Use of External Cephalic Version and Amnioreduction in the Delivery of a Fetal Demise with Macrocephaly Secondary to Massive Intracranial Teratoma

Introduction Congenital intracranial tumors are rare and often incidentally diagnosed on routine ultrasound. We report a case of a fetal demise with a massive intracranial teratoma at 25 weeks of gestation and the management of her delivery in the setting of macrocephaly, breech presentation, and polyhydramnios. Case A 31-year-old G3P1011 woman at 25 weeks\u27 gestation presented with a recent fetal demise and a fetal intracranial tumor first identified at 16 weeks\u27 gestational age. The patient had declined termination of pregnancy. Biometry was consistent with 24 weeks\u27 gestation, except for a head circumference of 394.4 mm consistent with 39 weeks\u27 gestation. The fetus was in a breech presentation. An external cephalic version (ECV) was successfully performed under epidural anesthesia and an amnioreduction was then performed to stabilize the fetal position. Immediate induction of labor and vaginal delivery followed. Discussion ECV and amnioreduction may help facilitate delivery in cases of fetal demise complicated by macrocephaly, malpresentation, and polyhydramnios

Adherence and Acceptability of Telehealth Appointments for High Risk Obstetrical Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background:Telehealth has been successfully implemented for the delivery of obstetrical care. However, little is known regarding the attitudes and acceptability of patients and providers in high risk obstetrics and if implementation improves access to care in non-rural settings. Objective:The study aims to: 1) Describe patient and provider attitudes toward telehealth for delivery of high risk obstetrical care in a large health care system with both urban and suburban settings. 2) Determine if implementation of a telehealth model improves patient adherence to scheduled appointments in this patient population.Study DesignTwo self-administered surveys were designed. The first survey was sent to all high-risk obstetrical patients who received a telehealth visit between March 1, 2020 and May 30, 2020. The second survey was designed for providers who participated in these visits. We also compared the attended, cancelled and no show visit rates before (March 1-May 30, 2019) and after (March 1-May 30, 2020) telehealth implementation, as well as telehealth versus in person visits in 2020. We reviewed scheduled high-risk prenatal care appointments, diabetes education sessions, and genetic counseling and Maternal- Fetal Medicine consultations. Results:A total of 91 patient surveys and 33 provider surveys were analyzed. Overall, 86.9% of patients were satisfied with the care they received and 78.3% would recommend telehealth visits to others. 87.8% of providers reported having a positive experience using telehealth, and 90.9% believed that telehealth improved patients\u27 access to care. When comparing patient and provider preference regarding future obstetrical care after experiencing telehealth, 73.8% of patients desired a combination of in person and telehealth visits during their pregnancy. However, a significantly higher rate of providers preferred in-person visits (56% vs 23% respectively). When comparing visits between 2019 and 2020, there was a significantly lower rate of no-show appointments, patient-cancelled appointments, and patient same-day cancellations with the implementation of telehealth. There was also a significantly lower rate of patient-cancelled appointments, and patient same-day cancellations with those receiving telehealth visits compared to in person visits in 2020. Conclusion:Implementation of telehealth in high risk obstetrics has the potential to improve access to high risk obstetrical care, by reducing the rate of missed appointments. Both patients and providers surveyed expressed a high rate of satisfaction with telehealth visits and a desire to integrate telehealth into the traditional model of high risk obstetrical care

Histopathological evaluation of placentas after diagnosis of maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Background:The impact of maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection on placental histopathology is not well known. Objectives:To determine if significant placental histopathological changes occur after diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy and whether these changes are correlated with the presence or absence of symptoms associated with infection. Study Design:Retrospective cohort study of women diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection who delivered at a single center from April 9th to April 27th, 2020, and had placental specimens reviewed by pathology. Women with singleton gestations and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were eligible for inclusion. Historical controls selected from a cohort of women who delivered 6 months prior to the study period were matched in a 1:1 fashion by week of gestation at delivery. Histopathological characteristics were evaluated in each placenta and the incidence of these findings were compared between placentas after diagnosis of maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection and historical controls, as well as between placentas from patients with or without typical symptoms related to infection. Statistical analysis included use of Wilcoxon rank sum test and Fisher\u27s exact test for comparison of categorical and continuous variables. Statistical significance was defined as P value \u3c 0.05. Results:A total of 50 placentas after diagnosis of maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection and 50 historical controls were analyzed. Among placentas from patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 3 (6%) were preterm (33 3/7, 34 6/7 and 36 6/7 weeks of gestation), 16 (32%) were from patients with typical symptoms related to infection and 34 (68%) were from patients without typical symptoms related to the infection. All patients had diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the third trimester. Decidual vasculopathy was not visualized in any of the placentas from patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. There was no statistically significant difference in placental histopathological characteristics between the groups. SARS-CoV-2 testing for all neonates at 24 hours of life was negative. Conclusions:Based on our data, there are no significant placental histopathological changes that occur after diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the third trimester of pregnancy compared to a gestational age-matched historical control group. Similar incidences of histopathological findings were also discovered when comparing placentas from patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection with or without the presence of symptoms typically related to infection

