility and healthy pregnancy; preeclampsia, n=44 versus nonpreeclampsia, n=1724) and REPROMETA (REPROgrammed fetal and/or maternal METAbolism; 52/277) exhibited suggestive association between rs4769613C variant and preeclampsia (logistic regression adjusted for gestational age and fetal sex, nominal
<0.05). Meta-analysis across 2 samples (96/2001) replicated the genome-wide association study outcome (Bonferroni corrected
=4×10
; odds ratio, 1.75 95% CI, 1.23-2.49). No association was detected with gestational diabetes mellitus, preterm birth, and newborn parameters. Also, neither maternal nor paternal rs4769613 genotypes predisposed to preeclampsia. The exact role of placental rs4769613 genotype in the preeclampsia pathogenesis is to be clarified as no effect was detected on maternal baseline serum sFlt-1 (soluble fms-related receptor tyrosine kinase 1) levels. However, when placental
gene expression and maternal serum sFlt-1 measurements were stratified by placental rs4769613 genotypes, significantly higher transcript and biomarker levels were detected in preeclampsia versus nonpreeclampsia cases in the CC- and CT- (Student
test,
≤0.02), but not in the TT-genotype subgroup. We suggest that rs4769613 represents a conditional expression Quantitative Trait Locus, whereby only the enhancer with the C-allele reacts to promote the
expression in unfavorable placental conditions. The study highlighted that the placental
rs4769613 C-allele is a preeclampsia-specific risk factor. It may contribute to early identification of high-risk women, for example, when genotyped in the cffDNA available in maternal blood plasma.
Bed rest in hospital or at home is widely recommended for the prevention of preterm birth. This advice is based on the observation that hard work and hard physical activity during pregnancy could be ...associated with preterm birth and with the idea that bed rest could reduce uterine activity. However, bed rest may have some adverse effects on other outcomes.
To evaluate the effect of prescription of bed rest in hospital or at home for preventing preterm birth in pregnant women at high risk of preterm birth.
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (18 December 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE (December 2014), EMBASE (December 2014), LILACS (December 2014), and bibliographies of relevant papers.
Randomized, cluster-randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials with reported data that assess clinical outcomes in women at high risk of spontaneous preterm birth who were prescribed bed rest in hospital or at home for preventing preterm birth, and their babies.
Two review authors independently assessed eligibility, trial quality and extracted data.
Two studies met the inclusion criteria. One study was not considered for the meta-analysis, since data combined singleton and multiple pregnancies. No differences in any maternal and perinatal outcomes were reported by the authors. This study was at low risk of selection, performance, detection and attrition bias. Only data from one study were included in the meta-analysis (1266 women). This study was at unclear risk of bias for most domains due to lack of reporting. Four hundred and thirty-two women were prescribed bed rest at home and a total of 834 women received a placebo (412) or no intervention (422). Preterm birth before 37 weeks was similar in both groups (7.9% in the intervention group versus 8.5% in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 1.37). No other results were reported for any of the other primary or secondary outcomes.
There is no evidence, either supporting or refuting the use of bed rest at home or in hospital, to prevent preterm birth. Although bed rest in hospital or at home is widely used as the first step of treatment, there is no evidence that this practice could be beneficial. Due to the potential adverse effects that bed rest could have on women and their families, and the increased costs for the healthcare system, clinicians should discuss the pros and cons of bed rest to prevent preterm birth. Potential benefits and harms should be discussed with women facing an increased risk of preterm birth. Appropriate research is mandatory. Future trials should evaluate both the effectiveness of bed rest, and the effectiveness of the prescription of bed rest, to prevent preterm birth.
Magnesium is an essential mineral required for regulation of body temperature, nucleic acid and protein synthesis and in maintaining nerve and muscle cell electrical potentials. Many women, ...especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, have low intakes of magnesium. Magnesium supplementation during pregnancy may be able to reduce fetal growth restriction and pre-eclampsia, and increase birthweight.
To assess the effects of magnesium supplementation during pregnancy on maternal, neonatal/infant and paediatric outcomes.
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2013).
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials assessing the effects of dietary magnesium supplementation during pregnancy were included. The primary outcomes were perinatal mortality (including stillbirth and neonatal death prior to hospital discharge), small-for-gestational age, maternal mortality and pre-eclampsia.
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.
