Search

Midwives and other health care providers face a dilemma when a pregnant woman develops a condition that usually is treated with a pharmacologic agent. Understanding of basic teratology associated with drugs as well as the FDA categorization of agents can assist professionals in recognizing which pharmaceuticals should be used or avoided. In addition to reviewing teratology, this article addresses the use of common drugs for the treatment of upper respiratory conditions, minor pain, gastrointestinal problems, psychiatric illnesses, and neurologic disorders. In each category, current evidence is presented pertaining to which agents should be recommended for pregnant women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prenatal patients are often exposed to respiratory viruses at home and at work. Understandably, these patients may be concerned and want immediate answers and advice from their physicians. While most women who are exposed to chickenpox are immune, serologic testing can be performed and susceptible patients can be treated with varicella-zoster immune globulin. If the prenatal patient is infected with the varicella-zoster virus, the risk of fetal manifestations is less than 2 percent. Women who have been exposed to fifth disease can undergo serologic testing to determine the likelihood of infection. If the prenatal patient becomes infected with fifth disease during the first 20 weeks of gestation, the risk of fetal manifestations is about 9 percent and includes nonimmune hydrops and death. Cytomegalovirus, which is the most common congenital infection, is generally asymptomatic in the mother. Infected fetuses have a 25 percent chance of developing early or late neurologic manifestations. The evidence of harm from other common respiratory viruses is inconsistent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Our goal was to evaluate the performance of prenatal serum screening for trisomy 18.Study Design: All 40,762 samples for maternal serum testing (August 1991 to June 1994) with a trisomy 18-positive screen (n = 175, alpha-fetoprotein < or =0.75 multiples of the median, unconjugated estriol < or =0.60 multiples of the median, human chorionic gonadotropin < or =0.55 multiples of the median) were analyzed. Results of all amniocenteses, ultrasonographic studies, and birth or death certificate information were obtained from the Iowa Expanded Serum Screening Program, the Iowa Department of Public Health, and the Iowa Birth Defects Registry.Results: We obtained the expected screen-positive rate for trisomy 18 (0.43%, 175/40,762). Fourteen samples from outside the state were excluded, which left 161 cases with outcome data obtained through amniocentesis (n = 121), birth certificates (n = 34), telephone contact (n = 2), or a sonogram indicating a nonviable gestation (n = 4). Of 121 screen-positive women undergoing amniocentesis, 119 had a normal karyotype and 2 had an abnormal karyotype: 69,XXY and 47,XY,+18. Of 36 who declined amniocentesis, none had findings consistent with aneuploidy on clinical neonatal examination. Of the 103 patients who had a detailed ultrasonographic study at the University of Iowa, 27 had a subtle fetal abnormality or growth alteration. Both cases with aneuploidy were in this group. An additional 7 cases of trisomy 18 without the typical trisomy 18 maternal serum screening pattern were diagnosed during this period either at amniocentesis performed because of increased Down syndrome risk indicated by serum screening (n = 1), by elevated alpha-fetoprotein level (n = 1), or by advanced maternal age (n = 2) with serum for screening drawn coincidentally, or they were diagnosed postnatally (n = 3). Three of the 7 cases had early second-trimester ultrasonographic examinations, and all showed abnormalities.Conclusions: The detection rate of trisomy 18 among patients offered amniocentesis was significantly lower (p < 0.05) than the expected rate (10/161 on the basis of published data). Combining serum screening with detailed ultrasonographic evaluations may improve predictive value by more precisely targeting amniocentesis toward those at highest risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Our purpose was to compare the use of the Iowa Expanded Serum Screening program (maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein, human chorionic gonadotropin, and unconjugated estriol) by obstetricians and family physicians.Study Design: A registry was used to identify all obstetricians (160) and family physicians (404) who practice obstetrics in Iowa. A questionnaire exploring attitudes and practice patterns related to serum screening was mailed to these physicians.Results: The response rate was 80.3% overall. There were significant differences in the offering of serum screening (p < 0.001) for following three responses: obstetricians were more likely to offer screening through the Iowa Expanded Serum Screening