-
Maedica Dec 2023ST waveform analysis (STAN) was introduced to improve the interpretation of cardiotocography (CTG) resulting in reduction of unnecessary interventions and metabolic...
ST waveform analysis (STAN) was introduced to improve the interpretation of cardiotocography (CTG) resulting in reduction of unnecessary interventions and metabolic acidosis. A systematic review was conducted with the aim to evaluate the effect of STAN method compared with isolated CTG on perinatal and neonatal outcomes. A search of electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus) was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in English language. Outcomes considered operative deliveries, fetal blood sampling (FBS), metabolic acidosis, perinatal and neonatal death, neonatal seizures, neonatal encephalopathy, transfer to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and Apgar score. Seven RCTs were included in the present review. The first two RCTs showed that the combination of STAN and CTG was a better option than using CTG alone, because there was a documented reduction in the rate of operative deliveries due to fetal distress and metabolic acidosis. The following studies showed no statistically significant changes with the combination of methods, except from a reduction in FBS. The findings from the RCTs were inconclusive. Most studies did not demonstrate a superiority of the combination regarding operative deliveries and neonatal outcomes but there were many methodological differences between the trials.
PubMed: 38348066
DOI: 10.26574/maedica.2023.18.4.684 -
Italian Journal of Pediatrics Oct 2023Extubation failure (EF) is a significant concern in mechanically ventilated newborns, and predicting its occurrence is an ongoing area of research. To investigate the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Extubation failure (EF) is a significant concern in mechanically ventilated newborns, and predicting its occurrence is an ongoing area of research. To investigate the predictors of EF in newborns undergoing planned extubation, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies published in English from the inception of each database to March 2023. The PRISMA guidelines were followed in all phases of this systematic review. The Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies tool was used to assess methodological quality. Thirty-four studies were included, 10 of which were overall low risk of bias, 15 of moderate risk of bias, and 9 of high risk of bias. The studies reported 43 possible predictors in six broad categories (intrinsic factors; maternal factors; diseases and adverse conditions of the newborn; treatment of the newborn; characteristics before and after extubation; and clinical scores and composite indicators). Through a qualitative synthesis of 43 predictors and a quantitative meta-analysis of 19 factors, we identified five definite factors, eight possible factors, and 22 unclear factors related to EF. Definite factors included gestational age, sepsis, pre-extubation pH, pre-extubation FiO, and respiratory severity score. Possible factors included age at extubation, anemia, inotropic use, mean airway pressure, pre-extubation PCO, mechanical ventilation duration, Apgar score, and spontaneous breathing trial. With only a few high-quality studies currently available, well-designed and more extensive prospective studies investigating the predictors affecting EF are still needed. In the future, it will be important to explore the possibility of combining multiple predictors or assessment tools to enhance the accuracy of predicting extubation outcomes in clinical practice.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Humans; Prospective Studies; Airway Extubation; Respiration, Artificial; Ventilator Weaning; Family
PubMed: 37784184
DOI: 10.1186/s13052-023-01538-0 -
Scandinavian Journal of Surgery : SJS :... Sep 2023Non-obstetric surgery is fairly common in pregnant women. We performed a systematic review to update data on non-obstetric surgery in pregnant women. The aim of this... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Non-obstetric surgery is fairly common in pregnant women. We performed a systematic review to update data on non-obstetric surgery in pregnant women. The aim of this review was to evaluate the effects of non-obstetric surgery during pregnancy on pregnancy, fetal and maternal outcomes.
METHODS
A systematic literature search of MEDLINE and Scopus was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The search span was from January 2000 to November 2022. Thirty-six studies matched the inclusion criteria, and 24 publications were identified through reference mining; 60 studies were included in this review. Outcome measures were miscarriage, stillbirth, preterm birth, low birth weight, low Apgar score, and infant and maternal morbidity and mortality rates.
