OBJECTIVES: To estimate the perinatal mortality rate in Sana'a, Yemen and to identify risk factors for perinatal deaths.
METHODS: A community-based prospective cohort study was carried out between 2015 and 2016. Nine-hundred and eighty pregnant women were identified and followed up to 7 days following birth. A multi-stage cluster sampling was used to select participants from community households', residing in the five districts of the Sana'a City, Yemen.
RESULTS: Total of 952 pregnant women were tracked up to 7 days after giving birth. The perinatal mortality rate, the stillbirth rate and the early neonatal mortality rate, were 89.3 per 1000, 46.2 per 1000 and 45.2 per 1000, respectively. In multivariable analysis older age (35+ years) of mothers at birth (Relative Risk=2.83), teenage mothers' age at first pregnancy (<18 years) (Relative Risk=1.57), primipara mothers (Relative Risk=1.90), multi-nuclear family (Relative Risk=1.74), mud house (Relative Risk=2.02), mothers who underwent female genital mutilation (Relative Risk=2.92) and mothers who chewed khat (Relative Risk=1.60) were factors associated with increased risk of perinatal death, whereas a positive mother's tetanus vaccination status (Relative Risk=0.49) were significant protective factors against perinatal deaths.
CONCLUSION: Rates of perinatal mortality were higher in Sana'a City compared to perinatal mortality at the national level estimated by World Health Organization. It is imperative there be sustainable interventions in order to improve the country's maternal and newborn health.
OBJECTIVE: The conflicting evidence from the literature presents a challenge in prenatal counselling. We present a case study and systematic review of the literature for the management and outcome of fetal SDH.
METHODS: Systematic search of electronic database.
RESULTS: A total 45 cases were extracted from 39 papers. Prenatal ultrasonographic features were intracranial echogenicity (42%), lateral ventriculomegaly (38%), presence of an intracranial mass (31%), macrocephaly (24%), midline deviation of cerebral falx (20%), and intracranial fluid collection (11%). Further secondary features were noted including reversed diastolic flow in the middle cerebral artery (11%), echogenic bowel (4%), hydrops fetalis (2%), and elevated middle cerebral artery peak systolic velocity (2%) (all highly likely to be associated with fetal anaemia). The rates of termination of pregnancy, stillbirth, and neonatal death were 18% (8/45), 16% (7/45), and 11% (5/45), respectively. Overall, therefore, the fetal and perinatal mortality was 32% (12/37). Amongst the 24 survivors with available neurological outcome, 42% (10/24) and 58% (14/24) had abnormal and normal neurological outcome, respectively. Underlying aetiology of fetal SDH was not identified in 47% (21/45). Fetal SDH with an identifiable underlying aetiology was the only factor associated with a higher chance of normal neurological outcome when compared to fetal SDH without a detectable cause (78.5 vs. 21.4%, p = 0.035).
CONCLUSIONS: Stillbirth and neonatal death occurred in a significant proportion of fetal SDH. 58% of survivors had normal neurological outcome, and better prognosis was seen in SDH with identifiable underlying aetiology.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of maintenance tocolytic therapy with oral nifedipine on the reduction of adverse neonatal outcomes and the prolongation of pregnancy by performing an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA).
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomised controlled trials of maintenance tocolysis therapy with nifedipine in preterm labour.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected trials including pregnant women between 24 and 36(6/7) weeks of gestation (gestational age, GA) with imminent preterm labour who had not delivered after 48 hours of initial tocolysis, and compared maintenance nifedipine tocolysis with placebo/no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was perinatal mortality. Secondary outcome measures were intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), necrotising enterocolitis (NEC), infant respiratory distress syndrome (IRDS), prolongation of pregnancy, GA at delivery, birthweight, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and number of days on ventilation support. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were performed.
