Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:There are limited data to guide the diagnosis and management of vasa previa. Currently, what is known is largely based on case reports or series and cohort studies. OBJECTIVE:(s): To systematically collect and classify expert opinions and achieve consensus on the diagnosis and clinical management of vasa previa using focus group discussions (FGD) and a Delphi technique. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:A four-round FGD and a three-round Delphi survey of an international panel of experts on vasa previa were conducted. Experts were selected based on their publication record on vasa previa. First, we convened an FGD panel of 20 experts and agreed on which issues were unresolved in the diagnosis and management of vasa previa. A three-round anonymous electronic survey was then sent to the full expert panel. Survey questions were presented on the diagnosis and management of vasa previa that the experts were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale (from strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5). Consensus was defined as a median score of 5. Following responses to each round, any statements that had median scores of 3 or less were deemed to have had no consensus and excluded. Statements with a median score of 4 were revised and re-presented to the experts in the next round. Consensus and non-consensus statements were then aggregated. RESULTS:Sixty-eight international experts were invited to participate in the study, of which 57 participated. Experts were from 13 countries on five continents and have contributed to over 80% of published cohort studies on vasa previa, as well as national and international society guidelines. Completion rates were 84%, 93%, 91% for the first, second, and third rounds, respectively, and 71% completed all three rounds. The panel reached a consensus on 26 statements regarding the diagnosis and key points of management of vasa previa, including: 1) While there is no agreement on a distance between the fetal vessels and the cervical internal os to define vasa previa, the definition should not be limited to a 2 cm distance; 2) All pregnancies should be screened for vasa previa with routine examination for placental cord insertion and a color Doppler sweep of the region over the cervix at the second-trimester anatomy scan; 3) When a low-lying placenta or placenta previa is found in the second trimester, a transvaginal ultrasound with Doppler should be performed at around 32 weeks to rule out vasa previa; 4) Outpatient management of asymptomatic patients without risk factors for preterm birth is reasonable; 5)Asymptomatic patients with vasa previa should be delivered by scheduled cesarean between 35- and 37-weeks of gestation; and 6) There was no agreement on routine hospitalization, avoidance of intercourse, or use of 3-dimensional ultrasound for diagnosis of vasa previa. CONCLUSIONS:Through FGD and a Delphi process, an international expert panel reached consensus on the definition, screening, clinical management, and timing of delivery in vasa previa, which could inform the development of new clinical guidelines.

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a new condition related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the pediatric population, was recognized by physicians in the United Kingdom in April 2020. Given those up to the age of 21 years can be affected, pregnant adolescents and young adults are susceptible. However, there is scant information on how MIS-C may affect pregnancy and whether the presentation differs in the pregnant population. We report a case of a pregnant adolescent with COVID-19 and MIS-C with a favorable outcome. This case highlights the considerations in managing a critically ill pregnant patient with a novel illness and the importance of a multidisciplinary team in coordinating care.

OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to estimate the perinatal mortality associated with prenatally diagnosed vasa previa and to determine what proportion of those perinatal deaths are directly attributable to vasa previa. DATA SOURCES/METHODS:The following databases have been searched from January 1, 1987, to January 1, 2023: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA/METHODS:Our study included all studies (cohort studies and case series or reports) that had patients in which a prenatal diagnosis of vasa previa was made. Case series or reports were excluded from the meta-analysis. All cases in which prenatal diagnosis was not made were excluded from the study. METHODS:. The publication bias was evaluated using a funnel plot and the Peters regression test. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias. RESULTS:=0.0%) of pregnancies, respectively. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Perinatal death is uncommon after a prenatal diagnosis of vasa previa. Approximately half of the cases of perinatal mortality are not directly attributable to vasa previa. This information will help in guiding physicians in counseling and will provide reassurance to pregnant individuals with a prenatal diagnosis of vasa previa.

