Search

While global maternal mortality has decreased in the last 25 years, the maternal mortality ratio in the United States has actually increased. Maternal mortality is a complex phenomenon involving multifaceted socioeconomic and clinical parameters including inequalities in access to health care, racial and ethnic disparities, maternal comorbidities, and epidemiologic ascertainment bias. Escalating maternal mortality underscores the importance of clinician preparedness to respond to maternal cardiac arrest that may occur in any maternal health care setting. Management of maternal cardiac arrest requires an interdisciplinary team familiar with the physiologic changes of pregnancy and the maternal resuscitation algorithm. Interventions intended to mitigate obstacles such as aortocaval compression, which may undermine the success of resuscitation interventions, must be performed concurrent to standard basic and advanced cardiac life support maneuvers. High-quality chest compressions and oxygenation must be performed along with manual left lateral uterine displacement when the uterine size is ≥20 weeks. While deciphering the etiology of maternal cardiac arrest, diagnoses unique to pregnancy and those of the nonpregnant state should be considered at the same time. If initial basic life support and advanced cardiac life support interventions fail to restore maternal circulation within 4 minutes of cardiac arrest, perimortem delivery is advised provided the uterus is ≥20 weeks' size. Preparations for perimortem delivery are best anticipated by the resuscitation team for the procedure to be executed opportunely. Following delivery, intraabdominal examination may reveal a vascular catastrophe, hematoma, or both. If return of spontaneous circulation has not been achieved, additional interventions may include cardiopulmonary bypass and/or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Simulation and team training enhance institution readiness for maternal cardiac arrest. Knowledge gaps are significant in the science of maternal resuscitation. Further research is required to fully optimize: relief of aortocaval compression during the resuscitation process, gestational age and timing of perimortem delivery, and other interventions that deviate from nonpregnant standard resuscitation protocol to achieve successful maternal resuscitation. A robust detailed national and international prospective database was recommended by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation in 2015 to facilitate further research unique to cardiac arrest during pregnancy that will produce optimal resuscitation techniques for maternal cardiac arrest., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Although there is limited evidence that antepartum testing decreases the risk for fetal death in low-risk pregnancies, women with high-risk factors for stillbirth should undergo antenatal fetal surveillance. The strongest evidence supporting antepartum testing pertains to pregnancies complicated by intrauterine fetal growth restriction secondary to uteroplacental insufficiency. The main ultrasound-based modalities to determine fetal health are the biophysical profile, modified biophysical profile, and duplex Doppler velocimetry. In patients at risk for cardiovascular compromise, fetal echocardiography may also be indicated to ensure fetal well-being. Although no single antenatal test has been shown to be superior, all have high negative predictive values. Weekly or twice-weekly fetal testing has become the standard practice in high-risk pregnancies. The timing for the initiation of assessments of fetal well-being should be tailored on the basis of the risk for stillbirth and the likelihood of survival with intervention. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Imaging is used to detect and characterize adnexal masses and to stage ovarian cancer both before and after initial treatment, although the role for imaging in screening for ovarian cancer has not been established. CT and MRI have been used to determine the resectability of tumors, the candidacy of patients for effective cytoreductive surgery, the need for postoperative chemotherapy if debulking is suboptimal, and the need for referral to a gynecologic oncologist. Radiographic studies such as contrast enema and urography have been replaced by CT and other cross-sectional imaging for staging ovarian cancer. Contrast-enhanced CT is the procedure of choice for preoperative staging of ovarian cancer. MRI without and with contrast may be useful after equivocal CT, but is usually not the best initial procedure for ovarian cancer staging. Fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-PET/CT may not be needed preoperatively, but its use is appropriate for detecting and defining post-treatment recurrence. Ultrasound is useful for evaluating adnexal disease, but has limited utility for staging ovarian cancer. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare maternal and neonatal outcomes of pregestational and gestational diabetics treated with insulin glargine versus Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin., Methods: A retrospective cohort study examining outcomes from pregestational and gestational diabetics treated with either insulin regimen. Comparisons were made using the t-test for continuous data and the Chi-square or Fisher's exact test for categorical data., Results: Fifty-two pregnant women treated with insulin glargine were compared with 60 pregnant women treated with NPH. No significant differences in rates of maternal complications were noted. No significant differences in neonatal outcomes for gestational diabetics were noted. Among pregestational diabetics treated with insulin glargine, significantly fewer macrosomic infants (relative risk [RR], 0.38; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.17-0.87; p = 0.04) and lower rates of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.07-0.98; p = 0.05) were noted when compared with those treated with NPH. There were no cases of neonatal hypoglycemia in pregestational diabetics treated with glargine; however, 25% of infants born to mothers treated with NPH experienced hypoglycemia (p = 0.01). No fetal anomalies or deaths were observed in either treatment group., Conclusion: Insulin glargine use during pregnancy is not associated with increased maternal or neonatal morbidity compared with NPH insulin. Among pregestational diabetics, insulin glargine use was associated with lower rates of macrosomia, neonatal hypoglycemia and neonatal hyperbilirubinemia.

Recently, applications for subspecialty fellowship positions in obstetrics and gynecology have increased dramatically. A survey completed by fellows in Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM), Reproductive Endocrinology (REI), Gynecologic Oncology (Gyn Onc), and Urogynecology (Urogyn) training programs in the United States between January and March 2006 was aimed at determining why this trend was occuring. Of 449 fellows in 2006, 192 (42.8%) responded. The two most influential factors in all four subspecialties were interest and lifestyle (P < .001). Although these factors were similar throughout all subspecialties, variations exist in how fellows rated each factor by subspecialty. An overwhelming majority (99%) of fellows were either "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with their decisions to pursue fellowship training. The majority of fellows believe that when compared to a generalist Obstetrician/Gynecologist (OB/GYN) they will have a reduced workload, decreased liability, and a higher salary. The recent increase in the number of fellowship applicants is most likely due to a complex interplay of multiple factors.