Thrombocytopenia in pregnancy

Background: Thrombocytopenia in pregnancy is defined as platelet count of less than 150,000/µl. It may be inherited or idiopathic, acute or chronic in onset, either primary or associated with other disorders. Gestational thrombocytopenia is the most common type which is diagnosed usually in the last trimester. When there is severe thrombocytopenia, it is usually pathological in origin. The goal of this study was to identify thrombocytopenia in early stages of pregnancy and evaluate the risk factors involved. Aim was the evaluation of thrombocytopenia in pregnancy.Methods: This was a prospective observational study conducted in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department of a tertiary care centre from 1st January 2020 to 31st December 2020. Data was collected and analyzed by SPSS version 17.Results: In the current study, 71.1% of cases were mild thrombocytopenia and 64.4% were picked up in the third trimester. Out of the 90 cases taken, 64% of the cases were due to the most common cause i.e., gestational thrombocytopenia. The second most common cause of thrombocytopenia was pregnancy induced hypertension which accounted for 18% of the total number of cases. Symptomatic thrombocytopenia of moderate and severe degree was seen in cases of PIH and ITP. 37.5% of the cases had underlying hypertension.Conclusions: Timely identification and management of the cause of thrombocytopenia is crucial in the antenatal group of women. Although it is an incidental finding in most cases, when there is an underlying cause, severity of thrombocytopenia increases tremendously and has dire consequences. Every pregnant woman should undergo complete blood count examination once in each trimester to avoid maternal and fetal complications

A comparative study of vaginal misoprostol versus oral misoprostol for induction of labour

Background: Induction of labour defined as artificial initiation of uterine contractions before the onset of spontaneous labour, after the period of viability, by any methods. The successful outcome depends on the Bishop Score, maternal age and parity. Authors compared the most preferred two routes; vaginal and oral for induction and outcome, adverse events and side effects were noted.Methods: This was a prospective comparative study carried out at SVPIMSR, Ahmedabad, from January 2019 to June 2019, Gujarat, 100 patients who required induction were randomly divided in two groups- Group A received 25µg oral misoprostol, Group B - received 25µg vaginal misoprostol repeated 4 hourly up to maximum five doses in both groups. The induction to delivery interval, mode of delivery, maternal and neonatal outcome and complications were observed.Results: The mean induction to delivery interval was less in vaginal group than oral (18.7 hours in vaginal versus 22.4 hours in oral). Vaginal delivery and caesarean section rates were comparable in both groups. 60% patients in Group A required more than two doses as compared to 36% in Group B. No major complications or adverse events were observed.Conclusions: Both oral misoprostol in a dose of 25μg and vaginal misoprostol 25μg every four hours, to a maximum of five doses, have safety and efficacy for induction. With The vaginal route, delivery occurs in less time and few doses required as compared to oral

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used