Professionally responsible coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination counseling of obstetrical and gynecologic patients

© 2021 Elsevier Inc. The development of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines in the current and planned clinical trials is essential for the success of a public health response. This paper focuses on how physicians should implement the results of these clinical trials when counseling patients who are pregnant, planning to become pregnant, breastfeeding or planning to breastfeed about vaccines with government authorization for clinical use. Determining the most effective approach to counsel patients about coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination is challenging. We address the professionally responsible counseling of 3 groups of patients—those who are pregnant, those planning to become pregnant, and those breastfeeding or planning to breastfeed. We begin with an evidence-based account of the following 5 major challenges: the limited evidence base, the documented increased risk for severe disease among pregnant coronavirus disease 2019-infected patients, conflicting guidance from government agencies and professional associations, false information about coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines, and maternal mistrust and vaccine hesitancy. We subsequently provide evidence-based, ethically justified, practical guidance for meeting these challenges in the professionally responsible counseling of patients about coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination. To guide the professionally responsible counseling of patients who are pregnant, planning to become pregnant, and breastfeeding or planning to breastfeed, we explain how obstetrician-gynecologists should evaluate the current clinical information, why a recommendation of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination should be made, and how this assessment should be presented to patients during the informed consent process with the goal of empowering them to make informed decisions. We also present a proactive account of how to respond when patients refuse the recommended vaccination, including the elements of the legal obligation of informed refusal and the ethical obligation to ask patients to reconsider. During this process, the physician should be alert to vaccine hesitancy, ask patients to express their hesitation and reasons for it, and respectfully address them. In contrast to the conflicting guidance from government agencies and professional associations, evidence-based professional ethics in obstetrics and gynecology provides unequivocal and clear guidance: Physicians should recommend coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination to patients who are pregnant, planning to become pregnant, and breastfeeding or planning to breastfeed. To prevent widening of the health inequities, build trust in the health benefits of vaccination, and encourage coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine and treatment uptake, in addition to recommending coronavirus disease 2019 vaccinations, physicians should engage with communities to tailor strategies to overcome mistrust and deliver evidence-based information, robust educational campaigns, and novel approaches to immunization

Efficacy of ultrasound-indicated cerclage in twin pregnancies

OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the perinatal outcomes in twin pregnancies with short cervical length (CL) with ultrasound-indicated cerclage (UIC) vs no cerclage (control). STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of asymptomatic twin pregnancies with transvaginal ultrasound (TVU) CL ≤25 mm at 16-24 weeks from 1995 through 2012 at 4 separate institutions. Exclusion criteria were: genetic or major fetal anomaly, multifetal reduction >14 weeks, monochorionic-monoamniotic placentation, or medically indicated preterm birth (PTB). Primary outcome was spontaneous PTB (SPTB) <34 weeks. Secondary outcome was SPTB <28, <32, and <37 weeks. We also planned to evaluate primary and secondary outcome for the subgroup of twin pregnancies with CL ≤15 mm. RESULTS: In all, 140 women with twin pregnancy and TVU-CL ≤25 mm were managed with either UIC (n = 57) or no cerclage (n = 83). Demographic characteristics were not significantly different except women who underwent UIC presented at an earlier gestational age (GA) at diagnosis of short CL. After adjusting for GA at presentation, there were no differences in GA at delivery or SPTB <28 weeks: 12 (21.2%) vs 20 (24.1%) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-1.37), <32 weeks: 22 (38.6%) vs 36 (43.4%) aOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.1-1.13), or <34 weeks: 29 (50.9%) vs 53 (63.9%) (aOR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.16-1.1). In the subgroup of women with CL ≤15 mm (32 with UIC and 39 controls) the interval between diagnosis to delivery was significantly prolonged by 12.5 ± 4.5 vs 8.8 ± 4.6 weeks (P < .001); SPTB <34 weeks was significantly decreased: 16 (50%) vs 31 (79.5%) (aOR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31-0.83) as was admission to neonatal intensive care unit: 38/58 (65.5%) vs 63/76 (82.9%) (aOR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.81) when the UIC group was compared with the control group, respectively. CONCLUSION: UIC in asymptomatic twin pregnancies with TVU-CL ≤25 mm was not associated with significant effects on perinatal outcomes compared to controls. However, in the planned subgroup analysis of asymptomatic twin pregnancies with TVU-CL ≤15 mm before 24 weeks, UIC was associated with a significant prolongation of pregnancy by almost 4 more weeks, significantly decreased SPTB <34 weeks by 49%, and admission to neonatal intensive care unit by 58% compared with controls