Changes in neonatal admissions, care processes and outcomes in England and Wales during the COVID-19 pandemic: a whole population cohort study

Effect of national guidance on survival for babies born at 22 weeks' gestation in England and Wales: population based cohort study

Objectives

To explore the effect of changes in national clinical recommendations in 2019 that extended provision of survival focused care to babies born at 22 weeks' gestation in England and Wales.

Design

Population based cohort study.

Setting

England and Wales, comprising routine data for births and hospital records.

Participants

Babies alive at the onset of care in labour at 22 weeks+0 days to 22 weeks+6 days and at 23 weeks+0 days to 24 weeks+6 days for comparison purposes between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2021.

Main outcome measures

Percentage of babies given survival focused care (active respiratory support after birth), admitted to neonatal care, and surviving to discharge in 2018-19 and 2020-21.

Results

For the 1001 babies alive at the onset of labour at 22 weeks' gestation, a threefold increase was noted in: survival focused care provision from 11.3% to 38.4% (risk ratio 3.41 (95% confidence interval 2.61 to 4.45)); admissions to neonatal units from 7.4% to 28.1% (3.77 (2.70 to 5.27)), and survival to discharge from neonatal care from 2.5% to 8.2% (3.29 (1.78 to 6.09)). More babies of lower birth weight and early gestational age received survival focused care in 2020-21 than 2018-19 (46% to 64% at <500g weight; 19% to 31% at 22 weeks+0 days to 22 weeks+3 days).

Conclusions

A change in national guidance to recommend a risk based approach was associated with a threefold increase in 22 weeks' gestation babies receiving survival focused care. The number of babies being admitted to neonatal units and those surviving to discharge increased.

Effect of telehealth-integrated antenatal care on pregnancy outcomes in Australia: an interrupted time-series analysis

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, rapid integration of telehealth into antenatal care occurred to support ongoing maternity care. A programme of this scale had not been previously implemented. We evaluated whether telehealth-integrated antenatal care in an Australian public health system could achieve pregnancy outcomes comparable to those of conventional care to assess its safety and efficacy.

METHODS

Routinely collected data for individuals who gave birth at Monash Health (Melbourne, VIC, Australia) during a conventional care period (Jan 1, 2018, to March 22, 2020) and telehealth-integrated period (April 20, 2020, to April 25, 2021) were analysed. We included all births that occurred at 20 weeks' gestation or later or with a birthweight of at least 400 g (if duration of gestation was unknown). We excluded multiple births, births for which private antenatal care was received, and births to individuals transferred from other hospitals or who had no antenatal care. Baseline demographics, telehealth uptake, and pregnancy complications (related to pre-eclampsia, fetal growth restriction [FGR], gestational diabetes, stillbirth, neonatal intensive care [NICU] admission, and preterm birth [<37 weeks' gestation]) were compared using comparative statistics and an interrupted time-series analysis. Results were stratified by care stream, with high-risk models consisting of obstetric specialist-led care, and all other streams categorised as low-risk models. The impact of the integrated period on outcomes was also assessed with stratification by parity.

