Search

Patients remain at risk for persistent and de novo postpartum hypertension related to pregnancy. This review aims to summarize the current definitions, clinical practices, and novel systems innovations and therapies for postpartum hypertension.Recent changes to the definitions of hypertension outside of pregnancy have not yet impacted definitions or management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP), though research examining the implications of these new definitions on risks of developing HDP and the resultant sequelae is ongoing. The administration of diuretics has been shown to reduce postpartum hypertension among women with HDP. Widespread implementation of telemedicine models and remote assessment of ambulatory blood pressures has increased data available on postpartum blood pressure trajectories, which may impact clinical management. Additionally, policy changes such as postpartum Medicaid extension and an increasing emphasis on building bridges to primary care in the postpartum period may improve long-term outcomes for women with postpartum hypertension. Prediction models utilizing machine learning are an area of ongoing research to assist with risk assessment in the postpartum period.The clinical management of postpartum hypertension remains focused on blood pressure control and primary care transition for cardiovascular disease risk reduction. In recent years, systemic innovations have improved access through implementation of new care delivery models. However, the implications of changing definitions of hypertension outside of pregnancy, increased data assessing blood pressure trajectories in the postpartum period, and the creation of new risk prediction models utilizing machine learning remain areas of ongoing research.

BackgroundPrenatal care, one of the most common preventive care services in the United States, endeavors to improve pregnancy outcomes through evidence-based screenings and interventions. Despite the prevalence of prenatal care and its importance to maternal and infant health, there are several debates about the best methods of prenatal care delivery, including the most appropriate schedule frequency and content of prenatal visits. Current U.S. national guidelines recommend that low-risk individuals receive a standard schedule of 12 to 14 in-office visits, a care delivery model that has remained unchanged for almost a century.ObjectivesIn early 2020, to mitigate individuals’ exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, prenatal care providers implemented new paradigms that altered the schedule frequency, interval, and modality (e.g., telemedicine) of how prenatal care services were offered. In this manuscript, we describe development of a core outcome set (COS) that can be used to evaluate the effect of the frequency of prenatal care schedules on maternal and infant outcomes.MethodsWe will systematically review the literature to identify previously reported outcomes important to individuals who receive prenatal care and the people who care for them. Stakeholders with expertise in prenatal care delivery (i.e., patients/family members, healthcare providers, and public health professionals and policymakers) will rate the importance of identified outcomes in an online survey using a three-round Delphi process. A virtual consensus meeting will be held for a group of stakeholder representatives to discuss and vote on the outcomes to include in the final COS.ResultsThe Delphi survey was initiated in July 2022 with 71 stakeholders invited. A virtual consensus conference was conducted on October 11, 2022. Data is currently under analysis.ConclusionsMore research about the optimal schedule frequency and modality for prenatal care delivery is needed. Standardizing outcomes that are measured and reported in evaluations of the recommended prenatal care schedules will assist evidence synthesis and results reported in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Overall, this COS will expand the consistency and patient-centeredness of reported outcomes for various prenatal care delivery schedules and modalities, hopefully improving the overall efficacy of recommended care delivery for pregnant people and their families.Trial RegistrationThis study was registered in the Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness (COMET) database on January 18, 2022, registration #2021http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2021.

Objective We aimed to describe hemoglobin (Hb) change after transfusion in the nonacute postpartum anemic population in order to provide clinicians with appropriate expectations regarding Hb rise posttransfusion. Study Design We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial comparing initial transfusion with 1 unit of packed red blood cells (pRBCs) to 2 units pRBCs for postpartum women requiring nonacute transfusion (n = 66). Inclusion criteria were: age 18 years and older, Hb level either 7 g/dL with signs or symptoms of anemia, and > 6 hours postpartum without contraindication to transfusion. Hb assessment was performed 4 to 6 hours after initial transfusion. Hb change (ΔHb) was calculated as posttransfusion Hb minus randomization Hb. Our primary goal was to describe mean ΔHb per pRBC transfused at the 4- to 6-hour posttransfusion blood count. We also compared ΔHb per pRBC transfused by number of units transfused, body mass index (BMI), and symptoms (dizziness and/or fatigue) at time of posttransfusion assessment. Results Participants were mean age 29, mean BMI of 27, and over 70% self-identified as black, 12% identified as white, and 9% as Asian race. Mean Hb prior to transfusion was 6.9 ± 0.6 g/dL. Mean ΔHb per pRBC transfused was 0.9 ± 0.4g/dL. There was no difference in ΔHb per pRBC by BMI category (normal weight Conclusion Our data supports the classically accepted rise in Hb after pRBC of approximately 1 g/dL, regardless of BMI category or anemia symptomatology. The study population includes patients at highest risk of postpartum anemia. The results of our study provide important information for clinicians caring for postpartum patients with nonacute anemia. Key Points

