METHODS: Screening periodontal examinations were carried out on all eligible Malay pregnant women in the second trimester of pregnancy attending two randomly selected community maternal and child health clinics in Kota Bharu, Kelantan. Patients with four or more sites with pocket depth 4 mm or higher, and clinical attachment loss 3 mm or higher at the same site with presence of bleeding on probing were diagnosed as having periodontitis in this study. Using this definition, systematic random sampling was utilized for selection of 250 subjects for each exposed and non-exposed group. Of 500 subjects enrolled in the study, 28 (5.6%) were either dropped or lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 472 subjects, 232 with periodontitis were in the exposed group and 240 with healthy periodontium were in the nonexposed group.
RESULTS: The incidence of LBW was 14.2% (95% CI: 9.70-18.75) in women with periodontitis, and 3.3% (95% CI: 1.05-5.62) in women without periodontitis. The relative risk of having LBW infants was 4.27 times higher for women with periodontitis compared with those without periodontitis (95% CI: 2.01-9.04). After adjustment for potential confounders using multiple logistic regression analysis, significant association was found between maternal periodontitis and LBW (OR = 3.84; 95% CI: 1.34-11.05).
CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide additional evidence that pregnant women with periodontitis are at a significantly higher risk of delivering LBW infants.
DESCRIPTION: COVID-19 directly affects pregnant women causing more severe disease and adverse pregnancy outcomes. The indirect effects due to the monumental COVID-19 response are much worse, increasing maternal and neonatal mortality.
ASSESSMENT: Amidst COVID-19, governments must balance effective COVID-19 response measures while continuing delivery of essential health services. Using the World Health Organization's operational guidelines as a base, countries must conduct contextualized analyses to tailor their operations. Evidence based information on different services and comparative cost-benefits will help decisions on trade-offs. Situational analyses identifying extent and reasons for service disruptions and estimates of impacts using modelling techniques will guide prioritization of services. Ensuring adequate supplies, maintaining core interventions, expanding non-physician workforce and deploying telehealth are some adaptive measures to optimize care. Beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, governments must reinvest in maternal and child health by building more resilient maternal health services supported by political commitment and multisectoral engagement, and with assistance from international partners.
CONCLUSIONS: Multi-sectoral investments providing high-quality care that ensures continuity and available to all segments of the population are needed. A robust primary healthcare system linked to specialist care and accessible to all segments of the population including marginalized subgroups is of paramount importance. Systematic approaches to digital health care solutions to bridge gaps in service is imperative. Future pandemic preparedness programs must include action plans for resilient maternal health services.
OBJECTIVES: To compare techniques of blood glucose monitoring and their impact on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2016), searched reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing techniques of blood glucose monitoring including SMBG, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or clinic monitoring among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2). Trials investigating timing and frequency of monitoring were also included. RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: This review update includes at total of 10 trials (538) women (468 women with type 1 diabetes and 70 women with type 2 diabetes). The trials took place in Europe and the USA. Five of the 10 included studies were at moderate risk of bias, four studies were at low to moderate risk of bias, and one study was at high risk of bias. The trials are too small to show differences in important outcomes such as macrosomia, preterm birth, miscarriage or death of baby. Almost all the reported GRADE outcomes were assessed as being very low-quality evidence. This was due to design limitations in the studies, wide confidence intervals, small sample sizes, and few events. In addition, there was high heterogeneity for some outcomes.Various methods of glucose monitoring were compared in the trials. Neither pooled analyses nor individual trial analyses showed any clear advantages of one monitoring technique over another for primary and secondary outcomes. Many important outcomes were not reported.1. Self-monitoring versus standard care (two studies, 43 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.49; one study, 28 women) or glycaemic control (both very low-quality), and not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and neonatal mortality and morbidity composite. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, neurosensory disability, and preterm birth were not reported in either study.2. Self-monitoring versus hospitalisation (one study, 100 women): there was no clear difference for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre-eclampsia and hypertension) (RR 4.26, 95% CI 0.52 to 35.16; very low-quality: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.22; very low-quality). There was no clear difference in caesarean section or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (both very low quality), and the sample size was too small to assess perinatal mortality (very low-quality). Large-for-gestational age, mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.3. Pre-prandial versus post-prandial glucose monitoring (one study, 61 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.28; very low-quality), large-for-gestational age (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.85; very low-quality) or glycaemic control (very low-quality). The results for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: pre-eclampsia and perinatal mortality are not meaningful because these outcomes were too rare to show differences in a small sample (all very low-quality). The study did not report the outcomes mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability or preterm birth.4. Automated telemedicine monitoring versus conventional system (three studies, 84 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.48; one study, 32 women; very low-quality), and mortality or morbidity composite in the one study that reported these outcomes. There were no clear differences for glycaemic control (very low-quality). No studies reported hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), neurosensory disability or preterm birth.5.CGM versus intermittent monitoring (two studies, 225 women): there was no clear difference for pre-eclampsia (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.59; low-quality), caesarean section (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54; I² = 62%; very low-quality) and large-for-gestational age (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.92; I² = 82%; very low-quality). Glycaemic control indicated by mean maternal HbA1c was lower for women in the continuous monitoring group (mean difference (MD) -0.60 %, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.29; one study, 71 women; moderate-quality). There was not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and there were no clear differences for preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (low-quality). Mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.6. Constant CGM versus intermittent CGM (one study, 25 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.79; very low-quality), glycaemic control (mean blood glucose in the 3rd trimester) (MD -0.14 mmol/L, 95% CI -2.00 to 1.72; very low-quality) or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.08 to 15.46; very low-quality). Other primary (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), mortality or morbidity composite, and neurosensory disability) or GRADE outcomes (preterm birth less than 34 weeks' gestation) were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found no evidence that any glucose monitoring technique is superior to any other technique among pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The evidence base for the effectiveness of monitoring techniques is weak and additional evidence from large well-designed randomised trials is required to inform choices of glucose monitoring techniques.
