METHODS: An analysis of observational data was conducted using live, singleton, term births recorded in the Malaysian National Obstetrics Registry between 2010 and 2012. A total of 272,472 live, singleton, term births without congential anomalies were recorded, of which 1,580 (0.59%) had 1 min Apgar scores <4. Descriptive methods and bi- and multi-variable logistic regression were used to identify risk factors associated with recovery (5 min Apgar score ≥7) from 1 min Apgar scores <4.
RESULTS: Less than 1% of births have a 1 min Apgar scores <4. Only 29.4% of neonates with 1 min Apgar scores <4 recover to a 5 min Apgar score ≥7. Among uncomplicated vaginal deliveries, after controlling for other factors, deliveries by a doctor of neonates with a 1 min Apgar score <4 had odds of recovery 2.4 times greater than deliveries of neonates with a 1 min Apgar score <4 by a nurse-midwife. Among deliveries of neonates with a 1 min Apgar score <4 by doctors, after controlling for other factors, planned and unplanned CS was associated with better odds of recovery than uncomplicated vaginal deliveries. Recovery was also associated with maternal obesity, and there was some ethnic variation - in the adjusted analysis indigenous (Orang Asal) Malaysians had lower odds of recovery.
CONCLUSIONS: A 1 min Apgar score <4 is relatively rare, and less than a third recover by five minutes. In those newborns the qualification of the person performing the delivery and the type of delivery are independent predictors of recovery as is maternal BMI and ethnicity. These are associations only, not necessarily causes, and they point to potential areas of research into health systems factors in the labour room, as well as possible biological and cultural factors.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the association of gestational cardiovascular health-formally characterized by a combination of 5 metrics-with adverse maternal and newborn outcomes.
STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed data from the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome study, including 2304 mother-newborn dyads from 6 countries. Maternal cardiovascular health was defined by the combination of the following 5 metrics measured at a mean of 28 (24-32) weeks' gestation: body mass index, blood pressure, lipids, glucose, and smoking. Levels of each metric were categorized using pregnancy guidelines, and the total cardiovascular health was scored (0-10 points, where 10 was the most favorable). Cord blood was collected at delivery, newborn anthropometrics were measured within 72 hours, and medical records were abstracted for obstetrical outcomes. Modified Poisson and multinomial logistic regression were used to test the associations of gestational cardiovascular health with pregnancy outcomes, adjusted for center and maternal and newborn characteristics.
RESULTS: The average age of women at study exam was 29.6 years old, and they delivered at a mean gestational age of 39.8 weeks. The mean total gestational cardiovascular health score was 8.6 (of 10); 36.3% had all ideal metrics and 7.5% had 2+ poor metrics. In fully adjusted models, each 1 point higher (more favorable) cardiovascular health score was associated with lower risks for preeclampsia (relative risk, 0.67 [95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.73]), unplanned primary cesarean delivery (0.88 [0.82-0.95]), newborn birthweight >90th percentile (0.81 [0.75-0.87]), sum of skinfolds >90th percentile (0.84 [0.77-0.92]), and insulin sensitivity <10th percentile (0.83 [0.77-0.90]). Cardiovascular health categories demonstrated graded associations with outcomes; for example, relative risks (95% confidence intervals) for preeclampsia were 3.13 (1.39-7.06), 5.34 (2.44-11.70), and 9.30 (3.95-21.86) for women with ≥1 intermediate, 1 poor, or ≥2 poor (vs all ideal) metrics, respectively.
CONCLUSION: More favorable cardiovascular health at 24 to 32 weeks' gestation was associated with lower risks for several adverse pregnancy outcomes in a multinational cohort.
DESIGN: Retrospective observational study.
POPULATION: A total of 1258 consecutive women attending a tertiary urogynaecological unit for the investigation of lower urinary tract or pelvic floor disorders between January 2012 and December 2014.
METHODS: Obstetric history and clinical examination data were obtained from the unit database. Prolapse quantification on imaging was performed using stored four-dimensional translabial ultrasound volume data sets. Women were grouped into four groups according to the most traumatic delivery reported. The presence of symptoms and signs of POP were compared between delivery groups while controlling for potential confounders.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prolapse symptoms, visual analogue score for prolapse bother, International Continence Society Prolapse Quantification System findings and ultrasound findings of anterior, central and posterior compartment descent.
RESULTS: Nulliparae showed the lowest prevalence of most measures of POP, followed by women exclusively delivered by caesarean section. Highest prevalences were consistently found in women delivered at least once by forceps, although the differences between this group and women delivered by normal vaginal delivery and/or vacuum extraction were significant in three out of eight measures only. Compared with women in the caesarean section group, the adjusted odds ratios for reporting symptoms of prolapse were 2.4 (95% CI 1.30-4.59) and 3.2 (95% CI 1.65-6.12) in the normal vaginal delivery/vacuum extraction group and forceps group, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear link between vaginal delivery and symptoms and signs of pelvic organ prolapse in urogynaecological patients.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Compared with caesarean section a history of vaginal delivery more than doubles the risk for POP.
METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the use of carbetocin to oxytocin in the context of cesarean deliveries. Cost effectiveness analysis was then performed using secondary data from the perspective of a maternity unit within the Malaysian Ministry of Health, over a 24 h time period.
RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials with over 2000 patients comparing carbetocin with oxytocin during cesarean section were identified. The use of carbetocin in our center, which has an average of 3000 cesarean deliveries annually, would have prevented 108 episodes of PPH, 104 episodes of transfusion and reduced the need for additional uterotonics in 455 patients. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio of carbetocin for averting an episode of PPH was US$278.70.
CONCLUSION: Reduction in retreatment, staffing requirements, transfusion and potential medication errors mitigates the higher index cost of carbetocin. From a pharmacoeconomic perspective, in the context of cesarean section, carbetocin was cost effective as prophylaxis against PPH. Ultimately, the relative value placed on the outcomes above and the individual unit's resources would influence the choice of uterotonic.
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.