OBJECTIVE To evaluate race and ethnicity differences in cesarean birth and maternal morbidity in low-risk nulliparous people at term. METHODS We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized trial of expectant management compared with induction of labor in low-risk nulliparous people at term. The primary outcome was cesarean birth. Secondary outcome was maternal morbidity, defined as: transfusion of 4 or more units of red blood cells, any transfusion of other products, postpartum infection, intensive care unit admission, hysterectomy, venous thromboembolism, or maternal death. Multivariable modified Poisson regression was used to evaluate associations between race and ethnicity, cesarean birth, and maternal morbidity. Indication for cesarean birth was assessed using multivariable multinomial logistic regression. A mediation model was used to estimate the portion of maternal morbidity attributable to cesarean birth by race and ethnicity. RESULTS Of 5,759 included participants, 1,158 (20.1%) underwent cesarean birth; 1,404 (24.3%) identified as non-Hispanic Black, 1,670 (29.0%) as Hispanic, and 2,685 (46.6%) as non-Hispanic White. Adjusted models showed increased relative risk of cesarean birth among non-Hispanic Black (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 1.21, 95% CI 1.03-1.42) and Hispanic (aRR 1.26, 95% CI 1.08-1.46) people compared with non-Hispanic White people. Maternal morbidity affected 132 (2.3%) individuals, and was increased among non-Hispanic Black (aRR 2.05, 95% CI 1.21-3.47) and Hispanic (aRR 1.92, 95% CI 1.17-3.14) people compared with non-Hispanic White people. Cesarean birth accounted for an estimated 15.8% (95% CI 2.1-48.7%) and 16.5% (95% CI 4.0-44.0%) of excess maternal morbidity among non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic people, respectively. CONCLUSION Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic nulliparous people who are low-risk at term undergo cesarean birth more frequently than low-risk non-Hispanic White nulliparous people. This difference accounts for a modest portion of excess maternal morbidity.

Background The purpose of this study was to estimate prevalence of asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among patients admitted to obstetric inpatient units throughout the United States as detected by universal screening. We sought to describe the relationship between obstetric inpatient asymptomatic infection rates and publicly available surrounding community infection rates. Methods A cross-sectional study in which medical centers reported rates of positive SARS-CoV-2 testing in asymptomatic pregnant and immediate postpartum patients over a 1–3-month time span in 2020. Publicly reported SARS-CoV-2 case rates from the relevant county and state for each center were collected from the COVID Act Now dashboard and the COVID Tracking Project for correlation analysis. Results Data were collected from 9 health centers, encompassing 18 hospitals. Participating health centers were located in Alabama, California, Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, and Washington State. Each hospital had an active policy for universal SARS-CoV-2 testing on obstetric inpatient units. A total of 10 147 SARS-CoV-2 tests were administered, of which 124 were positive (1.2%). Positivity rates varied by site, ranging from 0–3.2%. While SARS-CoV-2 infection rates were lower in asymptomatic obstetric inpatient groups than the surrounding communities, there was a positive correlation between positivity rates in obstetric inpatient units and their surrounding county (P=.003, r=.782) and state (P=.007, r=.708). Conclusions Given the correlation between community and obstetric inpatient rates, the necessity of SARS-CoV-2–related healthcare resource utilization in obstetric inpatient units may be best informed by surrounding community infection rates., There was a significant positive correlation between SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates in obstetric inpatient units and their surrounding county and state. Healthcare resource utilization related to SARS-CoV-2 testing in obstetric inpatient units may be best informed by surrounding community infection rates.

To assess whether immediate or delayed pushing in the second-stage results in higher risk of pelvic floor morbidity.This study was a planned secondary aim of a multicenter randomized clinical trial that included nulliparous patients at 37 weeks of gestation or greater in labor with neuraxial analgesia. Participants were randomized in the second stage to initiate pushing immediately or wait 60 minutes before pushing. Participants had pelvic floor assessments at 1-5 days postpartum, 6 weeks postpartum, and 6 months postpartum. Rates of perineal lacerations, pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) measures, and scores on validated symptom-specific distress and quality-of-life questionnaires (PFDI-20 [Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory], PFIQ [Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire], FISI [Fecal Incontinence Severity Index], and MMHQ [Modified Manchester Health Questionnaire]) were compared. It was estimated that 630 participants would provide more than 80% power to detect a 40% difference in second-degree or greater perineal lacerations and approximately 80% power to detect a 40% difference in stage 2 or greater pelvic organ prolapse (POP).Among 2,414 participants in the primary trial conducted between May 19, 2014, and December 16, 2017, 941 (39%) had pelvic floor assessments: 452 immediate pushing and 489 delayed pushing. The mean age was 24.8 years, and 93.4% had vaginal delivery. There were no significant differences in perineal lacerations at delivery and POP at 6 weeks and 6 months postpartum. Changes from baseline in total and subscale scores for the PFDI-20, the PFIQ, and the MMHQ were not significantly different at 6 weeks postpartum and 6 months postpartum. The change in FISI score was higher in the immediate pushing group at 6 months (2.9±5.7 vs 2.0±4.5, difference 0.9, P=.01), but less than the minimum important difference of 4.Among nulliparous patients in the second stage with neuraxial analgesia, immediate pushing, compared with delayed pushing, did not increase perineal lacerations, POP-Q measures, or patient-reported pelvic floor symptoms at 6 weeks and 6 months postpartum.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02137200.