Ten trials involving 9090 women and their babies were included; one trial had a cluster design (with randomisation by study centre). All 10 trials randomly allocated women to either an oral magnesium supplement or a control group; in eight trials a placebo was used, and in two trials no treatment was given to the control group. In the 10 included trials, the compositions of the magnesium supplements, gestational ages at commencement, and doses administered varied, including: magnesium oxide, 1000 mg daily from ≤ four months post-conception (one trial); magnesium citrate, 365 mg daily from ≤ 18 weeks until hospitalisation after 38 weeks (one trial), and 340 mg daily from nine to 27 weeks' gestation (one trial); magnesium gluconate, 2 to 3 g from 28 weeks' gestation until birth (one trial), and 4 g daily from 23 weeks' gestation (one trial); magnesium aspartate, 15 mmol daily (three trials, commencing from either six to 21 weeks' gestation until birth, ≤ 16 weeks' gestation until birth, or < 12 weeks until birth), or 365 mg daily from 13 to 24 weeks until birth (one trial); and magnesium stearate, 128 mg elemental magnesium from 10 to 35 weeks until birth (one trial).In the analysis of all trials, oral magnesium supplementation compared to no magnesium was associated with no significant difference in perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal death prior to discharge) (risk ratio (RR) 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.67; five trials, 5903 infants), small-for-gestational age (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.07; three trials, 1291 infants), or pre-eclampsia (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.32; three trials, 1042 women). None of the included trials reported on maternal mortality.Considering secondary outcomes, while no increased risk of stillbirth was observed, a possible increased risk of neonatal death prior to hospital discharge was shown for infants born to mothers who had received magnesium (RR 2.21; 95% CI 1.02 to 4.75; four trials, 5373 infants). One trial contributed over 70% of the participants to the analysis for this outcome; the trial authors suggested that the large number of severe congenital anomalies in the supplemented group (unlikely attributable to magnesium) and the deaths of two sets of twins (with birthweights < 750 g) in the supplemented group likely accounted for the increased risk of death observed, and thus this result should be interpreted with caution. Furthermore, when the deaths due to severe congenital abnormalities in this trial were excluded from the meta-analysis, no increased risk of neonatal death was seen for the magnesium supplemented group. Magnesium supplementation was associated with significantly fewer babies with an Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.80; four trials, 1083 infants), with meconium-stained liquor (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.99; one trial, 4082 infants), late fetal heart decelerations (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.88; one trial, 4082 infants), and mild hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.98; one trial, 4082 infants). Women receiving magnesium were significantly less likely to require hospitalisation during pregnancy (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.86; three trials, 1158 women).Of the 10 trials included in the review, only two were judged to be of high quality overall. When an analysis was restricted to these two trials none of the review's primary outcomes (perinatal mortality, small-for-gestational age, pre-eclampsia) were significantly different between the magnesium supplemented and control groups.
There is not enough high-quality evidence to show that dietary magnesium supplementation during pregnancy is beneficial.
Adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs)-including pre-term birth, pre-eclampsia, and intrauterine growth restriction-are common interrelated disorders caused by placental dysfunction and maternal vascular ...abnormalities (endothelial activation, inflammation, and vasospasm) that occur in approximately 10% to 20% of pregnancies. Women who experience APOs are at increased risk for future cardiovascular disease (CVD). APOs are associated with increased risk of development of hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy/dysfunction, vascular dysfunction, and renal dysfunction. The vascular abnormalities that are present during an APO also underlie common, difficult-to-treat forms of CVD in women as they age (e.g., cardiac microvascular dysfunction, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction), suggesting shared mechanistic pathways for APOs and CVD. Here, the authors synthesize the current information and knowledge gaps regarding the progression from APO to CVD. Understanding the risk factors for and pathogenesis of APO-related cardiovascular dysfunction is a critical unmet need that could inform efforts to prevent and more effectively treat CVD in women.
Objective
To assess the effects of the COVID‐19 pandemic on obstetric care and outcomes.
Methods
A prospective observational single‐center study was performed, including all antenatal and parturient ...women admitted from April to August, 2020. Data were collected regarding number of admissions, deliveries, antenatal visits, reason for inaccessibility of health care, and complications during pregnancy, and compared with data from the pre‐COVID period of October 2019 to February 2020.
Results
There was a reduction of 45.1% in institutional deliveries (P < 0.001), a percentage point increase of 7.2 in high‐risk pregnancy, and 2.5‐fold rise in admission to the intensive care unit of pregnant women during the pandemic. One‐third of women had inadequate antenatal visits. The main reason for delayed health‐seeking was lockdown and fear of contracting infection, resulting in 44.7% of pregnancies with complications. Thirty‐two symptomatic women who tested positive for COVID‐19 were managed at the center with good maternal and fetal outcomes.
Conclusion
Although COVID‐19 does not directly affect pregnancy outcomes, it has indirect adverse effects on maternal and child health. Emergency obstetric and antenatal care are essential services to be continued with awareness of people while maintaining social distancing and personal hygiene.
There are indirect adverse effects of COVID‐19 on maternal health as the rate of complications increases.
PDF
