Does exercise during pregnancy impact on maternal weight gain and fetal cardiac function? A Randomized controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between physical exercise during pregnancy and maternal gestational weight gain and fetal cardiac function. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial of women with a singleton pregnancy managed from the first trimester at the Hospital de Torrejón, Madrid, between November 2014 and June 2015. Women were randomized to either follow a supervised physical conditioning program, consisting of a 60-min session 3 days per week for the duration of pregnancy, or not attend any exercise program (controls). The primary outcome was maternal weight gain during pregnancy. Secondary outcomes included fetal cardiac function parameters evaluated at 20, 28 and 36 weeks' gestation, Cesarean section, preterm delivery, induction of labor and birth weight. A sample size of 45 in each group was planned to detect differences in maternal weight gain of at least 1 kg, with a power of > 80% and α of 0.05. RESULTS: During the study period, 120 women were randomized into the exercise (n = 75) and control (n = 45) groups. Following exclusions, the final cohort consisted of 42 women in the exercise group and 43 in the control group. Baseline characteristics (maternal age, prepregnancy body mass index, parity, conception by in-vitro fertilization, Caucasian ethnicity, physical exercise prior to pregnancy and smoker) were similar between the two groups. No differences were found between the groups in maternal weight at 20, 28, 36 and 38 weeks' gestation or in weight gain at 38 weeks. However, the proportion of women with weight loss ≥ 9 kg at 6 weeks postpartum was higher in the exercise compared with the control group (68.2% vs 42.8%; relative risk 1.593; P = 0.02). The ductus arteriosus pulsatility index (DA-PI) at 20 weeks (2.43 ± 0.40 vs 2.26 ± 0.33, P < 0.05) and the ejection fraction (EF) at 36 weeks (0.85 ± 0.13 vs 0.81 ± 0.11, P < 0.05) were higher in the exercise compared with the control group. All other evaluated fetal cardiac function parameters were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Performing exercise during pregnancy is not associated with a reduction in maternal weight gain but increases weight loss at 6 weeks postpartum. Physical exercise during pregnancy is associated with increased fetal DA-PI at 20 weeks and EF at 36 weeks, which could reflect adaptive mechanismspre-print493 K

Maternal physiological changes at rest induced by exercise during pregnancy: A randomized controlled trial.

Objective: to analyse maternal physiological changes in several areas (cardiovascular, metabolic, renal and hepatic) related to the regular practice of a supervised exercise program. Methods: This is an unplanned secondary analysis from a randomized controlled trial carried out in a single maternity unit in Madrid, Spain (NCT 02,756,143). From November 2014 to June 2015, 92 women were randomly assigned to perform a mild-moderate supervised exercise program during pregnancy (Intervention group, IG) or to continue with their routine pregnancy care (control group, CG). For the purpose of this study we collected clinical and analytical data (heart blood pressure, weight, blood glucose, AST, ALT, blood Creatinine and blood Uric acid) available from all obstetric visits and examined the differences between groups. Results: We did not find any differences in: pregnancy weight (IG: 11.4 ± 4.4 Kg vs. CG: 10.1 ± 5.3 Kg; p = 0.173); fasting glucose at 10+0–12+6 weeks (IG: 78.48±8.34 vs. CG: 76±13.26, p = 0.305) or at 34+0–36+4 weeks (IG: 73.25±10.27 vs CG: 73.45± 8.29,p = 0.920), and 50 gs glucose tolerance at 24+4–26+6weeks (IG: 116.23±35.07 vs CG: 116.36±25.98, p = 0.984); Aspartate-amino-transferase at 10+0–12+6 weeks (IG: 15.38±4.17 vs CG: 17.33±7.05, p = 0.124) and at 34+0–36+4 weeks (IG: 21.65±5.25 vs CG: 19.53±8.32, p = 0.165) or Alanine-amino- transferase at 10+0–12+6 weeks (IG: 27.50±10.63 vs CG: 28.27±11.77, p = 0.746) or at 34+0–36+4 weeks (IG: 22.93±9.23 vs CG: 20.84±13.49, p = 0.407); blood Creatinine concentrations at 34+0–36+4 weeks (IG: 0.595±0.401 vs CG: 0.575±0.100, p = 0.757) and blood uric acid concentrations at 34+0–36+4 weeks (IG: 3.526 ± 0.787 vs CG: 3.262±0.672, p = 0.218). Heart blood pressure was similar between groups except at 27+0–28+6 weeks, where systolic blood pressure was significantly lower in the CG in comparison to the IG (116.31±10.8 mmHg vs. 120.22 ± 10.3 mmHg, p = 0.010). Conclusion: Regular supervised exercise during pregnancy does not alter normal maternal physiologypre-print609 K

Application of a new protocol for providing obstetric care in an outpatient service during the COVID-19 pandemic in a public hospital in Madrid, Spain.