BACKGROUND:Crown-rump length discordance, defined as ≥10% discordance, has been investigated as an early sonographic marker of subsequent growth abnormalities and is associated with an increased risk of fetal loss in twin pregnancies. Previous studies have not investigated the prevalence of fetal aneuploidy or structural anomalies in twins with discordance or the independent association of crown-rump length discordance with adverse perinatal outcomes. Moreover, data are limited on cell-free DNA screening for aneuploidy in dichorionic twins with discordance. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate whether crown-rump length discordance in dichorionic twins between 11 and 14 weeks of gestation is associated with a higher risk of aneuploidy, structural anomalies, or adverse perinatal outcomes and to assess the performance of cell-free DNA screening in dichorionic twin pregnancies with crown-rump length discordance. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter retrospective cohort study that evaluated the performance of cell-free DNA screening for the common trisomies in twin pregnancies from December 2011 to February 2020. For this secondary analysis, we included live dichorionic pregnancies with crown-rump length measurements between 11 and 14 weeks of gestation. First, we compared twin pregnancies with discordant crown-rump lengths with twin pregnancies with concordant crown-rump lengths and analyzed the prevalence of aneuploidy and fetal structural anomalies in either twin. Second, we compared the prevalence of a composite adverse perinatal outcome, which included preterm birth at <34 weeks of gestation, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, stillbirth or miscarriage, small-for-gestational-age birthweight, and birthweight discordance. Moreover, we assessed the performance of cell-free DNA screening in pregnancies with and without crown-rump length discordance. Outcomes were compared with multivariable regression to adjust for confounders. RESULTS:Of 987 dichorionic twins, 142 (14%) had crown-rump length discordance. The prevalence of aneuploidy was higher in twins with crown-rump length discordance than in twins with concordance (9.9% vs 3.9%, respectively; adjusted relative risk, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-4.9). Similarly, structural anomalies (adjusted relative risk, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-4.4]) and composite adverse perinatal outcomes (adjusted relative risk, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.3) were significantly higher in twins with discordance. A stratified analysis demonstrated that even without other ultrasound markers, there were increased risks of aneuploidy (adjusted relative risk, 3.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-8.4) and structural anomalies (adjusted relative risk, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-4.8) in twins with CRL discordance. Cell-free DNA screening had high negative predictive values for trisomy 21, trisomy 18, and trisomy 13, regardless of crown-rump length discordance, with 1 false-negative for trisomy 21 in a twin pregnancy with discordance. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Crown-rump length discordance in dichorionic twins is associated with an increased risk of aneuploidy, structural anomalies, and adverse perinatal outcomes, even without other sonographic abnormalities. Cell-free DNA screening demonstrated high sensitivity and negative predictive values irrespective of crown-rump length discordance; however, 1 false-negative result illustrated that there is a role for diagnostic testing. These data may prove useful in identifying twin pregnancies that may benefit from increased screening and surveillance and are not ascertained by other early sonographic markers.

