Antepartum severe maternal morbidity: A population-based study of risk factors and delivery outcomes

Risk of Adverse Neonatal Events in Pregnancies Complicated by Severe Maternal Morbidity

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the risk of adverse neonatal events after a pregnancy complicated by severe maternal morbidity.

STUDY DESIGN

We analyzed a population-based cohort of deliveries in Quebec, Canada, between 2006 and 2021. The main exposure measure was severe maternal morbidity, comprising life-threatening conditions such as severe hemorrhage, cardiac complications, and eclampsia. The outcome included adverse neonatal events such as very preterm birth (gestational age <32 weeks), bronchopulmonary dysplasia, hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, and neonatal death. Using log-binomial regression models, we estimated adjusted relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between severe maternal morbidity and adverse neonatal events.

RESULTS

Among 1 199 112 deliveries, 29 992 (2.5%) were complicated by severe maternal morbidity and 83 367 (7.0%) had adverse neonatal events. Severe maternal morbidity was associated with 2.96 times the risk of adverse neonatal events compared with no morbidity (95% CI 2.90-3.03). Associations were greatest for mothers who required assisted ventilation (RR 5.86, 95% CI 5.34-6.44), experienced uterine rupture (RR 4.54, 95% CI 3.73-5.51), or had cardiac complications (RR 4.39, 95% CI 3.98-4.84). Severe maternal morbidity was associated with ≥3 times the risk of neonatal death and hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy and ≥10 times the risk of very preterm birth and bronchopulmonary dysplasia.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe maternal morbidity is associated with an elevated risk of adverse neonatal events. Better prevention of severe maternal morbidity may help reduce burden of severe neonatal morbidity.

Performance of a Maternal Risk Stratification System for Predicting Low Apgar Scores

OBJECTIVE

 Maternal risk stratification systems are increasingly employed in predicting and preventing obstetric complications. These systems focus primarily on maternal morbidity, and few tools exist to stratify neonatal risk. We sought to determine if a maternal risk stratification score was associated with neonatal morbidity.

STUDY DESIGN

 Retrospective cohort study of patients with liveborn infants born at ≥24 weeks at four hospitals in one health system between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. The Expanded Obstetric Comorbidity Score (EOCS) is used as the maternal risk score. The primary neonatal outcome was 5-minute Apgar <7. Logistic regression models determined associations between EOCS and neonatal morbidity. Secondary analyses were performed, including stratifying outcomes by gestational age and limiting analysis to "low-risk" term singletons. Model discrimination assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) and calibration via calibration plots.

RESULTS

 A total of 14,497 maternal-neonatal pairs were included; 236 (1.6%) had 5-minute Apgar <7; EOCS was higher in 5-minute Apgar <7 group (median 41 vs. 11, p < 0.001). AUC for EOCS in predicting Apgar <7 was 0.72 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.68, 0.75), demonstrating relatively good discrimination. Calibration plot revealed that those in the highest EOCS decile had higher risk of neonatal morbidity (7.6 vs. 1.7%, p < 0.001). When stratified by gestational age, discrimination weakened with advancing gestational age: AUC 0.70 for <28 weeks, 0.63 for 28 to 31 weeks, 0.64 for 32 to 36 weeks, and 0.61 for ≥37 weeks. When limited to term low-risk singletons, EOCS had lower discrimination for predicting neonatal morbidity and was not well calibrated.

CONCLUSION

 A maternal morbidity risk stratification system does not perform well in most patients giving birth, at low risk for neonatal complications. The findings suggest that the association between EOCS and 5-minute Apgar <7 likely reflects a relationship with prematurity. This study cautions against intentional or unintentional extrapolation of maternal morbidity risk for neonatal risk, especially for term deliveries.

KEY POINTS

· EOCS had moderate discrimination for Apgar <7.. · Predictive performance declined when limited to low-risk term singletons.. · Relationship between EOCS and Apgar <7 was likely driven by prematurity..