Objective: To evaluate the clinical implementation of a preventive COVID-19 protocol regarding re-organization of appointments and documented infections among health workers in an obstetric outpatient service. Methods: Descriptive analysis of the antenatal care at our obstetric outpatient service and infection rates among health care providers from March 19th to May 22nd, 2020. Appointments were divided into telephone calls or face-to-face examinations. A pre-consultation triage was implemented to identify suspected SARS-CoV2 infected women to reschedule them 14 days later or, if the consultation was non-delayable, to use complete Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Firstly, the number of face-to-face appointments, telephone appointments, and COVID-19 diagnoses in pregnant women were analyzed. Secondly, the number of obstetricians and nurses diagnosed with SARS-CoV2 infection and their serologic status during universal screening in May 2020 were recorded. Results: One thousand eight hundred forty-two obstetric appointments were scheduled during this period, including 432 (23.5%) telephone appointments (96.53% according to clinical protocol, 1.62% symptomatic patients advised to stay at home, and 1.85% COVID-19 confirmed cases), and 1,410 (76.5%) face-to-face appointments (9.7% did not attend due to fear of getting the infection, 3.1% were lost-to-follow-up, 0.5% were rescheduled due to COVID-19 symptoms and 86.7% who did attend). Of the 1,223 women attending their hospital appointment, 3.6% screened positive at the triage (72.7% rescheduled and 27.3% seen with PPE). 43 rRT-PCR-SARS-CoV2 tests were performed, and two tested positive. No COVID-19 symptoms were reported among health workers at the outpatient obstetric service, and only one nurse presented immunoglobulin (Ig)G anti-SARS-CoV2. Conclusion: A prompt implementation of a preventive protocol in a hospital obstetric outpatient service, including triage, hygienic and preventive measurements, and rescheduling pregnancy appointments, reduces the percentage of health workers affected by SARS-CoV2.post-print369 K

Pregnancy Outcomes and SARS-CoV-2 Infection: The Spanish Obstetric Emergency Group Study

Pregnant women who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at an increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. With this study, we aimed to better understand the relationship between maternal infection and perinatal outcomes, especially preterm births, and the underlying medical and interventionist factors. This was a prospective observational study carried out in 78 centers (Spanish Obstetric Emergency Group) with a cohort of 1347 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive pregnant women registered consecutively between 26 February and 5 November 2020, and a concurrent sample of PCR-negative mothers. The patients' information was collected from their medical records, and the association of SARS-CoV-2 and perinatal outcomes was evaluated by univariable and multivariate analyses. The data from 1347 SARS-CoV-2-positive pregnancies were compared with those from 1607 SARS-CoV-2-negative pregnancies. Differences were observed between both groups in premature rupture of membranes (15.5% vs. 11.1%, p < 0.001); venous thrombotic events (1.5% vs. 0.2%, p < 0.001); and severe pre-eclampsia incidence (40.6 vs. 15.6%, p = 0.001), which could have been overestimated in the infected cohort due to the shared analytical signs between this hypertensive disorder and COVID-19. In addition, more preterm deliveries were observed in infected patients (11.1% vs. 5.8%, p < 0.001) mainly due to an increase in iatrogenic preterm births. The prematurity in SARS-CoV-2-affected pregnancies results from a predisposition to end the pregnancy because of maternal disease (pneumonia and pre-eclampsia, with or without COVID-19 symptoms)

Efficiency of the Cerebroplacental Ratio in Identifying High-Risk Late-Term Pregnancies