Program than were family physicians (89.3% vs 57.2%) and less likely to offer screening outside the state program (9.9% vs 39.0%), whereas family physicians were more likely to not offer screening (0.8% vs 3.8%). When the responses of the physicians who offer screening were analyzed, several differences emerged: (1) obstetricians were more likely than family physicians to offer screening to all obstetric patients (99.2% vs 92.1%, p < 0.05), whereas family physicians were more likely to offer testing to patients with perceived risks for neural tube defects or chromosomal abnormalities and to those patients who requested it, (2) obstetricians were more likely to recommend screening than family physicians (39.0% vs 25.7%, p < 0.05), who more often discouraged testing, although the latter did not reach statistical significance, (3) family physicians more than obstetricians felt that screening was not necessary if the patient would not terminate the pregnancy for neural tube defects (41.6% vs 19.1%, p < 0.001) or chromosomal abnormalities (39.7% vs 21.4%, p < 0.01), and (4) obstetricians used nurses to counsel patients to a much greater extent than family physicians did (44.6% vs 14.0%, p < 0.001).Conclusion: There is a significant difference in practice patterns between obstetricians and family physicians in their reported use and presentation of maternal serum screening. Guidelines based on outcome studies should be developed and followed by obstetricians and family physicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Surgical site infections are associated with significant healthcare cost and burden. Silver-impregnated dressings have been associated with a decrease in surgical site infections in select populations, but it is unknown whether the benefit can be observed after cesarean deliveries., Objective: We sought to evaluate the impact of silver nylon dressings in reducing superficial surgical site infections after cesarean delivery., Materials and Methods: A blinded randomized clinical trial of women undergoing scheduled or unscheduled cesarean delivery at a single site was conducted. Women were recruited for participation from September 2013 to June 2016. Women with vertical skin incisions were excluded. Enrolled participants were randomized to silver nylon dressing or an identical-appearing gauze wound dressing. Wounds were evaluated in the outpatient office at 1 week and 6 weeks after delivery. The primary outcome was superficial surgical site infection as defined by Centers for Disease Control criteria at any time within the first 6 weeks after cesarean delivery. A sample size of 330 per group (n = 660) was planned to compare the 2 arms. Data were analyzed using the χ 2 , Fisher exact test, Student t test, Mann-Whitney U test, and logistic regression where appropriate, and a value of P < .05 was considered significant., Results: Among the 657 participants, overall, the primary outcome was similar between the 2 groups (4.6% in the silver nylon group vs 4.2% in the gauze group, P = .96). Women allocated to silver nylon, when compared to those who were allocated to gauze, had similar rates of superficial surgical site infection within 1 week (1.2% vs 0.9%) and within 6 weeks ( 4.6% vs 4.2%) after delivery (P >.99). The 2 groups were similar in age (30.9 ± 5.6 vs 31.0 ± 5.5 years, P = .95), body mass index (36.2 ± 8.7 vs 35.3 ± 8.2 kg/m 2 , P = .19), pregestational diabetes (6.2% vs 3.4%, P = .14), gestational diabetes (7.9% vs 7.3%, P = .88), cesarean delivery after labor (31.9% vs 31.1%, P = .86), presence of chorioamnionitis (5.2% vs 2.1% P = .06), and operative time (56.4 ± 20.6 vs 55.9 ± 17 minutes, P = .69). After adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic confounding variables, current smoking (adjusted odds ratio, 4.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-13.4) body mass index ≥40 kg/m 2 (adjusted odds ratio, 3.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-6.8), and surgery length (minutes) (adjusted odds ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.002-1.04), but not use of gauze dressing, were associated with superficial surgical site infections., Conclusion: Among women undergoing cesarean delivery, silver nylon dressing was not more effective than gauze in reducing the risk of superficial surgical site infections., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This article reviews the pharmacology of the most commonly used antihypertensive medications during pregnancy; their mechanism of action; and the effects on the mother, the fetus, and lactation. Each class of antihypertensive pharmacologic agents have specific mechanisms of action by which they exert their antihypertensive effect. β-Adrenoreceptor antagonists block these receptors in the peripheral circulation. Calcium channel blockers result in arterial vasodilation. α-Agonists inhibit vasoconstriction. Methyldopa is a centrally