Differential diagnosis

Abnormal uterine bleeding may be acute or chronic accounting for up to 30% of outpatient visits to gynecologists. Hyperprolactinemia is one of the most common endocrine disorders associated with ovulatory dysfunction that results in menstrual irregularities. Prior to initiating treatment, the various causes (physiologic, pathologic, pharmacologic, or idiopathic) of hyperprolactinemia must be elucidated. Prolactin is a stress hormone that increases in response to stressful conditions; therefore, while collecting samples it is necessary to reduce venipuncture stress. A thorough patient history and physical examination will help to identify the cause and to direct therapy. Imaging results must always be assessed along with a patient’s clinical history and biochemical parameters when a pituitary tumor is suspected. Magnetic resonance imaging is the method of choice for the diagnosis of microprolactinomas and macroprolactinomas in both initial assessment and follow-up. Several drugs may cause a significant increase in serum prolactin concentration. If clinically feasible, the drug should be discontinued; if this is not possible, it should be substituted with a drug of similar action that does not cause hyperprolactinemia. Prolactinomas are the most common cause of pituitary adenomas affecting women of fertile age leading to significant elevations in prolactin that warrant treatment. Idiopathic hyperprolactinemia may be observed in the presence of elevated serum prolactin levels and in the absence of any other recognized cause of increased prolactin secretion. Dopamine agonists are the mainstay of therapy in prolactinomas and symptomatic idiopathic hyperprolactinemia because they normalize serum prolactin, effectively shrink prolactinomas and normalize gonadal function (i.e. menstruation)

A randomized trial of planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy

Background: Twin birth is associated with a higher risk of adverse perinatal outcomes than singleton birth. It is unclear whether planned cesarean section results in a lower risk of adverse outcomes than planned vaginal delivery in twin pregnancy.\ud \ud Methods: We randomly assigned women between 32 weeks 0 days and 38 weeks 6 days of gestation with twin pregnancy and with the first twin in the cephalic presentation to planned cesarean section or planned vaginal delivery with cesarean only if indicated. Elective delivery was planned between 37 weeks 5 days and 38 weeks 6 days of gestation. The primary outcome was a composite of fetal or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity, with the fetus or infant as the unit of analysis for the statistical comparison.\ud \ud Results: A total of 1398 women (2795 fetuses) were randomly assigned to planned cesarean delivery and 1406 women (2812 fetuses) to planned vaginal delivery. The rate of cesarean delivery was 90.7% in the planned-cesarean-delivery group and 43.8% in the planned-vaginal-delivery group. Women in the planned-cesarean-delivery group delivered earlier than did those in the planned-vaginal-delivery group (mean number of days from randomization to delivery, 12.4 vs. 13.3; P = 0.04). There was no significant difference in the composite primary outcome between the planned-cesarean-delivery group and the planned-vaginal-delivery group (2.2% and 1.9%, respectively; odds ratio with planned cesarean delivery, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.77 to 1.74; P = 0.49).\ud \ud Conclusion: In twin pregnancy between 32 weeks 0 days and 38 weeks 6 days of gestation, with the first twin in the cephalic presentation, planned cesarean delivery did not significantly decrease or increase the risk of fetal or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity, as compared with planned vaginal delivery