-
Annals of Surgery Open : Perspectives... Dec 2022To review the current literature evaluating the performance of the Surgical Apgar Score (SAS). (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
To review the current literature evaluating the performance of the Surgical Apgar Score (SAS).
BACKGROUND
The SAS is a simple metric calculated at the end of surgery that provides clinicians with information about a patient's postoperative risk of morbidity and mortality. The SAS differs from other prognostic models in that it is calculated from intraoperative rather than preoperative parameters. The SAS was originally derived and validated in a general and vascular surgery population. Since its inception, it has been evaluated in many other surgical disciplines, large heterogeneous surgical populations, and various countries.
METHODS
A database and gray literature search was performed on March 3, 2020. Identified articles were reviewed for applicability and study quality with prespecified inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, and quality requirements. Thirty-six observational studies are included for review. Data were systematically extracted and tabulated independently and in duplicate by two investigators with differences resolved by consensus.
RESULTS
All 36 included studies reported metrics of discrimination. When using the SAS to correctly identify postoperative morbidity, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve or concordance-statistic ranged from 0.59 in a general orthopedic surgery population to 0.872 in an orthopedic spine surgery population. When using the SAS to identify mortality, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve or concordance-statistic ranged from 0.63 in a combined surgical population to 0.92 in a general and vascular surgery population.
CONCLUSIONS
The SAS provides a moderate and consistent degree of discrimination for postoperative morbidity and mortality across multiple surgical disciplines.
PubMed: 37600284
DOI: 10.1097/AS9.0000000000000227 -
Medicine Aug 2023Although planned cesarean delivery (PCD) is the mainstay of management for abnormal placentation, some patients still require emergency cesarean delivery (ECD). We aimed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Although planned cesarean delivery (PCD) is the mainstay of management for abnormal placentation, some patients still require emergency cesarean delivery (ECD). We aimed to systematically analyze the impact of various modes of delivery on neonatal outcomes.
METHODS
This study was complied with the PRISMA guidelines and was registered in the PROSPERO (code: CRD42022379487). A systematic search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE and Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and the Cochrane databases. Data extracted included gestational age at delivery, birth weight, the Apgar scores at 1 and 5 minutes, numbers of newborns with low Apgar score (<7) at 5 minutes, the rates of neonatal intensive care unit admission, and the rates of neonatal mortality.
RESULTS
Fifteen cohort studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 2565 women (2567 neonates) who underwent PCD (n = 1483) or ECD (n = 1082) for prenatally diagnosed placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) and/or placenta previa (PP). Compared with the ECD group, neonates in the PCD group had significantly higher gestational ages (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 2.20; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25-3.15; P < .001), birth weights (SMD: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.00-2.27; P < .001), and Apgar scores at 1 minute (SMD: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.29-0.73; P < .001) and 5 minutes (SMD: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.25-0.70; P < .001). Additionally, the PCD group had significantly lower rates of neonatal intensive care unit admission (odds ratio [OR]: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.14-0.29; P < .001), low Apgar score at 5 minutes (OR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.11-0.69; P = .01), and neonatal mortality (OR: 0.13; 95% CI: 0.05-0.33; P < .001).
CONCLUSION
When pregnancies are complicated by abnormal placentation, PCD is linked to noticeably better neonatal outcomes than emergent delivery.