Antenatal reproductive screening for pregnant people including preconception: Provides the best reproductive opportunity for informed consent, quality, and safety

INTRODUCTION

This antenatal screening review will include reproductive screening evidence and approaches for pre-conception and post-conception, using first to third trimester screening opportunities.

METHODS

Focused antenatal screening peer-reviewed publications were evaluated and summarized.

RESULTS

Evidenced-based reproductive antenatal screening elements should be offered and discussed, with the pregnancy planning or pregnant person, during Preconception (genetic carrier screening for reproductive partners, personal and family (including reproductive partner) history review for increased genetic and pregnancy morbidity risks); First Trimester (fetal dating with ultrasound; fetal aneuploidy screening plus consideration for expanded fetal morbidity criteria, if appropriate; pregnant person preeclampsia screening; early fetal anatomy screening; early fetal cardiac screening); Second Trimester for standard fetal anatomy screening (18-22 weeks) including cardiac; pregnant person placental and cord pathology screening; pregnant person preterm birth screening with cervical length measurement); Third Trimester (fetal growth surveillance; continued preterm birth risk surveillance).

CONCLUSION

Antenatal reproductive screening has multiple elements, is complex, is time-consuming, and requires the use of pre- and post-testing counselling for most screening elements. The use of preconception and trimesters 'one to three' requires clear patient understanding and buy-in. Informed consent and knowledge transfer is a main goal for antenatal reproductive screening approaches.

Global burden of potentially life-threatening maternal conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Potentially life-threatening maternal conditions (PLTCs) is an important proxy indicator of maternal mortality and the quality of maternal health services. It is helpful to monitor the rates of severe maternal morbidity to evaluate the quality of maternal care, particularly in low- and lower-middle-income countries. This study aims to systematically identify and synthesize available evidence on PLTCs.

METHODS

We searched studies in English from 2009‒2023 in PubMed, the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Gateway, the POPLINE database, and the Science Direct website. The study team independently reviewed the illegibility criteria of the articles. Two reviewers independently appraised the included articles using the Joanna Briggs Instrument for observational studies. Disputes between the reviewers were resolved by consensus with a third reviewer. Meta-analysis was conducted in Stata version 16. The pooled proportion of PLTCs was calculated using the random effects model. The heterogeneity test was performed using the Cochrane Q test, and its level was determined using the I2 statistical result. Using Egger's test, the publication bias was assessed.

RESULT

Thirty-two cross-sectional, five case-control, and seven cohort studies published from 2009 to 2023 were included in the meta-analysis. The highest proportion of PLTC was 17.55% (95% CI: 15.51, 19.79) in Ethiopia, and the lowest was 0.83% (95% CI: 0.73, 0.95) in Iraq. The pooled proportion of PLTC was 6.98% (95% CI: 5.98-7.98). In the subgroup analysis, the pooled prevalence varied based on country income level: in low-income 13.44% (95% CI: 11.88-15.00) I2 = 89.90%, low-middle income 7.42% (95% CI: 5.99-8.86) I2 = 99.71%, upper-middle income 6.35% (95% CI: 4.21-8.50) I2 = 99.92%, and high-income 2.67% (95% CI: 2.34-2.99) I2 = 99.57%. Similarly, it varied based on the diagnosis criteria; WHO diagnosis criteria used 7.77% (95% CI: 6.10-9.44) I2 = 99.96% at P = 0.00, while the Centers for Disease Controls (CDC) diagnosis criteria used 2.19% (95% CI: 1.89-2.50) I2 = 99.41% at P = 0.00.

CONCLUSION

The pooled prevalence of PLTC is high globally, predominantly in low-income countries. The large disparity of potentially life-threatening conditions among different areas needs targeted intervention, particularly for women residing in low-income countries. The WHO diagnosis criteria minimize the underreporting of severe maternal morbidity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42023409229.