MAIN RESULTS: Six randomised controlled trials were included in this IPDMA, encompassing data from 787 patients (n = 390 for nifedipine; n = 397 for placebo/no treatment). There was no difference between the groups for the incidence of perinatal death (risk ratio, RR 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI 0.35-5.33), intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) ≥ grade II (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.16-2.67), necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.50-2.65), infant respiratory distress syndrome (IRDS) (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.51-1.85), and prolongation of pregnancy (hazard ratio, HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.55-1.01).
CONCLUSION: Maintenance tocolysis is not associated with improved perinatal outcome and is therefore not recommended for routine practice.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Nifedipine maintenance tocolysis is not associated with improved perinatal outcome or pregnancy prolongation.
OBJECTIVES: To compare techniques of blood glucose monitoring and their impact on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2016), searched reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing techniques of blood glucose monitoring including SMBG, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or clinic monitoring among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2). Trials investigating timing and frequency of monitoring were also included. RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: This review update includes at total of 10 trials (538) women (468 women with type 1 diabetes and 70 women with type 2 diabetes). The trials took place in Europe and the USA. Five of the 10 included studies were at moderate risk of bias, four studies were at low to moderate risk of bias, and one study was at high risk of bias. The trials are too small to show differences in important outcomes such as macrosomia, preterm birth, miscarriage or death of baby. Almost all the reported GRADE outcomes were assessed as being very low-quality evidence. This was due to design limitations in the studies, wide confidence intervals, small sample sizes, and few events. In addition, there was high heterogeneity for some outcomes.Various methods of glucose monitoring were compared in the trials. Neither pooled analyses nor individual trial analyses showed any clear advantages of one monitoring technique over another for primary and secondary outcomes. Many important outcomes were not reported.1. Self-monitoring versus standard care (two studies, 43 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.49; one study, 28 women) or glycaemic control (both very low-quality), and not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and neonatal mortality and morbidity composite. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, neurosensory disability, and preterm birth were not reported in either study.2. Self-monitoring versus hospitalisation (one study, 100 women): there was no clear difference for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre-eclampsia and hypertension) (RR 4.26, 95% CI 0.52 to 35.16; very low-quality: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.22; very low-quality). There was no clear difference in caesarean section or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (both very low quality), and the sample size was too small to assess perinatal mortality (very low-quality). Large-for-gestational age, mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.3. Pre-prandial versus post-prandial glucose monitoring (one study, 61 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.28; very low-quality), large-for-gestational age (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.85; very low-quality) or glycaemic control (very low-quality). The results for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: pre-eclampsia and perinatal mortality are not meaningful because these outcomes were too rare to show differences in a small sample (all very low-quality). The study did not report the outcomes mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability or preterm birth.4. Automated telemedicine monitoring versus conventional system (three studies, 84 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.48; one study, 32 women; very low-quality), and mortality or morbidity composite in the one study that reported these outcomes. There were no clear differences for glycaemic control (very low-quality). No studies reported hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), neurosensory disability or preterm birth.5.CGM versus intermittent monitoring (two studies, 225 women): there was no clear difference for pre-eclampsia (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.59; low-quality), caesarean section (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54; I² = 62%; very low-quality) and large-for-gestational age (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.92; I² = 82%; very low-quality). Glycaemic control indicated by mean maternal HbA1c was lower for women in the continuous monitoring group (mean difference (MD) -0.60 %, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.29; one study, 71 women; moderate-quality). There was not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and there were no clear differences for preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (low-quality). Mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.6. Constant CGM versus intermittent CGM (one study, 25 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.79; very low-quality), glycaemic control (mean blood glucose in the 3rd trimester) (MD -0.14 mmol/L, 95% CI -2.00 to 1.72; very low-quality) or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.08 to 15.46; very low-quality). Other primary (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), mortality or morbidity composite, and neurosensory disability) or GRADE outcomes (preterm birth less than 34 weeks' gestation) were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found no evidence that any glucose monitoring technique is superior to any other technique among pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The evidence base for the effectiveness of monitoring techniques is weak and additional evidence from large well-designed randomised trials is required to inform choices of glucose monitoring techniques.