FINDINGS

17 873 births occurred in the conventional period and 8131 in the integrated period. Compared with the conventional period, women giving birth during the integrated period were slightly older (30·63 years vs 30·88 years) and had slightly higher BMI (25·52 kg/m2vs 26·14 kg/m2), and more Australian-born women gave birth during the integrated period (37·37% vs 39·79%). There were no significant differences in smoking status or parity between the two groups. 107 (0·08%) of 129 514 antenatal consultations in the conventional period and 34 444 (45·94%) of 74 982 in the integrated period were delivered by telehealth. No significant differences between the conventional and integrated periods were seen in median gestational age at pre-eclampsia diagnosis (low-risk models 37·4 weeks in the conventional period vs 37·1 weeks in the integrated period, difference -0·3 weeks [-0·7 to 0·1]; high-risk models 35·5 weeks vs 36·3 weeks, difference 0·3 weeks [-0·3 to 1·1]), incidence of FGR below the 3rd birthweight percentile (low-risk models 1·62% vs 1·74%, difference 0·12 percentage points [-0·26 to 0·50]; high-risk 4·04% vs 4·13%, difference 0·089 percentage points [-1·08 to 1·26]), and incidence of preterm birth (low-risk models 4·99% vs 5·01%, difference 0·02% [-0·62 to 0·66]; high-risk models 15·76% vs 14·43%, difference -1·33% [-3·42 to 0·77]). Parity did not affect these findings. Interrupted time-series analysis showed a significant reduction in induction of labour for singletons with suspected FGR among women in low-risk models during the integrated period (-0·04% change per week [95% CI -0·07 to -0·01], p=0·0040), and NICU admission declined after telehealth integration (low-risk models -0·02% change per week [-0·03 to -0·003], p=0·018; high-risk models -0·10% change per week, -0·19 to -0·001; p=0·047). No significant differences in stillbirth rates were observed. The proportion of women diagnosed with gestational diabetes was significantly higher in the integrated period compared with the conventional period for both low-risk care models (22·28% vs 25·13%, difference 2·85 percentage points [1·60 to 4·11]) and high-risk care models (28·70% vs 34·02%, difference 5·32 percentage points [2·57 to 8·07]). However overall, when compared with the conventional period, there was no significant difference in proportion of women with gestational diabetes requiring insulin therapy (low-risk models 8·08% vs 7·73%, difference -0·35 percentage points [-1·13 vs 0·44]; high-risk models 14·81% vs 15·71%, difference 0·89 percentage points [-1·23 to 3·02]), or proportion of women with gestational diabetes who gave birth to a baby with macrosomia in the integrated period (low-risk models 3·16% vs 2·33%, difference -0·83 percentage points [-1·77 to 0·12]; high-risk models 5·58% vs 4·81%, difference -0·77 percentage points [-3·06 to 1·52]).

INTERPRETATION

Telehealth-integrated antenatal care replaced around 46% of in-person consultations without compromising pregnancy outcomes. It might be associated with a reduction in labour induction for suspected FGR, particularly for women in low-risk models, without compromising FGR detection or perinatal morbidity. These findings support the ongoing use of telehealth in providing flexible antenatal care.

FUNDING

None.

Breastfeeding rates in England during the Covid-19 pandemic and the previous decade: Analysis of national surveys and routine data

BACKGROUND

Few studies have compared breastfeeding rates before and during the pandemic using comparable data across time. We used data from two national maternity surveys (NMS) to compare breastfeeding rates in England before and during the pandemic.

METHODS

Analysis was conducted using the NMS from 2018 (pre-pandemic; n = 4,509) and 2020 (during the pandemic; n = 4,611). The prevalence of breastfeeding initiation, and 'any' breastfeeding and exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) at 6 weeks and 6 months were compared between these surveys. Data were interpreted in the context of underlying trends in these prevalences from previous NMS (from 2010 and 2014), and annual routine data for England (from 2009-10 to 2020-21). Modified Poisson regression was used to estimate adjusted risk ratios (aRR) for the effect of birth during the pandemic (2020 versus 2018) on breastfeeding, with adjustment for sociodemographic and birth-related factors.

RESULTS

Breastfeeding initiation and any breastfeeding at 6 weeks remained relatively constant in the NMS and the routine data. Birth during the pandemic was associated with a 3 percentage point decrease in EBF at 6 weeks in the NMS (aRR 0.92, 95%CI: 0.87, 0.98 for pandemic versus pre-pandemic), but a smaller decrease in the routine data. Birth during the pandemic was associated with a 3 percentage point increase in any breastfeeding at 6 months in the NMS (aRR 1.05, 95%CI: 1.00, 1.10). Breastfeeding varied across different groups of women in the NMS (i.e. marked inequalities), but the small changes observed between the pandemic and pre-pandemic NMS were broadly similar across the sociodemographic and birth-related factors examined (i.e. no change in inequalities).

CONCLUSION

Breastfeeding initiation and any breastfeeding at 6 weeks in England were unaffected by the pandemic, and the persistent inequalities in breastfeeding did not widen. Services should aim to reduce these inequalities in breastfeeding which have been documented since the 1970s.

Observational study on the neonatal outcome during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany

AIM

We aimed to determine stillbirth, preterm birth, perinatal complications, and the developmental outcome of children born preterm during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany.

METHODS

National data from the perinatal survey of preterm and term infants born in 2017-2020 between 22 March and 31 December were evaluated. Neurodevelopment of preterm infants at 2 years corrected age was tested with the Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised questionnaire and by clinical testing with Bayley scales, either before or during the COVID-19 pandemic. Statistical significance was calculated using a Pearson's chi-square-independence test and a linear regression model.