RESULTS
We obtained data for 80,205 women who underwent non-obstetric surgery and data for 16,655,486 women who did not undergo surgery during pregnancy. Prevalence of non-obstetric surgery was between 0.23% and 0.74% (median 0.37%). Appendectomy was the most common procedure with median prevalence of 0.10%. Near half (43%) of the procedures were performed during the second trimester, 32% during the first trimester, and 25% during the third trimester. Half of surgeries were scheduled, and half were emergent. Laparoscopic and open techniques were used equally for abdominal cavity. Women who underwent non-obstetric surgery during pregnancy had increased rate of stillbirth (odds ratio (OR) 2.0) and preterm birth (OR 2.1) compared to women without surgery. Surgery during pregnancy did not increase rate of miscarriage (OR 1.1), low 5 min Apgar scores (OR 1.1), the fetus being small for gestational age (OR 1.1) or congenital anomalies (OR 1.0).
CONCLUSIONS
The prevalence of non-obstetric surgery has decreased during last decades, but still two out of 1000 pregnant women have scheduled surgery during pregnancy. Surgery during pregnancy increases the risk of stillbirth, and preterm birth. For abdominal cavity surgery, both laparoscopic and open approaches are feasible.
Topics: Infant; Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth; Stillbirth; Abortion, Spontaneous; Fetus
PubMed: 37329286
DOI: 10.1177/14574969231175569 -
European Journal of Midwifery 2023Cannabis and its derivatives are becoming increasingly popular in women's preferences during pregnancy in order to relieve nausea. The present study examines cannabis... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Cannabis and its derivatives are becoming increasingly popular in women's preferences during pregnancy in order to relieve nausea. The present study examines cannabis use during pregnancy and its effects on the fetus, newborn and later childhood.
METHODS
All primary studies were searched in the databases: PubMed, Scopus, Medline during the period June 2019 to August 2020. The keywords used were 'pregnancy', 'pregnant women', 'cannabis', 'marijuana', 'fetus', 'newborn', 'childhood', and combined with 'AND' and 'OR' Boolean operators. Inclusion criteria were: pregnant users of cannabis as the study group and pregnant non-users of cannabis as the control group; the articles could be in English or in Greek. The exclusion criteria were: unpublished studies, reviews, presentations at conferences, and animal studies.
RESULTS
From the systematic review of the literature, the study included 13 primary research studies in which it was found that the children of mother-user faced: disorders in the sleep cycle, memory problems, hyperactivity, increased chances of low birth weight, prematurity with lower Apgar score in the 1st and 5th minutes and hospitalization in an NICU, DNA methylation at the position CpG.32, and modifications in the brain, especially in the amygdala. In addition, girls had more aggressive behavior at the age of 18 months, shorter breastfeeding period, and neonatal death.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of cannabis during the gestation period by the mother, aggravates the physical and mental development of the fetus, the newborn and the later childhood.
PubMed: 37547668
DOI: 10.18332/ejm/168727 -
PloS One 2024Stress during pregnancy is detrimental to maternal health, pregnancy and birth outcomes and various preventive relaxation interventions have been developed. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Stress during pregnancy is detrimental to maternal health, pregnancy and birth outcomes and various preventive relaxation interventions have been developed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate their effectiveness in terms of maternal mental health, pregnancy and birth outcomes.
METHOD
The protocol for this review is published on PROSPERO with registration number CRD42020187443. A systematic search of major databases was conducted. Primary outcomes were maternal mental health problems (stress, anxiety, depression), and pregnancy (gestational age, labour duration, delivery mode) and birth outcomes (birth weight, Apgar score, preterm birth). Randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies were eligible. Meta-analyses using a random-effects model was conducted for outcomes with sufficient data. For other outcomes a narrative review was undertaken.
