Search

Objective  The study aimed to compare the quantitative blood loss (QBL) and hemorrhage-related outcomes of pregnant women with and without a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis. Study Design  This retrospective cohort study of all live deliveries at Boston Medical Center between April 1, 2020 and July 22, 2020 compares the outcomes of pregnant women with a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 positive diagnosis and pregnant women without COVID-19. The primary outcomes are QBL and obstetric hemorrhage. The secondary outcomes analyzed were a maternal composite outcome that consisted of obstetric hemorrhage, telemetry-level (intermediate care unit) or intensive care unit, transfusion, length of stay greater than 5 days, or intraamniotic infection, and individual components of the maternal composite outcome. Groups were compared using Student's t -test, Chi-squared tests, or Fisher's exact. Logistic regression was used to adjust for confounding variables. Results  Of 813 women who delivered a live infant between April 1 and July 22, 2020, 53 women were diagnosed with COVID-19 on admission to the hospital. Women with a COVID-19 diagnosis at their time of delivery were significantly more likely to identify as a race other than white (p  = 0.01), to deliver preterm (p  = 0.05), to be diagnosed with preeclampsia with severe features (p  < 0.01), and to require general anesthesia (p  < 0.01). Women diagnosed with COVID-19 did not have a significantly higher QBL (p  = 0.64). COVID-19 positive pregnant patients had no increased adjusted odds of obstetric hemorrhage (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.17–1.04) and no increased adjusted odds of the maternal morbidity composite (aOR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.50–1.93) when compared with those without a diagnosis of COVID-19. Conclusion  Pregnant women with COVID-19 diagnosis do not have increased risk for obstetric hemorrhage, increased QBL or risk of maternal morbidity compared with pregnant women without a COVID-19 diagnosis. Further research is needed to describe the impact of a COVID-19 diagnosis on maternal hematologic physiology and pregnancy outcomes. Key Points Information about blood loss associated with peripartum COVID-19 is limited. COVID-19 diagnosis is not associated with increase in obstetric hemorrhage. COVID-19 diagnosis is not associated with increase in blood loss. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective We aim to examine whether outcomes of preterm birth (PTB) are further modified by the indication for delivery. Study Design We performed a retrospective cohort study of all singletons delivered at 23 to 34 weeks from 2011 to 2014. Women were classified by their primary indication for delivery: maternal (preeclampsia) or fetal/obstetric (growth restriction, nonreassuring fetal status, and vaginal bleeding). The primary neonatal outcome was a composite of neonatal death, cord pH <7 or base excess < -12, 5-minute Apgar ≤3, Creactive protein during resuscitation, culture-proven sepsis, intraventricular hemorrhage, and necrotizing enterocolitis. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome. Groups were compared using Student's t-test and chi-squared tests. Logistic regression was used to adjust for confounding variables. Results Of 528 women, 395 (74.8%) were delivered for maternal and 133 (25.2%) for fetal/obstetric indications. Compared with those delivered for a maternal indication, those with a fetal/obstetric indication for delivery had an increased risk of the composite neonatal outcome (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.13-3.21) and acidemia at birth (AOR: 4.2, 95% CI: 1.89-9.55). Conclusion Preterm infants delivered for fetal/obstetric indications have worsened outcomes compared with those delivered formaternal indications. Additional research is needed to further tailor counseling specific to the indication for delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Scheduled cesarean is frequently performed for fetal growth restriction due to concerns for fetal intolerance of labor. Objective We compared neonatal outcomes in preterm growth-restricted fetuses by intended mode of delivery. Study Design We performed a retrospective cohort study of indicated pretermbirths with prenatally diagnosed growth restriction from 2011 to 2014 at a single institution. Patients were classified by intended mode of delivery. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse neonatal outcomes, including perinatal death, cord blood acidemia, chest compressions during neonatal resuscitation, seizures, culture-proven sepsis, necrotizing enterocolitis, and grade III-IV intraventricular hemorrhage. Secondary analysis was performed examining the impact of umbilical artery Dopplers. Results Of 101 fetuses with growth restriction, 75 underwent planned cesarean deliveries. Of those induced, 46.2% delivered vaginally. Delivery by scheduled cesarean was not associated with a decreased risk of the composite outcome (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-5.78), even when only those with abnormal umbilical artery Dopplers were considered (aOR, 2.8; 95% CI, 0.40-20.2). Conclusion In this cohort, planned cesarean was not associated with a reduction in neonatal morbidity, even when considering only those with abnormal umbilical artery Dopplers. In otherwise appropriate candidates for vaginal delivery, fetal growth restriction should not be considered a contraindication to trial of labor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Patient safety concerns over the past 2 decades have prompted widespread efforts to reduce adverse events (AEs). It is unclear whether these efforts have resulted in reductions in hospital-wide AE rates. We used a validated safety surveillance tool, the Global Assessment of Pediatric Patient Safety, to measure temporal trends (2007-2012) in AE rates among hospitalized children. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective surveillance study of randomly selected pediatric inpatient records from 16 teaching and nonteaching hospitals. We constructed Poisson regression models with hospital random intercepts, controlling for patient age, sex, insurance, and chronic conditions, to estimate changes in AE rates over time. RESULTS: Examining 3790 records, reviewers identified 414 AEs (19.1 AEs per 1000 patient days; 95% confidence interval [CI] 17.2-20.9) and 210 preventable AEs (9.5 AEs per 1000 patient days; 95% CI 8.2-10.8). On average, teaching hospitals had higher AE rates than nonteaching hospitals (26.2 [95% CI 23.7-29.0] vs 5.1 [95% CI 3.7-7.1] AEs per 1000 patient days, P < .001). Chronically ill children had higher AE rates than patients without chronic conditions (33.9 [95% CI 24.5-47.0] vs 14.0 [95% CI 11.8-16.5] AEs per 1000 patient days, P < .001). Multivariate analyses revealed no significant changes in AE rates over time. When stratified by hospital type, neither teaching nor nonteaching hospitals experienced significant temporal AE rate variations. CONCLUSIONS: AE rates in pediatric inpatients are high and did not improve from 2007 to 2012. Pediatric AE rates were substantially higher in teaching hospitals as well as in patients with more chronic conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]