Objective We aimed to determine the risk of cesarean among women with obesity undergoing labor induction within a prospective trial that utilized a standardized labor protocol. Study Design This was a secondary analysis of a randomized trial of induction methods. Term (≥37 weeks) women with intact membranes undergoing induction with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop's score ≤6 and dilation ≤2 cm) were included. The trial utilized a labor protocol that standardized induction and active labor management, with recommendations for interventions at particular time points. Only women with a recorded body mass index (BMI) at prenatal care start were included in this analysis. The primary outcome was cesarean delivery compared between obese (≥30 kg/m2) and nonobese ( Results A total of 465 women were included: 207 (44.5%) obese and 258 (55.5%) nonobese. Women with obesity had a higher risk of cesarean compared with women without obesity (33.3 vs. 23.3%, p = 0.02), even when adjusting for parity, weight change over pregnancy, and indication for induction (adjusted relative risk [aRR] = 1.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.34–2.39]). Compared with women without obesity, women with obesity had a higher risk of failed induction (47.8 vs. 26.7%, p = 0.01) without a difference in arrest of active phase (p = 0.39), arrest of descent (p = 0.95) or fetal indication (p = 0.32), despite adherence to a standardized labor protocol. Conclusion Compared with women without obesity, women with obesity undergoing an induction are at increased risk of cesarean, in particular a failed induction, even within the context of standardized induction management. As standardized practices limit provider variation in labor management, this study may support physiologic differences in labor processes secondary to obesity. Key Points

Spending time in nature is associated with numerous mental health benefits, including reduced depression and improved well-being. However, few studies examine the most effective ways to nudge people to spend more time outside. Furthermore, the impact of spending time in nature has not been previously studied as a postpartum depression (PPD) prevention strategy. To fill these gaps, we developed and pilot tested Nurtured in Nature, a 4-week intervention leveraging a behavioral economics framework, and included a Nature Coach, digital nudges, and personalized goal feedback. We conducted a randomized controlled trial among postpartum women (n = 36) in Philadelphia, PA between 9/9/2019 and 3/27/2020. Nature visit frequency and duration was determined using GPS data. PPD was measured using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). Participants were from low-income, majority Black neighborhoods. Compared to control, the intervention arm had a strong trend toward longer duration and higher frequency of nature visits (IRR 2.6, 95%CI 0.96–2.75, p = 0.059). When analyzing women who completed the intervention (13 of 17 subjects), the intervention was associated with three times higher nature visits compared to control (IRR 3.1, 95%CI 1.16–3.14, p = 0.025). No significant differences were found in the EPDS scores, although we may have been limited by the study’s sample size. Nurture in Nature increased the amount of time postpartum women spent in nature, and may be a useful population health tool to leverage the health benefits of nature in majority Black, low-resourced communities. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11524-021-00544-z.

Persistent postpartum hypertension is a significant cause of maternal morbidity. Our objective was to study the effect of furosemide on postpartum blood pressure recovery in women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a 5-day course of 20 mg oral furosemide versus placebo in women with gestational hypertension and preeclampsia with/without severe features from June 2018 to October 2019. Primary outcomes were persistent hypertension at 7 days postpartum (using generalized linear models to calculate adjusted relative risk) and days to resolution of hypertension (Kaplan-Meier curves), stratified by severe/nonsevere hypertensive disease. Secondary outcomes included readmissions and need for additional hypertensive medication.We randomized 384 women (192 per group). Baseline characteristics were similar except cesarean delivery rate was higher in the furosemide group (29% versus 20%; P =0.04). In women randomized to furosemide, there was a 60% reduction in the prevalence of persistently elevated blood pressure at 7 days when controlling for cesarean (adjusted relative risk, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.20–0.81]). The magnitude of reduction was greater in women with nonsevere disease (adjusted relative risk, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.10–0.67]). Number of days to blood pressure resolution was significantly shorter among women with nonsevere disease randomized to furosemide (8.5 versus 10.5; P =0.001). There were no significant differences in readmissions or need for additional antihypertensive medication postpartum between groups. In this double-blinded randomized trial, a short course of postpartum furosemide significantly improved blood pressure control in women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, mostly among women without severe disease. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT035556761.