RESULT
We reviewed 32 studies comprising 3,979 pregnant women aged 18 to 40 years. Relaxation interventions included yoga, music, Benson relaxation, progressive muscle relaxation (PMR), deep breathing relaxation (BR), guided imagery, mindfulness and hypnosis. Intervention duration ranged from brief experiment (~10 minutes) to 6 months of daily relaxation. Meta-analyses showed relaxation therapy reduced maternal stress (-4.1 points; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): -7.4, -0.9; 9 trials; 1113 participants), anxiety (-5.04 points; 95% CI: -8.2, -1.9; 10 trials; 1965 participants) and depressive symptoms (-2.3 points; 95% CI: -3.4, -1.3; 7 trials; 733 participants). Relaxation has also increased offspring birth weight (80 g, 95% CI: 1, 157; 8 trials; 1239 participants), explained by PMR (165g, 95% CI: 100, 231; 4 trials; 587 participants) in sub-group analysis. In five trials evaluating maternal physiological responses, relaxation therapy optimized blood pressure, heart rate and respiratory rate. Four trials showed relaxation therapy reduced duration of labour. Apgar score only improved significantly in two of six trials. One of three trials showed a significant increase in birth length, and one of three trials showed a significant increase in gestational age. Two of six trials examining delivery mode showed significantly increased spontaneous vaginal delivery and decreased instrumental delivery or cesarean section following a relaxation intervention.
DISCUSSION
We found consistent evidence for beneficial effects of relaxation interventions in reducing maternal stress, improving mental health, and some evidence for improved maternal physiological outcomes. In addition, we found a positive effect of relaxation interventions on birth weight and inconsistent effects on other pregnancy or birth outcomes. High quality adequately powered trials are needed to examine impacts of relaxation interventions on newborns and offspring health outcomes.
CONCLUSION
In addition to benefits for mothers, relaxation interventions provided during pregnancy improved birth weight and hold some promise for improving newborn outcomes; therefore, this approach strongly merits further research.
Topics: Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Cesarean Section; Maternal Health; Mental Health; Birth Weight; Premature Birth; Labor, Obstetric
PubMed: 38271440
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278432 -
World Journal of Gastrointestinal... Jul 2023Oesophageal cancer is the eighth most common malignancy worldwide and is associated with a poor prognosis. Oesophagectomy remains the best prospect for a cure if...
BACKGROUND
Oesophageal cancer is the eighth most common malignancy worldwide and is associated with a poor prognosis. Oesophagectomy remains the best prospect for a cure if diagnosed in the early disease stages. However, the procedure is associated with significant morbidity and mortality and is undertaken only after careful consideration. Appropriate patient selection, counselling and resource allocation is essential. Numerous risk models have been devised to guide surgeons in making these decisions.
AIM
To evaluate which multivariate risk models, using intraoperative information with or without preoperative information, best predict perioperative oesophagectomy outcomes.
METHODS
A systematic review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases was undertaken from 2000-2020. The search terms used were [(Oesophagectomy) AND (Model OR Predict OR Risk OR score) AND (Mortality OR morbidity OR complications OR outcomes OR anastomotic leak OR length of stay)]. Articles were included if they assessed multivariate based tools incorporating preoperative and intraoperative variables to forecast patient outcomes after oesophagectomy. Articles were excluded if they only required preoperative or any post-operative data. Studies appraising univariate risk predictors such as preoperative sarcopenia, cardiopulmonary fitness and American Society of Anesthesiologists score were also excluded. The review was conducted following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses model. All captured risk models were appraised for clinical credibility, methodological quality, performance, validation and clinical effectiveness.
RESULTS
Twenty published studies were identified which examined eleven multivariate risk models. Eight of these combined preoperative and intraoperative data and the remaining three used only intraoperative values. Only two risk models were identified as promising in predicting mortality, namely the Portsmouth physiological and operative severity score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity (POSSUM) and POSSUM scores. A further two studies, the intraoperative factors and Esophagectomy surgical Apgar score based nomograms, adequately forecasted major morbidity. The latter two models are yet to have external validation and none have been tested for clinical effectiveness.
CONCLUSION
Despite the presence of some promising models in forecasting perioperative oesophagectomy outcomes, there is more research required to externally validate these models and demonstrate clinical benefit with the adoption of these models guiding postoperative care and allocating resources.