acting adrenoreceptor antagonist. Vasodilators have a direct effect on vascular smooth muscle. Diuretics decrease intravascular volume. Medications acting on the angiotensin pathway are avoided during pregnancy because of fetotoxic effects., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Patients with biliary disease or underlying dyslipidemias are at risk for pancreatitis in pregnancy. Appropriate treatment can decrease the risk of recurrence and perinatal complications. Prevention of severe lipid elevations can prevent the development of pancreatitis in pregnancy., Objective: To review the pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of gallstone and severe hypertriglyceride-induced pancreatitis in pregnancy., Evidence Acquisition: We performed a literature search regarding pancreatitis, gallstones, hyperlipidemia, and the treatment of both severe hypertriglyceride-induced pancreatitis and gallstone pancreatitis in pregnancy., Results: In the setting of acute pancreatitis, removal of the offending agent, either gallstones or serum lipids, can lead to improved status and decrease recurrence risk., Conclusions and Relevance: Patients with acute pancreatitis should be treated with analgesia and fluid resuscitation and maintain a nothing-per-os status. In cases of gallstone pancreatitis, removal of the offending stone through endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or cholecystectomy can decrease recurrence risk. Severe hypertriglyceride-induced pancreatitis includes similar management. Lipopheresis may be considered in refractory cases. Patients with severe hypercholesterolemia should maintain a low-fat diet and can continue lipid-lowering agents outside the statin class of medications. Preventing severe dyslipidemia in gestation can decrease the risk of pancreatitis and improve maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Background: The prevalence of injuries during pregnancy is largely underestimated, as previous research has focused on more severe injuries resulting in emergency department visits and hospitalizations. The objective of our study was to estimate the frequency, risk factors, and causes of injuries in a population-based sample of pregnant women., Methods: This article is an analysis of postpartum interviews among the control series from a case-control study (n=1,488). Maternal, pregnancy, and environmental characteristics associated with injury during pregnancy in control subjects were examined to identify population-based risk factors for injury. We collected data on self-reported injury during pregnancy, including the month of pregnancy, whether medical attention was sought, the mechanism of injury, and the number and location of bodily injuries. Logistic regression was used to calculate unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of injury., Results: Over 5% of women reported an injury during pregnancy, with falls being the most common mechanism of injury. Women at highest adjusted risk for injury had unintended pregnancies (aOR: 2.28 [1.40-3.70]) and no partner during pregnancy (aOR: 2.45 [1.16-5.17]) relative to women without injuries., Conclusions: Pregnant women with risk factors for many pregnancy-related complications are also at increased risk of injury during pregnancy. Further studies of pregnancy-related injuries are needed to consider environmental and maternal characteristics on risk of injury.

The authors examined whether early ultrasound dating (≤20 weeks) of gestational age (GA) in small-for-gestational-age (SGA) fetuses may underestimate gestational duration and therefore the incidence of SGA birth. Within a population-based case-control study (May 2002-June 2005) of Iowa SGA births and preterm deliveries identified from birth records (n = 2,709), the authors illustrate a novel methodological approach with which to assess and correct for systematic underestimation of GA by early ultrasound in women with suspected SGA fetuses. After restricting the analysis to subjects with first-trimester prenatal care, a nonmissing date of the last menstrual period (LMP), and early ultrasound (n = 1,135), SGA subjects' ultrasound GA was 5.5 days less than their LMP GA, on average. Multivariable linear regression was conducted to determine the extent to which ultrasound GA predicted LMP dating and to correct for systematic misclassification that results after applying standard guidelines to adjudicate differences in these measures. In the unadjusted model, SGA subjects required a correction of +1.5 weeks to the ultrasound estimate. With adjustment for maternal age, smoking, and first-trimester vaginal bleeding, standard guidelines for adjudicating differences in ultrasound and LMP dating underestimated SGA birth by 12.9% and overestimated preterm delivery by 8.7%. This methodological approach can be applied by researchers using different study populations in similar research contexts.