The aim of the study is to determine the relationship between a hospital's provision of subspecialty neonatal and maternal care. Specifically, we sought to understand where women with high-risk maternal conditions received intrapartum care and estimate the potential transfer burden for those with maternal high-risk conditions delivering at hospitals without subspecialty maternal care. This is a descriptive study using data from 2015 State Inpatient Databases and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey. Characteristics were compared between hospitals based on the concordance of their maternal and neonatal care. The incidences of high-risk maternal conditions (pre-eclampsia with severe features, placenta previa with prior cesarean delivery, cardiac disease, pulmonary edema, and acute liver failure) were compared. To determine the potential referral burden, the percent of women with high-risk conditions delivering at a hospital without subspecialty maternal care but delivering in a county with a hospital with subspecialty maternal care was calculated. The analysis included 486,398 women who delivered at 544 hospitals, of which 104 (19%) and 182 (33%) had subspecialty maternal and neonatal care, respectively. Ninety-eight hospitals provided both subspecialty maternal and neonatal care; however, 84 hospitals provided only subspecialty neonatal care but no subspecialty maternal care. Among high-risk maternal conditions examined, approximately 65% of women delivered at a hospital with subspecialty maternal care. Of the remainder who delivered at a hospital without subspecialty maternal care, one-third were in a county where subspecialty care was present. For women with high-risk conditions who delivered in a county without subspecialty maternal care, the median distance to the closest county with subspecialty care was 52.8 miles (IQR 34.3-87.7 miles). Approximately 50% of hospitals with subspecialty neonatal care do not provide subspecialty maternal care. This discordance may present a challenge when both high-risk maternal and neonatal conditions are present.· High-risk women who deliver at hospitals without subspecialty care are in more rural areas.. · Approximately 50% of hospitals with subspecialty neonatal care do not provide subspecialty maternal care.. · This discordance may present a challenge when both high-risk maternal and neonatal conditions are present..

OBJECTIVE: Standardized labor induction protocols utilizing evidence-based active management practices are associated with improved obstetric outcomes. However, these protocols are complex and include multiple components. We aimed to identify which of the individual components of an evidence-based labor induction protocol are most associated with reduced rates of cesarean delivery, maternal morbidity, and neonatal morbidity. STUDY DESIGN: This is a secondary analysis of a randomized trial comparing time to delivery among four labor induction methods. All patients enrolled in the trial had their labor managed with a multidisciplinary-developed, evidence-based standardized labor induction protocol. For each patient’s induction, we assessed adherence to seven components of the protocol. Primary outcomes included cesarean delivery, maternal morbidity, and neonatal morbidity. Bivariate analyses assessed the association of each protocol component with each outcome. Multivariable logistic regression determined independent predictors of each outcome. RESULTS: The 491 patients enrolled in the randomized trial were included in this analysis. For cesarean delivery, while adherence to four of the seven protocol components was associated with the outcome in bivariate analyses, only adherence to “cervical exams should be performed every 1–2 h in active labor” was associated with reduced cesarean rates when controlling for age, body mass index, and parity. For maternal morbidity, while adherence to “if misoprostol is utilized, it should not be continued beyond 6 doses or 24 h of use” was associated in bivariate analysis, it was no longer associated with the outcome in multivariable analysis. Finally, “cervical exams should be performed every 1–2 h in active labor” and “cervical exams should be performed every 2–4 h in latent labor” were associated with reduced neonatal morbidity both in bivariate analyses as well as when controlling for age, body mass index, and parity. CONCLUSIONS: Within a standardized labor induction protocol, adherence to cervical exams every 1–2 h in active labor was associated with reduced cesarean rate, and adherence to cervical exams every 2–4 h in latent labor, as well as every 1–2 h in active labor is associated with reduced neonatal morbidity. Regular cervical examination during labor induction likely allows for intervention when cervical change is not made. This data warrants further investigation into the optimal frequency of cervical exams during labor induction. Furthermore, an understanding of which components of a complex, evidence-based labor induction protocol are most effective may be helpful for streamlining and education around this protocol as implementation occurs across diverse sites.

OBJECTIVE To compare risks of maternal and perinatal outcomes by completed week of gestation from 39 weeks in low-risk nulliparous patients undergoing expectant management. METHODS We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized trial of elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation compared with expectant management in low-risk nulliparous patients. Participants with nonanomalous neonates, who were randomized to and underwent expectant management and attained 39 0/7 weeks of gestation, were included. Delivery gestation was categorized by completed week: 39 0/7-39 6/7 (39 weeks), 40 0/7-40 6/7 (40 weeks), and 41 0/7-42 2/7 (41-42 weeks) (none delivered after 42 2/7). The coprimary outcomes were cesarean delivery and a perinatal composite (death, respiratory support, 5-minute Apgar score 3 or less, hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, seizure, sepsis, meconium aspiration syndrome, birth trauma, intracranial or subgaleal hemorrhage, or hypotension requiring vasopressor support). Other outcomes included a maternal composite (blood transfusion, surgical intervention for postpartum hemorrhage, or intensive care unit admission), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, peripartum infection, and neonatal intermediate or intensive care unit admission. For multivariable analysis, P