PubMed: 37555117
DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v15.i7.1485 -
BMC Surgery Sep 2023The Surgical Apgar score (SAS) is a straightforward and unbiased measure to assess the probability of experiencing complications after surgery. It is calculated upon...
BACKGROUND
The Surgical Apgar score (SAS) is a straightforward and unbiased measure to assess the probability of experiencing complications after surgery. It is calculated upon completion of the surgical procedure and provides valuable predictive information. The SAS evaluates three specific factors during surgery: the estimated amount of blood loss (EBL), the lowest recorded mean arterial pressure (MAP), and the lowest heart rate (LHR) observed. Considering these factors, the SAS offers insights into the probability of encountering postoperative complications.
METHODS
Three authors independently searched the Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase databases until June 2022. This search was conducted without any language or timeframe restrictions, and it aimed to cover relevant literature on the subject. The inclusion criteria were the correlation between SAS and any modified/adjusted SAS (m SAS, (Modified SAS). eSAS, M eSAS, and SASA), and complications before, during, and after surgeries. Nevertheless, the study excluded letters to the editor, reviews, and case reports. Additionally, the researchers employed Begg and Egger's regression model to evaluate publication bias.
RESULTS
In this systematic study, a total of 78 studies \were examined. The findings exposed that SAS was effective in anticipating short-term complications and served as factor for a long-term prognostic following multiple surgeries. While the SAS has been validated across various surgical subspecialties, based on the available evidence, the algorithm's modifications may be necessary to enhance its predictive accuracy within each specific subspecialty.
CONCLUSIONS
The SAS enables surgeons and anesthesiologists to recognize patients at a higher risk for certain complications or adverse events. By either modifying the SAS (Modified SAS) or combining it with ASA criteria, healthcare professionals can enhance their ability to identify patients who require continuous observation and follow-up as they go through the postoperative period. This approach would improve the accuracy of identifying individuals at risk and ensure appropriate measures to provide necessary care and support.
Topics: Humans; Infant, Newborn; Apgar Score; Bradycardia; Databases, Factual; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37723504
DOI: 10.1186/s12893-023-02171-8 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Jun 2024Decision-to-delivery time (DDT), a crucial factor during the emergency caesarean section, may potentially impact neonatal outcomes. This study aims to assess the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Decision-to-delivery time (DDT), a crucial factor during the emergency caesarean section, may potentially impact neonatal outcomes. This study aims to assess the association between DDT and various neonatal outcomes.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases was conducted. A total of 32 eligible studies that reported on various neonatal outcomes, such as Apgar score, acidosis, neonatal intensive unit (NICU) admissions and mortality were included in the review. Studies were selected based on predefined eligibility criteria, and a random-effects inverse-variance model with DerSimonian-Laird estimate of tau² was used for meta-analysis. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed using I² statistics and Egger's test, respectively.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis revealed a significant association between DDT < 30 min and increased risk of Apgar score < 7 (OR 1.803, 95% CI: 1.284-2.533) and umbilical cord pH < 7.1 (OR 4.322, 95% CI: 2.302-8.115), with substantial heterogeneity. No significant association was found between DDT and NICU admission (OR 0.982, 95% CI: 0.767-1.258) or neonatal mortality (OR 0.983, 95% CI: 0.565-1.708), with negligible heterogeneity. Publication bias was not detected for any outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
This study underscores the association between shorter DDT and increased odds of adverse neonatal outcomes such as low Apgar scores and acidosis, while no significant association was found in terms of NICU admissions or neonatal mortality. Our findings highlight the complexity of DDT's impact, suggesting the need for nuanced clinical decision-making in cases of emergency caesarean sections.