Topics: Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Female; Placentation; Cesarean Section; Birth Weight; Infant Mortality; Cohort Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37565895
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034498 -
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 -
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 -
The Journal of Maternal-fetal &... Dec 2023The optimal drug management strategy for severe hypertension during pregnancy remains inconclusive. Some randomized controlled trials found that oral nifedipine was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The optimal drug management strategy for severe hypertension during pregnancy remains inconclusive. Some randomized controlled trials found that oral nifedipine was more effective than intravenous labetalol in hypertensive emergencies during pregnancy, while others found otherwise. As a result, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of oral nifedipine versus intravenous labetalol for hypertensive emergencies during pregnancy. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials that compared oral nifedipine versus IV labetalol in hypertensive emergencies during pregnancy. 12 RCTs enrolling 1151 participants (573 in the labetalol group and 578 in the nifedipine group) were included in the meta-analysis. Patients who received oral nifedipine reached their target blood pressure more rapidly than those who received intravenous labetalol (MD 7.64, 95%CI 4.08-11.20, < .0001). The nifedipine group required fewer doses to achieve the target blood pressure (MD 0.62, 95%CI 0.36 to 0.88, < .00001). There were no meaningful differences on the maternal complications between the two groups, mainly including eclampsia (OR 1.51; 95% CI, 0.75-3.05; = .25), headache (OR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.52-1.44; = .57), nausea/vomiting (OR 1.50; 95% CI, 0.76-2.93; = .24), hypotension (OR 0.49; 95% CI, 0.12-1.99; = .32), dizziness (OR 2.01; 95% CI, 0.77-5.25; = .16), HELLP (OR 0.27; 95% CI, 0.05-1.64; = .16), palpitations (OR 0.63; 95% CI, 0.32-1.27; = .20), flushing (OR 0.77; 95%CI, 0.18-3.22; = .72). There were no significant difference in the neonatal complications, including NICU admission (OR 1.24; 95% CI, 0.87-1.77; = .23), 5 min Apgar score < 7 (OR 1.07; 95% CI, 0.82-1.39; = .63), neonatal deaths (OR 1.08; 95%CI, 0.66-1.76; = .77), FHR abnormality (OR 0.94; 95%CI, 0.47-1.88; = .86). In conclusion, oral nifedipine could achieve target blood pressure more rapidly and required fewer doses than intravenous labetalol in the management of hypertensive emergencies during pregnancy.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Labetalol; Nifedipine; Emergencies; Blood Pressure; Hypotension
PubMed: 37487762
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2023.2235057 -
AJOG Global Reports Aug 2023This study aimed to assess the prognostic accuracies of Doppler ultrasound measures in predicting adverse perinatal outcomes for pregnancies complicated with preexisting... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to assess the prognostic accuracies of Doppler ultrasound measures in predicting adverse perinatal outcomes for pregnancies complicated with preexisting or gestational diabetes mellitus.
DATA SOURCES
An online database search of MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Emcare from inception to April 2022 was conducted.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Studies reporting singleton, nonanomalous fetuses of women with either preexisting (type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus) or gestational diabetes mellitus during pregnancy were included. In addition, the included studies assessed cerebroplacental ratio and middle cerebral artery and/or umbilical artery pulsatility index in the prediction of either: preterm birth, cesarean delivery for fetal distress, APGAR (Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity, and Respiration) score <7 at 5 minutes, neonatal intensive care unit admission (>24 hours), acute respiratory distress syndrome, jaundice, hypoglycemia, hypocalcemia, or neonatal death.
METHODS
The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed and 610 articles were identified, of which 15 were included. Two authors independently extracted prognostic data from each article and assessed the study applicability and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2) scoring criteria.
RESULTS
A total of 15 studies were included in the review and comprised prospective (n=10; 66%) and retrospective (n=5; 33%) cohorts. Sensitivity and positive predictive values varied widely across each Doppler measurement. Umbilical artery sensitivities were higher than those of cerebroplacental ratio and middle cerebral artery for hypoglycemia, jaundice, neonatal intensive care unit admission, respiratory distress, and preterm birth. Cerebroplacental ratio was the most reported index test; however, prognostic accuracy was worse than that of umbilical artery and middle cerebral artery Doppler across all adverse perinatal outcomes. Significant risk of bias was present in 14 (94%) studies, with substantial heterogeneity observed across studies in terms of study design and outcomes assessed.
CONCLUSION
Abnormal umbilical artery pulsatility index may be of more clinical value in predicting adverse perinatal outcomes compared with cerebroplacental ratio and middle cerebral artery pulsatility index in diabetic pregnancies. Further evaluation of umbilical artery Doppler measurements in diabetic pregnancies using standardized variables across studies is required for broader clinical application. The significant association between abnormal Doppler measurement and hypoglycemia may warrant further investigation.