Objective This study aimed to describe the response of labor and delivery (L&D) units in the United States to the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and determine how institutional characteristics and regional disease prevalence affect viral testing and personal protective equipment (PPE). Study Design A cross-sectional survey was distributed electronically through the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine e-mail database (n = 584 distinct practices) and social media between April 14 and 23, 2020. Participants were recruited through “snowballing.” A single representative was asked to respond on behalf of each L&D unit. Data were analyzed using Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. Multivariable regression was performed to explore characteristics associated with universal testing and PPE usage. Results A total of 301 surveys (estimated 51.5% response rate) was analyzed representing 48 states and two territories. Obstetrical units included academic (31%), community teaching (45%) and nonteaching hospitals (24%). Sixteen percent of respondents were from states with high prevalence, defined as higher “deaths per million” rates compared with the national average. Universal laboratory testing for admissions was reported for 40% (119/297) of units. After adjusting for covariates, universal testing was more common in academic institutions (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23–2.42) and high prevalence states (aOR = 2.68, 95% CI: 1.37–5.28). When delivering asymptomatic patients, full PPE (including N95 mask) was recommended for vaginal deliveries in 33% and for cesarean delivery in 38% of responding institutions. N95 mask use during asymptomatic vaginal deliveries remained more likely in high prevalence states (aOR = 2.56, 95% CI: 1.29–5.09) and less likely in hospitals with universal testing (aOR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.24–0.73). Conclusion Universal laboratory testing for COVID-19 is more common at academic institutions and in states with high disease prevalence. Centers with universal testing were less likely to recommend N95 masks for asymptomatic vaginal deliveries, suggesting that viral testing can play a role in guiding efficient PPE use. Key Points

Objective The aim of the study is to evaluate the association between amniotomy at various time points during labor induction and maternal and neonatal outcomes among term, nulliparous women. Study Design Secondary analysis of a randomized trial of term labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk, nulliparous women (2014–2017) was conducted. Women met inclusion criteria if they underwent induction ≥38 weeks' gestation using oxytocin with documented time and type of membrane rupture. Women with antepartum stillbirth or fetal anomaly were excluded. The primary outcome was cesarean delivery. Secondary outcomes included maternal and neonatal complications. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared among women with amniotomy versus women with intact membranes and no amniotomy at six 2-hour time intervals: before oxytocin initiation, 0 to Results Of 6,106 women in the parent trial, 2,854 (46.7%) women met inclusion criteria. Of these 2,340 (82.0%) underwent amniotomy, and majority of the women had amniotomy performed between 2 and 24 hours. Amniotomy at time intervals ≥2 hours and 3 days. Amniotomy was not associated with postpartum or neonatal complications. Conclusion Among a contemporary cohort of nulliparous women undergoing term labor induction, amniotomy was associated with either lower or similar odds of cesarean delivery and other adverse outcomes, compared with no amniotomy.

Objective To assess the risk factors associated with cesarean delivery in women with class III obesity (body mass index [BMI, calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared] 40 or higher) who are undergoing induction of labor. Methods This was a retrospective cohort of obese women with a BMI of 40 or higher and singleton pregnancy of 34 weeks of gestation or longer who underwent induction of labor at two large teaching institutions from January 2013 to December 2015. The primary outcome was cesarean delivery. Secondary outcomes included maternal and neonatal composite morbidity. We then assessed the applicability of using a previously developed calculator to predict the risk of cesarean delivery. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used as a measure of the ability of the calculator to discriminate between women who underwent cesarean compared with vaginal delivery. Results There were 485 women with class III obesity who underwent induction during the study period. Of the 428 women who met inclusion criteria, 81.8% had a BMI of 40-50, 14.5% had a BMI of 50-60, and 3.7% had a BMI higher than 60. The overall cesarean delivery rate was 49.1% (46% with BMI 40-50, 63% with BMI 50-60, and 69% with BMI higher than 60, P=.012). Of the 428 women studied, 77.6% were black and 55% were nulliparous. Nulliparity, height, initial cervical dilation, and modified Bishop score were associated with a higher rate of cesarean delivery in multivariable models. Maternal and neonatal composite morbidity was higher in obese women who underwent cesarean delivery, compared with those who delivered vaginally. The performance of a previously developed induction calculator applied to this cohort had an area under the ROC curve of 75% (95% CI 0.70-0.79). Conclusions In women with class III obesity who underwent labor induction, the cesarean delivery rate approaches 50%. Nulliparity, height, and unfavorable cervical examination were the most significant risk factors for cesarean delivery. This information can be used to augment counseling for the obese patient who is undergoing induction.

Hospital labor and delivery floors frequently operate like intensive care units (ICUs)-with continuous data feeds pouring into central monitoring stations against a background of blaring alarms. Yet the majority of obstetric patients are healthy and do not require ICU-level care. Despite limited organizational recommendations guiding the frequency of vital sign measurement, continuous pulse oximetry is used widely for laboring patients. There is also no evidence that morbidity prevention is linked to specific frequencies of vital sign monitoring in low-risk patients. In fact, studies examining the performance of maternal early warnings systems based on vital signs suggest that these may not reliably provide actionable information regarding maternal physiologic status. Furthermore, it is very possible that intrapartum maternal overmonitoring can impact care negatively by generating alarm fatigue, causing providers to miss actual abnormal vital signs that may precede morbidity. KEY POINTS: · Labor and delivery units may engage in maternal physiologic overmonitoring.. · Overmonitoring increases risk for alarm fatigue.. · Deimplementing low-value care may improve obstetric outcomes..