METHOD: We enrolled 95 women (≥ 36 weeks gestation) on their attendance for planned ECV. All participants received terbutaline tocolysis. Regional anaesthesia was not used. ECV was performed in the standard fashion after the application of the allocated aid. If the first round (maximum of 2 attempts) of ECV failed, crossover to the opposing aid was permitted.
RESULTS: 48 women were randomised to powder and 47 to gel. Self-reported procedure related median [interquartile range] pain scores (using a 10-point visual numerical rating scale VNRS; low score more pain) were 6 [5-9] vs. 8 [7-9] P = 0.03 in favor of gel. ECV was successful in 21/48 (43.8%) vs. 26/47 (55.3%) RR 0.6 95% CI 0.3-1.4 P = 0.3 for powder and gel arms respectively. Crossover to the opposing aid and a second round of ECV was performed in 13/27 (48.1%) following initial failure with powder and 4/21 (19%) after failure with gel (RR 3.9 95% CI 1.0-15 P = 0.07). ECV success rate was 5/13 (38.5%) vs. 1/4 (25%) P = 0.99 after crossover use of gel or powder respectively. Operators reported higher satisfaction score with the use of gel (high score, greater satisfaction) VNRS scores 6 [4.25-8] vs 8 [7-9] P = 0.01.
CONCLUSION: Women find gel use to be associated with less pain. The ECV success rate is not significantly different.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered with ISRCTN (identifier ISRCTN87231556).
METHODS: An interdisciplinary and international Working Group was assembled. Existing literature and current measurement initiatives were reviewed. Serial guided discussions and validation surveys provided consumer input. A series of nine teleconferences, incorporating a modified Delphi process, were held to reach consensus on the proposed Standard Set.
RESULTS: The Working Group selected 24 outcome measures to evaluate care during pregnancy and up to 6 months postpartum. These include clinical outcomes such as maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity, stillbirth, preterm birth, birth injury and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL), mental health, mother-infant bonding, confidence and success with breastfeeding, incontinence, and satisfaction with care and birth experience. To support analysis of these outcome measures, pertinent baseline characteristics and risk factor metrics were also defined.
CONCLUSIONS: We propose a set of outcome measures for evaluating the care that women and infants receive during pregnancy and the postpartum period. While validation and refinement via pilot implementation projects are needed, we view this as an important initial step towards value-based improvements in care.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether any association exists between the finding of an increased thickness of placenta, abnormal placenta shape, placental calcification, placental lake and abnormal cord insertion site at 20-22 and 30-32 weeks gestation with an increased risk of uteroplacental complications or a poor pregnancy outcome.
METHODOLOGY: A real-time ultrasound was used at the time of detail scan (at 20-22 weeks gestation) and at 30-32 weeks gestation to look for placenta appearance, fetal growth and anomaly. The main outcome measures were risk of hypertension disease in pregnancy, fetal growth restriction and poor fetal outcomes such as low Apgar score and low cord pH.
RESULT: The majority of the participants were Malay (77.9%). Abnormal placenta found at both gestations were placental lakes and thickness, and only one case had marginal cord insertion. Approximately 6% of the cases were confirmed placenta previa. No abnormal shape or abnormal calcification found at both gestations. About 10% patient developed hypertensive disease in pregnancy, 15% of the fetus was found to have growth restriction and another 16% have low umbilical cord pH. Majority of them delivered at term (90%) and via vaginal delivery (81%). There was no significance between presence of abnormal placental lake and thickness at both gestations with the maternal and fetal outcome.
CONCLUSION: Presence of abnormal placental thickness and lakes at 30-32 weeks scan associated with maternal hypertensive disease, fetal growth restriction and low umbilical cord pH, however these were not statistically significant.