Amniotic fluid embolism incidence, risk factors and outcomes: a review and recommendations

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Amniotic fluid embolism (AFE) is a rare but severe complication of pregnancy. A recent systematic review highlighted apparent differences in the incidence, with studies estimating the incidence of AFE to be more than three times higher in North America than Europe. The aim of this study was to examine population-based regional or national data from five high-resource countries in order to investigate incidence, risk factors and outcomes of AFE and to investigate whether any variation identified could be ascribed to methodological differences between the studies.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We reviewed available data sources on the incidence of AFE in Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the USA. Where information was available, the risk factors and outcomes of AFE were examined.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The reported incidence of AFE ranged from 1.9 cases per 100 000 maternities (UK) to 6.1 per 100 000 maternities (Australia). There was a clear distinction between rates estimated using different methodologies. The lowest estimated incidence rates were obtained through validated case identification (range 1.9-2.5 cases per 100 000 maternities); rates obtained from retrospective analysis of population discharge databases were significantly higher (range 5.5-6.1 per 100 000 admissions with delivery diagnosis). Older maternal age and induction of labour were consistently associated with AFE.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Recommendation 1: Comparisons of AFE incidence estimates should be restricted to studies using similar methodology. The recommended approaches would be either population-based database studies using additional criteria to exclude false positive cases, or tailored data collection using existing specific population-based systems.</p> <p>Recommendation 2: Comparisons of AFE incidence between and within countries would be facilitated by development of an agreed case definition and an agreed set of criteria to minimise inclusion of false positive cases for database studies.</p> <p>Recommendation 3: Groups conducting detailed population-based studies on AFE should develop an agreed strategy to allow combined analysis of data obtained using consistent methodologies in order to identify potentially modifiable risk factors.</p> <p>Recommendation 4: Future specific studies on AFE should aim to collect information on management and longer-term outcomes for both mothers and infants in order to guide best practice, counselling and service planning.</p

MICE: The muon ionization cooling experiment. Step I: First measurement of emittance with particle physics detectors

Copyright @ 2011 APSThe Muon Ionization Cooling Experiment (MICE) is a strategic R&D project intended to demonstrate the only practical solution to providing high brilliance beams necessary for a neutrino factory or muon collider. MICE is under development at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL) in the United Kingdom. It comprises a dedicated beamline to generate a range of input muon emittances and momenta, with time-of-flight and Cherenkov detectors to ensure a pure muon beam. The emittance of the incoming beam will be measured in the upstream magnetic spectrometer with a scintillating fiber tracker. A cooling cell will then follow, alternating energy loss in Liquid Hydrogen (LH2) absorbers to RF cavity acceleration. A second spectrometer, identical to the first, and a second muon identification system will measure the outgoing emittance. In the 2010 run at RAL the muon beamline and most detectors were fully commissioned and a first measurement of the emittance of the muon beam with particle physics (time-of-flight) detectors was performed. The analysis of these data was recently completed and is discussed in this paper. Future steps for MICE, where beam emittance and emittance reduction (cooling) are to be measured with greater accuracy, are also presented.This work was supported by NSF grant PHY-0842798

Making stillbirths visible: a systematic review of globally reported causes of stillbirth

BACKGROUND: Stillbirth is a global health problem. The World Health Organization (WHO) application of the International Classification of Diseases for perinatal mortality (ICD‐PM) aims to improve data on stillbirth to enable prevention. OBJECTIVES: To identify globally reported causes of stillbirth, classification systems, and alignment with the ICD‐PM. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, Global Health, and Pubmed from 2009 to 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Reports of stillbirth causes in unselective cohorts. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pooled estimates of causes were derived for country representative reports. Systems and causes were assessed for alignment with the ICD‐PM. Data are presented by income setting (low, middle, and high income countries; LIC, MIC, HIC). MAIN RESULTS: Eighty‐five reports from 50 countries (489 089 stillbirths) were included. The most frequent categories were Unexplained, Antepartum haemorrhage, and Other (all settings); Infection and Hypoxic peripartum (LIC), and Placental (MIC, HIC). Overall report quality was low. Only one classification system fully aligned with ICD‐PM. All stillbirth causes mapped to ICD‐PM. In a subset from HIC, mapping obscured major causes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of quality information on causes of stillbirth globally. Improving investigation of stillbirths and standardisation of audit and classification is urgently needed and should be achievable in all well‐resourced settings. Implementation of the WHO Perinatal Mortality Audit and Review guide is needed, particularly across high burden settings. FUNDING: HR, SH, SHL, and AW were supported by an NHMRC‐CRE grant (APP1116640). VF was funded by an NHMRC‐CDF (APP1123611)