To compare health care medical resource utilization in low-risk nulliparous pregnancies according to body mass index (BMI, calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) categories.This is a secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial of induction of labor between 39 0/7 39 and 4/7 weeks of gestation compared with expectant management in low-risk nulliparous pregnant people, defined as those without standard obstetric indications for delivery at 39 weeks. Body mass index at randomization was categorized into four groups (lower than 25, 25-29, 30-39, and 40 or higher). The primary outcome of this analysis was time spent in the labor and delivery department from admission to delivery. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS) postdelivery, total hospital LOS, and antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum resource utilization, which were defined a priori. Multivariable generalized linear modeling and logistic regressions were performed, and 99% CIs were calculated.A total of 6,058 pregnant people were included in the analysis; 640 (10.6%) had BMIs of lower than 25, 2,222 (36.7%) had BMIs between 25 and 29, 2,577 (42.5%) had BMIs of 30-39, and 619 (10.2%) had BMIs of 40 or higher. Time spent in the labor and delivery department increased from 15.1±9.2 hours for people with BMIs of lower than 25 to 23.5±13.6 hours for people with BMIs of 40 or higher, and every 5-unit increase in BMI was associated with an average 9.8% increase in time spent in the labor and delivery department (adjusted estimate per 5-unit increase in BMI 1.10, 99% CI 1.08-1.11). Increasing BMI was not associated with an increase in antepartum resource utilization, except for blood tests and urinalysis. However, increasing BMI was associated with higher odds of intrapartum resource utilization, longer total hospital LOS, and postpartum resource utilization. For example, every 5-unit increase in BMI was associated with an increase of 26.1% in the odds of antibiotic administration, 57.6% in placement of intrauterine pressure catheter, 5.1% in total inpatient LOS, 31.0 in postpartum emergency department visit, and 23.9% in postpartum hospital admission.Among low-risk nulliparous people, higher BMI was associated with longer time from admission to delivery, total hospital LOS, and more frequent utilization of intrapartum and postpartum resources.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01990612.

To evaluate whether hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) among low-risk nulliparous women expectantly managed at or after 39 weeks of gestation are associated with adverse outcomes.Secondary analysis of a randomised trial.Multicentre, USA.Individuals in the expectantly managed group who delivered on or after 39 weeks.Multivariable analysis to estimate adjusted relative risks (aRR) for binomial outcomes, adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for multinomial outcomes and 95% CI.Composite adverse maternal outcome including placental abruption, pulmonary oedema, postpartum haemorrhage, postpartum infection, venous thromboembolism or intensive care unit admission. Secondary outcomes included a composite of perinatal death or severe neonatal complications, mode of delivery, small and large for gestational age and neonatal intermediate or intensive unit length of stay.Of the 3044 women randomised to expectant management in the original trial, 2718 (89.3%) were eligible for this analysis, of whom 373 (13.7%) developed HDP. Compared with participants who remained normotensive, those who developed HDP were more likely to experience the maternal composite (12% versus 6%, aRR 1.84, 95% CI 1.33-2.54) and caesarean delivery (29% versus 23%, aOR 1.32, 95% CI 1.01-1.71). Differences between the two groups were not significantly different for the adverse perinatal composite (7% versus 5%, aRR 1.38, 95% CI 0.92-2.07) or for other secondary outcomes.Almost 14% of low-risk nulliparous individuals expectantly managed at 39 weeks developed HDP, and were more likely to experience adverse maternal outcomes compared with those who did not develop HDP.Almost 14% of low-risk nulliparous individuals expectantly managed at 39 weeks developed hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and were more likely to experience adverse maternal outcomes compared with those who did not develop hypertensive disorders.

Pregnancy and childbirth are known risk factors associated with the development of pelvic organ prolapse; specific intrapartum risk factors are not well characterized.This study aimed to determine intrapartum factors associated with increased risk of pelvic organ prolapse identified after delivery.A planned secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized clinical trial of delayed vs immediate pushing among nulliparous women at ≥37 weeks of gestation in labor with neuraxial analgesia was conducted at 6 academic and community hospitals in the United States. Intrapartum characteristics were identified, and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification assessments at 6 weeks and 6 months after delivery were performed. The primary outcome was pelvic organ prolapse, defined as stage 2 or greater prolapse using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification assessment at 6 months. Multivariable logistic regression was used to refine risk estimates while adjusting for randomization group, macrosomia, and maternal age.Among the 941 women participating in the pelvic floor follow-up, 793 women had Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification assessments at 6 weeks with 91 of 793 women (11.5%) demonstrating stage 2 or greater prolapse. Of the 728 women followed up at 6 months, stage 2 or greater prolapse was identified in 58 of 728 women (8.0%). Prostaglandin use for induction of labor was associated with an increased risk at 6 months (adjusted odds ratio, 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-3.91; P.01). The length and type (spontaneous vs induced) of the first stage of labor were not significantly associated with stage 2 or greater prolapse. Moreover, increased length of the second stage of labor and duration of pushing were not associated with stage 2 or greater prolapse. After adjusting for confounding factors, cesarean delivery was protective of pelvic organ prolapse at 6 months (adjusted odds ratio, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.90).The management of the first and second stages of labor, including time length, was not associated with stage 2 or greater prolapse at 6 months. The findings that prostaglandin exposure was associated with increased risk likely were not directly affecting the risk of prolapse but may be surrogates for other labor features that deserve exploration. Cesarean delivery was associated with protection from stage 2 or greater pelvic organ prolapse at 6 months, consistent with previous literature.