OBJECTIVE:Evidence is inconsistent regarding grand multiparity and its association with adverse obstetric outcomes. Few large American cohorts of grand multiparas have been studied. We assessed if increasing parity among grand multiparas is associated with increased odds of adverse perinatal outcomes. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Multi-center retrospective cohort of patients with parity ≥5 who delivered a singleton gestation in New York City from 2011-2019. Outcomes included postpartum hemorrhage, preterm delivery, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, shoulder dystocia, birthweight >4000 grams and <2500 grams, and NICU admission. Parity was analyzed continuously, and multivariate analysis determined if increasing parity and other obstetric variables were associated with each adverse outcome. RESULTS:There were 2,496 patients who met inclusion criteria. Increasing parity among grand multiparas was not associated with any of the pre-specified adverse outcomes. Odds of postpartum hemorrhage increased with history (aOR 2.65 [1.83, 3.84]) and current cesarean delivery (aOR 4.59 [3.40, 6.18]). Preterm delivery was associated with history (aOR 12.36 [8.70-17.58]) and non-White race (aOR 1.90 [1.27, 2.84]). Odds of shoulder dystocia increased with history (OR 5.89 [3.22, 10.79]) and birth weight >4000g (aOR 9.94 [6.32, 15.65]). Birthweight >4000 grams was associated with maternal obesity (aOR 2.92 [2.22, 3.84]). Birthweight <2500 grams was associated with advanced maternal age (aOR 1.69 [1.15, 2.48]), chronic hypertension (aOR 2.45 [1.32, 4.53]) and non-White race (aOR 2.47 95% CI [1.66, 3.68]). Odds of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy increased with advanced maternal age (aOR 1.79 [1.25, 2.56]), history (aOR 10.09 [6.77-15.04]) and non-White race (aOR 2.79 [1.95, 4.00]). NICU admission was associated with advanced maternal age (aOR 1.47 [1.06, 2.02]) and non-White race (aOR 2.57 [1.84, 3.58]). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Among grand multiparous patients, the risk factor for adverse maternal, obstetric and neonatal outcomes, appears to be occurrence of those adverse events in a prior pregnancy and not increasing parity itself.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the rates of vaccination against infectious diseases (Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Pertussis [Tdap] and influenza) in pregnancy during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic compared to contemporary historical controls. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS: < 0.05. RESULTS: In total, 1,713 pregnant people were included. Compared to historical controls, the COVID cohort differed in age, race, timing of initiation of prenatal care, insurance status, and medical comorbidities. After adjusting for these covariates, pregnant people were significantly more likely to accept influenza vaccine in the COVID cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-2.29) and had similar Tdap acceptance (aOR 1.5, 95% CI 0.99-2.17). However, this trend was not observed for the entire obstetric population; public insurance status and medical comorbidities were associated with lower vaccine rates during the pandemic. For those who had public insurance, rates of influenza vaccination decreased from 83% in 2019 to 40% during COVID (aOR 0.16, 95% CI 0.10-0.24) and for Tdap rates decreased from 93 to 54% (aOR 0.13, 95% CI 0.08-0.21). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic era, pregnant people at large were more likely to accept the influenza vaccine. However, this trend did not apply to Tdap, and high-risk groups with public insurance and medical comorbidities. This study highlights potential disparities in vaccination rates, which need to be accounted for when evaluating national vaccine trends. These data support increased efforts in vaccine counseling for high-risk populations. KEY POINTS/CONCLUSIONS:· Antenatal flu vaccination increased during the pandemic.. · Antenatal Tdap vaccination was unchanged during the pandemic.. · High-risk pregnant patients had decreased vaccine uptake.. · High-risk subgroups were not included in overarching vaccination trends..

BACKGROUND:The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends all pregnant people be offered genetic screening and diagnostic testing regardless of risk factors. Previous studies have demonstrated disparities in referrals for genetic testing by race outside of pregnancy, but limited data exist regarding genetic counseling practices during pregnancy. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to describe how patient, provider, and practice demographics influence the offering of diagnostic prenatal genetic testing by outpatient prenatal care providers. STUDY DESIGN:This was a multicenter anonymous survey study conducted between October 2021 and March 2022. Outpatient prenatal care providers, including family medicine and obstetrics attendings, residents, maternal-fetal medicine fellows, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and midwives, were surveyed about their genetic counseling practices and practice demographics. The primary outcome was the proportion of respondents who answered "yes, all patients" to the survey question "Do you offer diagnostic genetic testing to all patients?" The secondary outcomes included the association between patient and practice demographics and offering diagnostic testing. Diagnostic testing was defined as chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis. Screening genetic tests were defined as sequential screen, quadruple screen, cell-free DNA screening, or "other." The chi-square test or Fisher exact test was used as appropriate. For the outcome answers of diagnostic testing, logistic regression was performed to assess the association between the answer of diagnostic genetic testing and the current training level of providers, race and ethnicity, and insurance status variables. Multivariable analysis was performed to adjust for confounders. RESULTS:A total of 635 outpatient prenatal care providers across 7 sites were sent the survey. Overall, 419 providers responded for a total response rate of 66%. Of the providers who responded, most were attendings (44.9%), followed by residents (37.5%). Providers indicated the race, insurance status, and primary language of their patient population. Screening genetic testing was offered by 98% of providers. Per provider report, 37% offered diagnostic testing to all patients, 18% did not offer it at all, and 44% only offered it if certain patient factors were present. Moreover, 54.8% of attendings reported universally offering diagnostic testing. On univariable analysis, residents were less likely to offer diagnostic testing than attendings (odds ratio, 0.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.30). Providers who serve non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic Black, and other Hispanic patients were less likely to report offering diagnostic testing than other patient populations. Providers who served non-Hispanic Whites were more likely to offer diagnostic testing (odds ratio, 2.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-3.39). Patient populations who were primarily privately insured were more likely to be offered diagnostic testing compared with primarily publicly insured patients (odds ratio, 6.25; 95% confidence interval, 3.60-10.85). Providers who served a primarily English-speaking population were more likely to offer diagnostic genetic testing than other patient populations (odds ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.69). On multivariable analysis, the factors that remained significantly associated with offering diagnostic testing included level of training (resident odds ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.62; P=.0006; advanced practice provider odds ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.82; P=.02), having at least one-third of the patient population identify as "other Hispanic" (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.77; P=.005), and having private insurance instead of public insurance (primarily private insured odds ratio, 2.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-6.74; P=.02). CONCLUSION:Although offering genetic screening and diagnostic testing to all patients is recommended, no provider group universally offers diagnostic testing. Providers who serve populations from a racial and ethnic minority, those with public insurance, and those whose primary language is not English are less likely to report universally offering diagnostic genetic testing.