Background and Objectives: Over the last few years, great interest has arisen in the role of the cerebroplacental ratio (CPR) to identify low-risk pregnancies at higher risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. This study aimed to assess the predictive capacity of the CPR for adverse perinatal outcomes in all uncomplicated singleton pregnancies attending an appointment at 40–42 weeks. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study including all consecutive singleton pregnancies undergoing a routine prenatal care appointment after 40 weeks in three maternity units in Spain and the United Kingdom from January 2017 to December 2019. The primary outcome was adverse perinatal outcomes defined as stillbirth or neonatal death, cesarean section or instrumental delivery due to fetal distress during labor, umbilical arterial cord blood pH Results: A total of 3143 pregnancies were analyzed, including 537 (17.1%) with an adverse perinatal outcome. Maternal age (odds ratio (OR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.04), body mass index (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.06), racial origin (OR 2.80, 95% CI 1.90 to 4.12), parity (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.45), and labor induction (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.35) were significant predictors of adverse perinatal outcomes with an area under the ROC curve of 0.743 (95% CI 0.720 to 0.766). The addition of the CPR to the previous model did not improve performance. Additionally, the CPR alone achieved a detection rate of only 11.9% (95% CI 9.3 to 15) when using the 10th centile as the screen-positive cutoff. Conclusions: Our data on late-term unselected pregnancies suggest that the CPR is a poor predictor of adverse perinatal outcomes

Protocol for a sequential, prospective meta-analysis to describe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the pregnancy and postpartum periods.

We urgently need answers to basic epidemiological questions regarding SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant and postpartum women and its effect on their newborns. While many national registries, health facilities, and research groups are collecting relevant data, we need a collaborative and methodologically rigorous approach to better combine these data and address knowledge gaps, especially those related to rare outcomes. We propose that using a sequential, prospective meta-analysis (PMA) is the best approach to generate data for policy- and practice-oriented guidelines. As the pandemic evolves, additional studies identified retrospectively by the steering committee or through living systematic reviews will be invited to participate in this PMA. Investigators can contribute to the PMA by either submitting individual patient data or running standardized code to generate aggregate data estimates. For the primary analysis, we will pool data using two-stage meta-analysis methods. The meta-analyses will be updated as additional data accrue in each contributing study and as additional studies meet study-specific time or data accrual thresholds for sharing. At the time of publication, investigators of 25 studies, including more than 76,000 pregnancies, in 41 countries had agreed to share data for this analysis. Among the included studies, 12 have a contemporaneous comparison group of pregnancies without COVID-19, and four studies include a comparison group of non-pregnant women of reproductive age with COVID-19. Protocols and updates will be maintained publicly. Results will be shared with key stakeholders, including the World Health Organization (WHO) Maternal, Newborn, Child, and Adolescent Health (MNCAH) Research Working Group. Data contributors will share results with local stakeholders. Scientific publications will be published in open-access journals on an ongoing basis

Adverse maternal, fetal, and newborn outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection: an individual participant data meta-analysis

Introduction Despite a growing body of research on the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, there is continued controversy given heterogeneity in the quality and design of published studies.Methods We screened ongoing studies in our sequential, prospective meta-analysis. We pooled individual participant data to estimate the absolute and relative risk (RR) of adverse outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with confirmed negative pregnancies. We evaluated the risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.Results We screened 137 studies and included 12 studies in 12 countries involving 13 136 pregnant women.Pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection—as compared with uninfected pregnant women—were at significantly increased risk of maternal mortality (10 studies; n=1490; RR 7.68, 95% CI 1.70 to 34.61); admission to intensive care unit (8 studies; n=6660; RR 3.81, 95% CI 2.03 to 7.17); receiving mechanical ventilation (7 studies; n=4887; RR 15.23, 95% CI 4.32 to 53.71); receiving any critical care (7 studies; n=4735; RR 5.48, 95% CI 2.57 to 11.72); and being diagnosed with pneumonia (6 studies; n=4573; RR 23.46, 95% CI 3.03 to 181.39) and thromboembolic disease (8 studies; n=5146; RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 27.12).Neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to be admitted to a neonatal care unit after birth (7 studies; n=7637; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.08); be born preterm (7 studies; n=6233; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.29) or moderately preterm (7 studies; n=6071; RR 2.92, 95% CI 1.88 to 4.54); and to be born low birth weight (12 studies; n=11 930; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.40). Infection was not linked to stillbirth. Studies were generally at low or moderate risk of bias.Conclusions This analysis indicates that SARS-CoV-2 infection at any time during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal death, severe maternal morbidities and neonatal morbidity, but not stillbirth or intrauterine growth restriction. As more data become available, we will update these findings per the published protocol