Risk factors for maternal morbidity in Victoria, Australia: a population-based study.

The aim of this analysis was to quantify the risk factors associated with maternal morbidity among women in Victoria, Australia, focusing particularly on sociodemographic factors.Case-control analysis.Data on all maternities in Victoria from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2008.A case-control analysis was conducted using unconditional logistic regression to calculate adjusted ORs (aORs). Cases were defined as all women noted to have had a severe complication during the index pregnancy. Severe maternal morbidity was defined by the validated, composite Australian Maternal Morbidity Outcome Indicator. Socioeconomic position was defined by Socio-Economic Indices for Areas (SEIFA), specifically the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage (IRSD), and other variables analysed were age, parity, Indigenous background, multiple pregnancy, country of birth, coexisting medical condition, previous caesarean section, spontaneous abortion or ectopic pregnancy.The study population comprised 211,060 women, including 1119 cases of severe maternal morbidity (0.53%). Compared with the highest IRSD quintile, the aOR for the 2nd quintile was 1.23 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.49), 0.98 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.21) for the 3rd quintile, 1.55 (95% CI 1.28 to 1.87) for the 4th and 1.21 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.47) for the lowest (most deprived) quintile. Indigenous status was associated with twice (aOR 2.02; 95% CI 1.32 to 3.09) the odds of being a case. Other risk factors for severe maternal morbidity were age ≥ 35 years (aOR 1.22; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.44), coexisting medical condition (aOR 1.39; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.65), multiple pregnancy (aOR 2.30; 95% CI 1.71 to 3.10), primiparity (aOR 1.36; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.57), previous caesarean section (aOR 1.79; 95% CI 1.53 to 2.10) and previous spontaneous miscarriage (aOR 1.25; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44).The findings from Victoria strongly suggest that social disadvantage needs to be acknowledged and further investigated as an independent risk factor for adverse maternal outcomes in Australia and incorporated into appropriate policy planning and healthcare programmes

Risk factors for maternal morbidity in Victoria, Australia: a population-based study.

The aim of this analysis was to quantify the risk factors associated with maternal morbidity among women in Victoria, Australia, focusing particularly on sociodemographic factors.Case-control analysis.Data on all maternities in Victoria from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2008.A case-control analysis was conducted using unconditional logistic regression to calculate adjusted ORs (aORs). Cases were defined as all women noted to have had a severe complication during the index pregnancy. Severe maternal morbidity was defined by the validated, composite Australian Maternal Morbidity Outcome Indicator. Socioeconomic position was defined by Socio-Economic Indices for Areas (SEIFA), specifically the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage (IRSD), and other variables analysed were age, parity, Indigenous background, multiple pregnancy, country of birth, coexisting medical condition, previous caesarean section, spontaneous abortion or ectopic pregnancy.The study population comprised 211,060 women, including 1119 cases of severe maternal morbidity (0.53%). Compared with the highest IRSD quintile, the aOR for the 2nd quintile was 1.23 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.49), 0.98 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.21) for the 3rd quintile, 1.55 (95% CI 1.28 to 1.87) for the 4th and 1.21 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.47) for the lowest (most deprived) quintile. Indigenous status was associated with twice (aOR 2.02; 95% CI 1.32 to 3.09) the odds of being a case. Other risk factors for severe maternal morbidity were age ≥ 35 years (aOR 1.22; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.44), coexisting medical condition (aOR 1.39; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.65), multiple pregnancy (aOR 2.30; 95% CI 1.71 to 3.10), primiparity (aOR 1.36; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.57), previous caesarean section (aOR 1.79; 95% CI 1.53 to 2.10) and previous spontaneous miscarriage (aOR 1.25; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44).The findings from Victoria strongly suggest that social disadvantage needs to be acknowledged and further investigated as an independent risk factor for adverse maternal outcomes in Australia and incorporated into appropriate policy planning and healthcare programmes

Making stillbirths visible: a systematic review of globally reported causes of stillbirth.