OBJECTIVE:One goal of prenatal genetic screening is to optimize perinatal care and improve infant outcomes. We sought to determine whether high-risk cfDNA screening for 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11.2DS) affected prenatal or neonatal management. METHODS:This was a secondary analysis from the SMART study. Patients with high-risk cfDNA results for 22q11.2DS were compared with the low-risk cohort for pregnancy characteristics and obstetrical management. To assess differences in neonatal care, we compared high-risk neonates without prenatal genetic confirmation with a 1:1 matched low-risk cohort. RESULTS:Of 18,020 eligible participants enrolled between 2015 and 2019, 38 (0.21%) were high-risk and 17,982 (99.79%) were low-risk for 22q11.2DS by cfDNA screening. High-risk participants had more prenatal diagnostic testing (55.3%; 21/38 vs. 2.0%; 352/17,982, p < 0.001) and fetal echocardiography (76.9%; 10/13 vs. 19.6%; 10/51, p < 0.001). High-risk newborns without prenatal diagnostic testing had higher rates of neonatal genetic testing (46.2%; 6/13 vs. 0%; 0/51, P < 0.001), echocardiography (30.8%; 4/13 vs. 4.0%; 2/50, p = 0.013), evaluation of calcium levels (46.2%; 6/13 vs. 4.1%; 2/49, P < 0.001) and lymphocyte count (53.8%; 7/13 vs. 15.7%; 8/51, p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS:High-risk screening results for 22q11.2DS were associated with higher rates of prenatal and neonatal diagnostic genetic testing and other 22q11.2DS-specific evaluations. However, these interventions were not universally performed, and >50% of high-risk infants were discharged without genetic testing, representing possible missed opportunities to improve outcomes for affected individuals.

Objective: The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to reductions in pregnancy intention and subsequent births in the United States (US). We sought to describe how fluctuations in COVID-19 case rates impacted numbers of births at NYU Langone Health (NYULH) to better understand the impact of the ongoing pandemic on New York City (NYC) births.
Study Design: Beginning in March 2020, three COVID-19 "waves'' and two "dips'' were identified using the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention seven-day moving average of cases per 100,000 in NYC. We compared the number of births at two NYULH hospitals (Manhattan and Brooklyn) nine months following a COVID-19 wave or dip with births during the same window (to account for seasonality) two years prior (pre-COVID). We also performed a sensitivity analysis to account for post-COVID population movement using change-of-address request data from the US Postal Service.
Result(s): Table 1 shows numbers of births recorded in the periods of interest. Compared with pre-COVID, the largest reduction in births followed Wave 1 (-29.28%); as the pandemic went on, the difference vs. pre-COVID diminished. By Wave 2, the percent change was -6.38% and by Wave 3, there was a net increase (5.34%). Manhattan had a steeper decrease in live births following Wave 1; births rebounded in Brooklyn after Dip 2; and both sites reported increases following Wave 3, with a greater increase in Brooklyn (Figure 1). These trends were slightly attenuated after accounting for migration.
Conclusion(s): Births initially decreased during the pandemic; however, this decline attenuated as time passed and then reversed by Wave 3, when the number of births surpassed pre-COVID. This reversal may have resulted from delayed pregnancy intention or other factors. Changes in the number of births during the pandemic varied by hospital site, with a greater rebound in Brooklyn. Future studies are warranted that focus on the interplay between secular events, such the COVID-19 pandemic, and individual-level factors, including sociodemographics, in shaping pregnancy intention. [Formula presented] [Formula presented]
Copyright