ObjectiveIn response to the unacceptable racial disparities in US obstetric outcomes, our health system established a formal goal to reduce maternal morbidity for black women. Here, we describe our process for meeting this equity-focused goal in the context of diverse implementation climates at 5 inpatient sites.Study designTo meet the system goal, we established a collaborative of multidisciplinary, site-based teams. The validated 18-question Implementation Climate Scale (ICS) was distributed to site clinicians at baseline. Sites focused on haemorrhage, performing case reviews of black women meeting morbidity criteria. Comparing cases by site, site-specific areas for improvement in haemorrhage risk assessment, prevention and management emerged. Evidence-based practices (EBPs) were then selected, tailored and implemented by site. Monthly system-wide team meetings included (1) metric tracking and (2) site presentations with discussions around barriers/facilitators to EBP implementation. Maternal morbidity rates among black women were compared the year before goal development (1 July 2019–30 June 2020) to the year after (1 July 2020–30 June 2021).ResultsMean ICS scores for inpatient obstetric units differed by site (p=0.005), with climates more supportive of implementation at urban/academic hospitals. In response to case reviews, sites reported implementing 2 to 8 EBPs to meet the goal. Despite different ICS scores, this process was associated with significant reductions in maternal morbidity for black women from pregoal to postgoal development overall and at sites 1, 2 and 3, with non-statistically significant reductions at sites 4 and 5 (overall: −29.4% reduction, pConclusionsA health system goal of reducing maternal morbidity for black women led to a data-driven, collaborative model for implementing site-tailored interventions. If health systems prioritise equity-focused goals, sites can be supported in implementing EBPs that improve care.

BACKGROUND: In randomized trials, antepartum intravenous iron sucrose is effective at improving predelivery hemoglobin in iron deficiency anemia. Yet, there is a gap between this knowledge and its implementation into care. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine if the implementation of a standardized protocol for the management of antepartum anemia outside of a clinical trial improves intravenous iron sucrose utilization and clinical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a prospective cohort study evaluating the incorporation of an anemia protocol into routine clinical care for women with antepartum hemoglobin

This study aimed to evaluate maternal and neonatal outcomes by method of cervical ripening for labor induction among low-risk nulliparous individuals. This is a secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized trial of labor induction at 39 weeks versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous participants. Participants undergoing cervical ripening for labor induction in either group were included. Participants were excluded for preripening membrane rupture, abruption, chorioamnionitis, fetal demise, or cervical dilation ≥3.5 cm. Cervical ripening was defined by the initial method used: prostaglandin only (PGE; referent), Foley with concurrent prostaglandin (Foley-PGE), Foley only (Foley), and Foley with concurrent oxytocin (Foley-oxytocin). Coprimary outcomes were adverse maternal and neonatal composites. Secondary outcomes included cesarean delivery and length of labor and delivery (LD) stay. Multivariable analysis was used to adjust for patient characteristics. Of 6,106 participants included in the trial, 2,376 (38.9%) met criteria for this analysis. Of these, 1,247 (52.4%) had cervical ripening with PGE, 290 (12.2%) had Foley-PGE, 385 (16.2%) had Foley, and 454 (19.1%) had Foley-oxytocin. The maternal composite outcome was similar among participants who received Foley-PGE (24.1%, adjusted relative risk [aRR] = 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96-1.52), Foley (21.3%, aRR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.92-1.45), or Foley-oxytocin (19.4%, aRR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.83-1.29), compared with PGE (19.7%). The neonatal composite outcome was less frequent in participants who received the Foley-PGE (2.4%, aRR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.16-0.75) or Foley (3.6%, aRR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.29-0.89) but did not reach statistical significance for participants who received Foley-oxytocin (4.6%, aRR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.40-1.01) compared with PGE only (6.8%). Participants who received Foley-PGE or Foley-oxytocin had a shorter LD stay (adjusted mean difference = -1.97 hours, 95% CI: -3.45 to -0.49 and -5.92 hours, 95% CI: -7.07 to -4.77, respectively), compared with PGE. In term low-risk nulliparous participants, Foley alone or concurrent with PGE is associated with a lower risk of adverse neonatal outcomes than with PGE alone. Length of LD stay was the shortest with concurrent Foley-oxytocin.· Adverse maternal outcomes are similar among different methods of cervical ripening in low-risk women.. · Adverse neonatal outcomes are less frequent with use of Foley alone or in combination with PGE.. · The use of Foley alone, or in combination with other agents, appears to be beneficial..