PubMed: 37396341
DOI: 10.1016/j.xagr.2023.100241 -
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 -
JAMA Network Open May 2023Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation is common. Thus, there is a need to assess maternal labor-related complications and neonatal outcomes associated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of Maternal Labor-Related Complications and Neonatal Outcomes Following Elective Induction of Labor at 39 Weeks of Gestation vs Expectant Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
IMPORTANCE
Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation is common. Thus, there is a need to assess maternal labor-related complications and neonatal outcomes associated with elective induction of labor.
OBJECTIVE
To examine maternal labor-related complications and neonatal outcomes following elective induction of labor at 39 weeks compared with expectant management.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review of the literature was conducted using the MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central Library, World Health Organization, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases and registries to search for articles published between database inception and December 8, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
This systematic review and meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies reporting perinatal outcomes following induction of labor at 39 weeks vs expectant management.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed studies for bias. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were calculated using a random-effects model. This study is reported per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses 2020 guideline, and the protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Maternal outcomes of interest included emergency cesarean section, perineal injury, postpartum hemorrhage, and operative vaginal birth. Neonatal outcomes of interest included admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, low 5-minute Apgar score (<7) after birth, macrosomia, and shoulder dystocia.
RESULTS
Of the 5827 records identified in the search, 14 studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. These studies reported outcomes for 1 625 899 women birthing a singleton pregnancy. Induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation was associated with a 37% reduced likelihood of third- or fourth-degree perineal injury (OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.49-0.81]), in addition to reductions in operative vaginal birth (OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.79-0.97]), macrosomia (OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.48-0.91]), and low 5-minute Apgar score (OR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.40-0.96]). Results were similar when confined to multiparous women only, with the addition of a substantial reduction in the likelihood of emergency cesarean section (OR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.38-0.98]) and no difference in operative vaginal birth (OR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.84-1.21]). However, among nulliparous women only, induction of labor was associated with an increased likelihood of shoulder dystocia (OR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.02-1.46]) compared with expectant management.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this study, induction of labor at 39 weeks was associated with improved maternal labor-related and neonatal outcomes. However, among nulliparous women, induction of labor was associated with shoulder dystocia. These results suggest that elective induction of labor at 39 weeks may be safe and beneficial for some women; however, potential risks should be discussed with nulliparous women.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Cesarean Section; Fetal Macrosomia; Cross-Sectional Studies; Shoulder Dystocia; Labor, Induced; Labor, Obstetric; Obstetric Labor Complications; Infant, Newborn, Diseases
PubMed: 37171818
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.13162 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2023Mechanical methods were the first methods developed to ripen the cervix and induce labour. During recent decades they have been substituted by pharmacological methods.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Mechanical methods were the first methods developed to ripen the cervix and induce labour. During recent decades they have been substituted by pharmacological methods. Potential advantages of mechanical methods, compared with pharmacological methods may include reduction in side effects that could improve neonatal outcomes. This is an update of a review first published in 2001, last updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of mechanical methods for third trimester (> 24 weeks' gestation) induction of labour in comparison with prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) (vaginal and intracervical), low-dose misoprostol (oral and vaginal), amniotomy or oxytocin.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies (9 January 2018). We updated the search in March 2019 and added the search results to the awaiting classification section of the review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Clinical trials comparing mechanical methods used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with pharmacological methods. Mechanical methods include: (1) the introduction of a catheter through the cervix into the extra-amniotic space with balloon insufflation; (2) introduction of laminaria tents, or their synthetic equivalent (Dilapan), into the cervical canal; (3) use of a catheter to inject fluid into the extra-amniotic space (EASI). This review includes the following comparisons: (1) specific mechanical methods (balloon catheter, laminaria tents or EASI) compared with prostaglandins (different types, different routes) or with oxytocin; (2) single balloon compared to a double balloon; (3) addition of prostaglandins or oxytocin to mechanical methods compared with prostaglandins or oxytocin alone.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