BACKGROUND: Stillbirth is a global health problem. The World Health Organization (WHO) application of the International Classification of Diseases for perinatal mortality (ICD-PM) aims to improve data on stillbirth to enable prevention. OBJECTIVES: To identify globally reported causes of stillbirth, classification systems, and alignment with the ICD-PM. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, Global Health, and Pubmed from 2009 to 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Reports of stillbirth causes in unselective cohorts. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pooled estimates of causes were derived for country representative reports. Systems and causes were assessed for alignment with the ICD-PM. Data are presented by income setting (low, middle, and high income countries; LIC, MIC, HIC). MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-five reports from 50 countries (489 089 stillbirths) were included. The most frequent categories were Unexplained, Antepartum haemorrhage, and Other (all settings); Infection and Hypoxic peripartum (LIC), and Placental (MIC, HIC). Overall report quality was low. Only one classification system fully aligned with ICD-PM. All stillbirth causes mapped to ICD-PM. In a subset from HIC, mapping obscured major causes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of quality information on causes of stillbirth globally. Improving investigation of stillbirths and standardisation of audit and classification is urgently needed and should be achievable in all well-resourced settings. Implementation of the WHO Perinatal Mortality Audit and Review guide is needed, particularly across high burden settings. FUNDING: HR, SH, SHL, and AW were supported by an NHMRC-CRE grant (APP1116640). VF was funded by an NHMRC-CDF (APP1123611). TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Urgent need to improve data on causes of stillbirths across all settings to meet global targets. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Background and methods Nearly three million babies are stillborn every year. These deaths have deep and long-lasting effects on parents, healthcare providers, and the society. One of the major challenges to preventing stillbirths is the lack of information about why they happen. In this study, we collected reports on the causes of stillbirth from high-, middle-, and low-income countries to: (1) Understand the causes of stillbirth, and (2) Understand how to improve reporting of stillbirths. Findings We found 85 reports from 50 different countries. The information available from the reports was inconsistent and often of poor quality, so it was hard to get a clear picture about what are the causes of stillbirth across the world. Many different definitions of stillbirth were used. There was also wide variation in what investigations of the mother and baby were undertaken to identify the cause of stillbirth. Stillbirths in all income settings (low-, middle-, and high-income countries) were most frequently reported as Unexplained, Other, and Haemorrhage (bleeding). Unexplained and Other are not helpful in understanding why a baby was stillborn. In low-income countries, stillbirths were often attributed to Infection and Complications during labour and birth. In middle- and high-income countries, stillbirths were often reported as Placental complications. Limitations We may have missed some reports as searches were carried out in English only. The available reports were of poor quality. Implications Many countries, particularly those where the majority of stillbirths occur, do not report any information about these deaths. Where there are reports, the quality is often poor. It is important to improve the investigation and reporting of stillbirth using a standardised system so that policy makers and healthcare workers can develop effective stillbirth prevention programs. All stillbirths should be investigated and reported in line with the World Health Organization standards.HR, SH, SHL and AW were supported in part by a National Health and Medical Research Council 436 (NHMRC) Centre of Research Excellence grant. VF was funded by a NHMRC Career 437 Development Fellowship

Gestational diabetes

Gestational Diabetes (GDM) is a common complication of pregnancy, reflecting inadequate beta cell compensation in the face of pregnancy-related insulin resistance. The prevalence and severity of GDM reflects the population rate of Type 2 diabetes in young women and is generally increasing with the advance of the global obesity epidemic. This article reviews the diagnosis of GDM, the importance of specific underlying diagnoses and traditional and alternative approaches to therapy. Evidence regarding the benefits of GDM treatment is summarized and perinatal management reviewed