2D versus 3D real time ultrasound with live xPlane imaging to visualize aortic and ductal arches: comparison between methods

Background The diagnosis of congenital heart defects is challenging, especially for what concerns conotruncal anomalies. Indeed, although the screening techniques of fetal cardiac anomalies have greatly improved, the detection rate of conotruncal anomalies still remains low due to the fact that they are associated with a normal four-chamber view. Therefore, the study aimed to compare real-time three-dimensional echocardiography with live xPlane imaging with two-dimensional (2D) traditional imaging in visualizing ductal and aortic arches during routine echocardiography of the second trimester of gestation. Methods This was an observational prospective study including 114 women with uncomplicated, singleton pregnancies. All sonographic studies were performed by two different operators, of them 60 by a first level operator, while 54 by a second level operator. A subanalysis was run in order to evaluate the feasibility and the time needed for the two procedures according to fetal spine position and operator’s experience. Results The measurements with 2D ultrasound were performed in all 114 echocardiographies, while live xPlane imaging was feasible in the 78% of the cases, and this was mainly due to fetal position. The time lapse needed to visualize aortic and ductal arches was significantly lower when using 2D ultrasound compared to live xPlane imaging (29.56 ± 28.5 s vs. 42.5 ± 38.1 s, P = 0.006 for aortic arch; 22.14 ± 17.8 s vs. 37.1 ± 33.8 s, P = 0.001 for ductal arch), also when performing a subanalysis according to operators’ experience (P < 0.05 for all comparisons). Feasibility of live xPlane proved to be correlated with the position of the fetal spine and the operator’s experience. Discussion To find a reproducible and standardized method to detect fetal heart defects may bring a great benefit for both patients and operators. In this scenario live xPlane imaging is a novel method to visualize ductal and aortic arches. We found that the position of the fetal spine may affect the feasibility of the method since, when the fetal back is anterior or transverse, the visualization of the correct view of three-vessels and trachea in order to set the reference line properly becomes more challenging. In addition, the fetal spine position influences the duration of the ultrasound examination. Regarding operator’s skills and experience, in our study a first level operator was able to perform the complete 2D and xPlane examination in a lower number of cases compared to second level operators. In addition, the time required for the complete examination was higher for first level operators. This means that this technique is based on an adequate operators’ expertise

Induction of Labor in Women with Previous Cesarean Section and Unfavorable Cervix: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: The efficacy and safety of a cervical ripening balloon (CRB) in women with a previous cesarean section (CS) and unfavorable Bishop score are still controversial. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed across six tertiary hospitals from 2015 to 2019. Women with one previous transverse CS, singleton cephalic term pregnancy and BS Results: Of the 265 women included, 57.3% had successful vaginal birth. Augmentation improved vaginal delivery (32.2% vs. 21.2%). Intrapartum analgesia was associated with an increased VBAC rate (58.6% vs. 34.5%). Maternal BMI ≥30 and age ≥40 years increased emergency CS rate (11.8% vs. 28.3% and 7.2 vs. 15.9%). Composite adverse maternal outcome occurred in 4.8% of CRB group women and increased to 17.6% when associated with oxytocin. Uterine rupture occurred in one case (0.4%) in the CRB–oxytocin group. Poorer fetal outcome occurred after emergency CS, if compared to successful VBAC (12.4% vs. 3.3%). Conclusions: In women with a previous CS and unfavorable Bishop score, induction of labor with a CRB can be considered safe and effective

Assessment of spatial learning in the Morris watermaze.

<p>Learning was assessed by the latency in seconds to find the hidden platform. Animals with DS who prenatally received saline (placebo, open circles) did not learn over the 5 day period. Control animals (open squares) who prenatally received saline (placebo) did learn with an approximate halving of their latency. Control animals who prenatally received NAP+SAL (closed squares) also learned over the five day period. Animals with DS who prenatally received NAP+SAL (closed circles) learned over the five day period, similar to controls and significantly better than DS-placebo (p<0.01).</p

What is the effect of intertwin delivery interval on the outcome of the second twin delivered vaginally?

<p><b>Objective:</b> Optimal management of twin deliveries is controversial. We aimed to assess if intertwin delivery interval, after vaginal delivery of the first twin, may have an influence on adverse neonatal outcomes of the second twin</p> <p><b>Study design:</b> This is a retrospective observational study including diamniotic twin pregnancies with vaginal delivery of the first twin, between January 2000 and July 2017. Inclusion criteria were diamniotic pregnancies and vaginal delivery of the first twin. We excluded higher twin order, monoamniotic pregnancies, cesarean delivery of the first twin and patients with missing data.</p> <p><b>Results:</b> A number of 400 diamniotic twin pregnancies met the inclusion criteria and were divided, considering intertwin delivery interval into (1) ≤30 minutes (<i>n</i> = 365); and (2) >30 minutes (<i>n</i> = 35). Considering the two study groups, maternal and first twin characteristics and outcomes were similar. Second twin reported higher incidence of cesarean section and vacuum delivery, but similar incidence of neonatal adverse outcomes, in case of intertwin interval >30 minutes. At multivariate analysis, a difference between second and first twin weight ≥25% was correlated to neonatal adverse outcome, while we did not found this correlation with a cut-off of 30 minutes.</p> <p><b>Conclusions:</b> In our study, growth discrepancy between twins was significantly correlated to adverse neonatal outcomes, while intertwin delivery time was not an influencing factor. So, in line with this result, in our clinical practice, we do not use a fixed time in which both twins should be delivered, neither in monochorionic nor in dichorionic pregnancies, when fetal wellbeing was demonstrated during labor.</p