This review includes a total of 112 trials, with 104 studies contributing data (22,055 women; 21 comparisons). Risk of bias of trials varied. Overall, the evidence was graded from very-low to moderate quality. All evidence was downgraded for lack of blinding and, for many comparisons, the effect estimates were too imprecise to make a valid judgement. Balloon versus vaginal PGE2: there may be little or no difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.26; 7 studies; 1685 women; low-quality evidence) and there probably is little or no difference in caesarean sections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 28 studies; 6619 women; moderate-quality evidence) between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal PGE2. A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.67; 6 studies; 1966 women; moderate-quality evidence), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.93; 8 studies; 2757 women; moderate-quality evidence) and may slightly reduce the risk of aneonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04; 3647 women; 12 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.12; 4 studies; 1481 women) or five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.14; 4271 women; 14 studies) because the quality of the evidence was found to be very low and low, respectively. Balloon versus low-dose vaginal misoprostol: it is uncertain whether there is a difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal misoprostol (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.39; 340 women; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 1322 women; 8 studies; moderate-quality evidence) but may increase the risk of a caesarean section (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.60; 1756 women; 12 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.66; 381 women; 3 studies), serious maternal morbidity or death (no events; 4 studies, 464 women), both very low-quality evidence, and five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.97; 941 women; 7 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.63; 1302 women; 9 studies) both low-quality evidence. Balloon versus low-dose oral misoprostol: a balloon catheter probably increases the risk of a vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.46; 782 women, 2 studies, and probably slightly increases the risk of a caesarean section (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32; 3178 women; 7 studies; both moderate-quality evidence) when compared to oral misoprostol. It is uncertain whether there is a difference in uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.38; 2033 women; 2 studies), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.06; 2627 women; 3 studies), both low-quality evidence, serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.52; 2627 women; 3 studies), very low-quality evidence, five-minute Apgar scores < 7 (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.32; 2693 women; 4 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.17; 2873 women; 5 studies) both low-quality evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low- to moderate-quality evidence shows mechanical induction with a balloon is probably as effective as induction of labour with vaginal PGE2. However, a balloon seems to have a more favourable safety profile. More research on this comparison does not seem warranted. Moderate-quality evidence shows a balloon catheter may be slightly less effective as oral misoprostol, but it remains unclear if there is a difference in safety outcomes for the neonate. When compared to low-dose vaginal misoprostol, low-quality evidence shows a balloon may be less effective, but probably has a better safety profile. Future research could be focused more on safety aspects for the neonate and maternal satisfaction.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Cesarean Section; Dinoprostone; Labor, Induced; Misoprostol; Oxytocin; Perinatal Death
PubMed: 36996264
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub4 -
Cancers Mar 2023This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) aimed to synthesize the current literature on the impacts of adolescent and young adult (AYA, ages 15-39 years) cancer on... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) aimed to synthesize the current literature on the impacts of adolescent and young adult (AYA, ages 15-39 years) cancer on reproductive health outcomes.
METHODS
EMBASE and Medline were searched from 1 January 2000 to 26 January 2022 for observational studies that included individuals with AYA cancer and controls which evaluated reproductive health outcomes. We used random effects models and 95% confidence intervals to obtain pooled measures of associations between AYA cancer, cancer treatment, and reproductive health outcomes.
RESULTS
The search identified 8625 articles; 21 were included. 62 reproductive outcomes were assessed and classified according to a sex-based framework as fetal/neonatal (n = 26), maternal (n = 11), fetal/neonatal-maternal (n = 23), and maternal-paternal (n = 2). Meta-analyses of crude estimates showed significant associations between AYA cancer and outcomes including preterm birth (pooled odds ratio [pOR] 1.31; 95% CI: 1.22, 1.42), gestational diabetes (pOR 1.43; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.99), and fertility treatment (pOR 2.66; 95% CI 1.71, 4.11). We also found higher odds of preterm birth (pOR 1.65; 95% CI: 1.21, 2.26) and low APGAR score at birth (pOR 2.03; 95% CI: 1.32, 3.13) among AYA cancer patients who received radiation compared to controls.
CONCLUSIONS
Our SRMA quantified impacts of AYA cancers and treatments on several reproductive health outcomes.
PubMed: 36980593
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15061707