Topics: Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Female; Apgar Score; Cesarean Section; Time Factors; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; Acidosis; Delivery, Obstetric; Infant Mortality; Pregnancy Outcome
PubMed: 38849748
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-024-06603-y -
Pediatric Research Jul 2023The safety of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines during pregnancy is a particular concern. Here, we addressed the neonatal outcomes after maternal vaccination... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The safety of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines during pregnancy is a particular concern. Here, we addressed the neonatal outcomes after maternal vaccination of COVID-19 during pregnancy.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the WHO COVID-19 Database for studies on neonatal outcomes after maternal COVID-19 vaccination from inception to 3 July 2022. Main neonatal outcomes were related to preterm, small for gestation (SGA), NICU admission, low Apgar score at 5 min (<7), and additional neonatal outcomes such as gestation <34 weeks, low birth weight and some neonatal morbidity were all also analyzed.
RESULTS
A total of 15 studies were included. We found that maternal vaccination during pregnancy was related to the reduction rates of Preterm, SGA, Low Apgar score at 5 min (<7). In addition, there was no evidence of a higher risk of adverse neonatal outcomes after maternal vaccination of COVID-19 during pregnancy, including NICU admission, preterm birth with gestation <34 weeks, low birth weight, very low birth weight, congenital anomalies, and so on.
CONCLUSIONS
COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant women does not raise significant adverse effects on neonatal outcomes and is related to a protective effect on some neonatal outcomes.
IMPACT
Present study has addressed the neonatal outcomes after maternal vaccination of COVID-19 during pregnancy. COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant women does not raise significant adverse effects on neonatal outcomes and is related to a protective effect on some neonatal outcomes. The present study could encourage pregnant women to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Infant, Low Birth Weight; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth; Vaccination
PubMed: 36596943
DOI: 10.1038/s41390-022-02421-0 -
Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and... Dec 2024To assess the impact of low-dose aspirin (LDA) on obstetrical outcomes through a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the impact of low-dose aspirin (LDA) on obstetrical outcomes through a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
A systematic search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Embase databases from inception to January 2024 was conducted to identify studies exploring the role of aspirin on pregnancy, reporting obstetrical-related outcomes, including preterm birth (PTB, gestational age <37 weeks), small for gestational age (SGA), low birth weight (LBW, birthweight < 2500g), perinatal death (PND), admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), 5-min Apgar score < 7 and placental abruption. Relative risks (RRs) were estimated for the combined outcomes. Subgroup analyses were performed by risk for preeclampsia (PE), LDA dosage (<100 mg vs. ≥100 mg) and timing of onset (≤20 weeks vs. >20 weeks).
RESULTS
Forty-seven studies involving 59,124 participants were included. Compared with placebo, LDA had a more significant effect on low-risk events such as SGA, PTB and LBW. Specifically, LDA significantly reduced the risk of SGA (RR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.87-0.95), PTB (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.89-0.97) and LBW (RR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89-0.99). For high-risk events, LDA significantly lowered the risk of NICU admission (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.87-0.99). On the other hand, LDA can significantly increase the risk of placental abruption (RR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.23-2.43). Subgroup analyses showed that LDA significantly reduced the risk of SGA (RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.77-0.97), PTB (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.88-0.98) and PND (RR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.48-0.88) in pregnant women at high risk of PE, whereas in healthy pregnant women LDA did not significantly improve obstetrical outcomes, but instead significantly increased the risk of placental abruption (RR = 5.56, 95% CI: 1.92-16.11). In pregnant women at high risk of PE, LDA administered at doses ≥100 mg significantly reduced the risk of SGA (RR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.66-0.91) and PTB (RR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.32-0.97), but did not have a statistically significant effect on reducing the risk of NICU, PND and LBW. LDA started at ≤20 weeks significantly reduced the risk of SGA (RR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.65-0.89) and PTB (RR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.32-0.97).
CONCLUSIONS
To sum up, LDA significantly improved neonatal outcomes in pregnant women at high risk of PE without elevating the risk of placental abruption. These findings support LDA's clinical application in pregnant women, although further research is needed to refine dosage and timing recommendations.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Abruptio Placentae; Aspirin; Infant, Low Birth Weight; Infant, Small for Gestational Age; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38712869
DOI: 10.1080/0167482X.2024.2344079