The continued safety and preservation of the health care workforce is vital during the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Observational data show that appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE)—including masks and eyewear are paramount to slowing the spread.[1] Additionally, comprehensive screening strategies to help identify asymptomatic carriers will also protect the highest risk populations—including health care workers.[2] A recent systematic review of 16 cohort studies estimated that asymptomatic carriers accounted for approximately 40 to 45% of positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction tests, and this number is expected to rise as screening becomes more accessible.[3] Sutton et al wrote in their commentary in the New England Journal of Medicine that the use of universal SARS-CoV-2 testing in all pregnant patients presenting for delivery revealed that most of the patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 at delivery were asymptomatic, and more than one in eight asymptomatic patients who were admitted to the labor and delivery unit were positive for SARS-CoV-2 during a period of increased community transmission.[2] In an effort to characterize COVID-19 safety practices and resources at academic and community hospital obstetric units across the United States, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) administered a national survey to designated state liaisons regarding generalized testing and access to PPE in obstetrical units from April 7 to April 14, 2020. Results from the initial survey (“Survey I”) found wide variation in universal testing policies and PPE use in obstetrical units across the United States.[5] To determine how practices changed as rates across the country increased, SMFM re-administered the same survey from May 1, 2020 to May 22, 2020 (“Survey II”). Received: 10 September 2020Accepted: 11 September 2020Publication Date:26 September 2020 (online) © 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved. Thieme Medical Publishers333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Aim To measure the association between the nurse work environment (NWE) and missed nursing care on labour and delivery (L&D) units. Background L&D units provide a sizable fraction of acute hospital services to a unique population that is a national and global priority. L&D nurses are the frontline providers during labour. Maternal morbidity and mortality may be influenced by the NWE and missed care. Methods This cross-sectional study utilized secondary data from 1,313 L&D staff nurses in 247 hospitals from a four-state nurse survey collected in 2005-2008. Results Half of nurses missed care (range: zero to 100% across hospitals). Nurses on average missed 1.25 of 10 activities. The most commonly missed activities were comforting/talking with patients and teaching/counselling. In better as compared to poor NWEs, the odds and frequency of missed care were significantly lower. Conclusions L&D nurses routinely miss necessary nursing activities. Labouring women's psychosocial, comfort and educational needs are compromised most often, likely impacting quality and outcomes. Nurse communication with colleagues and managers about missed care is warranted. Implications for nursing management The L&D NWE is modifiable and appears to influence missed care. Managers should discuss missed care with staff and measure their NWE to identify actionable weaknesses.

Studies have demonstrated that antepartum intravenous iron sucrose infusion (IVFe) is safe and improves predelivery hemoglobin (Hb). Yet, there is little data guiding timing of administration or number of doses required to be impactful. We sought to determine if timing of antepartum IVFe and number of doses provided impacts efficacy.We performed a retrospective cohort study of women who obtained prenatal care and delivered at our institution 10/1/2015-10/30/2017. Women with a third-trimester hemoglobin (Hb)9.5 g/dL were included. Women with hemoglobinopathies and those who received an antepartum blood transfusion were excluded. Women receiving ≥1 antepartum 300 mg IVFe dose were considered in the IVFe group.Five-hundred-twenty-three (6.1%) of 8563 delivering women were included. Sixty-five (12.4%) of included women received IVFe. By timing of IVFe, the earlier IVFe was received before delivery, the greater the median Hb increase (No IVFe: Δ0.8g/dL, IVFe 0-1 weeks predelivery: Δ0.05 g/dL, 1-2 weeks: Δ0.9 g/dL, 2-4 weeks: Δ1.5 g/dL, 4-6 weeks: Δ1.8 g/dL, 6-8 weeks: Δ1.8 g/dL, 8-12 weeks: Δ2.75 g/dL,Antepartum IVFe effectively increases Hb from the third trimester to delivery admission when administered 2-12 weeks predelivery. There is increasing benefit the further out the IVFe is administered and with an increasing number of doses. Initiatives to combat antepartum anemia should focus on early detection and treatment to best optimize outcomes.

Objective Health care providers and health systems confronted new challenges to deliver timely, high-quality prenatal care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic as the pandemic raised concerns that care would be delayed or substantively changed. This study describes trends in prenatal care delivery in 2020 compared with 2018 to 2019 in a large, commercially insured population and investigates changes in obstetric care processes and outcomes. Study Design This retrospective cohort study uses de-identified administrative claims for commercially insured patients. Patients whose entire pregnancy took place from March 1 to December 31 in years 2018, 2019, and 2020 were included. Trends in prenatal care, including in-person, virtual, and emergency department visits, were evaluated, as were prenatal ultrasounds. The primary outcome was severe maternal morbidity (SMM). Secondary outcomes included preterm birth and stillbirth. To determine whether COVID-19 pandemic-related changes in prenatal care had an impact on maternal outcomes, we compared the outcome rates during the pandemic period in 2020 to equivalent periods in 2018 and 2019. Results In total, 35,112 patients were included in the study. There was a significant increase in the prevalence of telehealth visits, from 1.1 to 1.2% prior to the pandemic to 17.2% in 2020, as well as a significant decrease in patients who had at least one emergency department visit during 2020. Overall prenatal care and ultrasound utilization were unchanged. The rate of SMM across this period was stable (2.3–2.8%) with a statistically significant decrease in the preterm birth rate in 2020 (7.4%) compared with previous years (8.2–8.6%; p Conclusion At a time when many fields of health care were reshaped during the pandemic, these observations reveal considerable resiliency in both the processes and outcomes of obstetric care. Key Points