RESULTS

In 2020, there was an increase of stillbirths of 0.02% (p = 0.01) and a decrease in preterm births by 0.38% (p < 0.001). No changes were found in a representative subgroup of infants with regard to neurodevelopmental scores (mental developmental index and psychomotor developmental index) or in parent survey data (non-verbal cognition scale and language development scale).

CONCLUSION

Increasing rates of stillbirths and decreasing preterm births in Germany were observed. Existing networks might stabilise neurodevelopment of preterm infants during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Higher NICU admissions in infants born at ≥35 weeks gestational age during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

Increasing evidence has shown that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound negative impact on vulnerable populations and a significant effect on maternal and neonatal health. We observed an increase in the percentage of infants admitted to NICU from 8% to 10% in the first year of the pandemic. This study aimed to compare the delivery room outcomes, NICU admissions and interventions, and neonatal outcomes two years before and during the pandemic.

Methods

This was a retrospective study in a public hospital between pre-COVID-19 (April 2018-December 2019) and COVID-19 (April 2020-December 2021). Data were obtained from all live births at ≥35 weeks gestation (GA). Maternal and neonatal demographics, delivery room (DR), and NICU neonatal outcomes were compared between the study periods using simple bivariable generalized estimating equations (GEE) regression. Multivariable GEE logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust for the effects of baseline differences in demographics on the outcomes.

Results

A total of 9,632 infants were born ≥35 weeks gestation during the study period (pre-COVID-19 n = 4,967, COVID-19 n = 4,665). During the COVID-19 period, there was a small but significant decrease in birth weight (33 g); increases in maternal diabetes (3.3%), hypertension (4.1%), and Hispanic ethnicity (4.7%). There was a decrease in infants who received three minutes (78.1% vs. 70.3%, p < 0.001) of delayed cord clamping and increases in the exclusive breastfeeding rate (65.9% vs. 70.1%, p < 0.001), metabolic acidosis (0.7% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.02), NICU admission (5.1% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.009), antibiotic (0.7% vs. 1.7%, p < 0.001), and nasal CPAP (1.2% vs. 1.8%, p = 0.02) use. NICU admissions and nasal CPAP were not significantly increased after adjusting for GA, maternal diabetes, and hypertension; however, other differences remained significant. Maternal hypertension was an independent risk factor for all these outcomes.

Conclusion

During the COVID-19 pandemic period, we observed a significant increase in maternal morbidities, exclusive breastfeeding, and NICU admissions in infants born at ≥35 weeks gestation. The increase in NICU admission during the COVID-19 pandemic was explained by maternal hypertension, but other adverse neonatal outcomes were only partly explained by maternal hypertension. Socio-economic factors and other social determinants of health need to be further explored to understand the full impact on neonatal outcomes.

Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in Scottish neonates 2020-2022: a national, population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To examine neonates in Scotland aged 0-27 days with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by viral testing; the risk of confirmed neonatal infection by maternal and infant characteristics; and hospital admissions associated with confirmed neonatal infections.

DESIGN

Population-based cohort study.

SETTING AND POPULATION

All live births in Scotland, 1 March 2020-31 January 2022.

RESULTS

There were 141 neonates with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection over the study period, giving an overall infection rate of 153 per 100 000 live births (141/92 009, 0.15%). Among infants born to women with confirmed infection around the time of birth, the confirmed neonatal infection rate was 1812 per 100 000 live births (15/828, 1.8%). Two-thirds (92/141, 65.2%) of neonates with confirmed infection had an associated admission to neonatal or (more commonly) paediatric care. Six of these babies (6/92, 6.5%) were admitted to neonatal and/or paediatric intensive care; however, none of these six had COVID-19 recorded as their main diagnosis. There were no neonatal deaths among babies with confirmed infection.

IMPLICATIONS AND RELEVANCE

Confirmed neonatal SARS-CoV-2 infection was uncommon over the first 23 months of the pandemic in Scotland. Secular trends in the neonatal confirmed infection rate broadly followed those seen in the general population, although at a lower level. Maternal confirmed infection at birth was associated with an increased risk of neonatal confirmed infection. Two-thirds of neonates with confirmed infection had an associated admission to hospital, with resulting implications for the baby, family and services, although their outcomes were generally good. Ascertainment of confirmed infection depends on the extent of testing, and this is likely to have varied over time and between groups: the extent of unconfirmed infection is inevitably unknown.

How does COVID-19 affect maternal and neonatal outcomes?

OBJECTIVES

In this article, we aimed to evaluate the most recent information on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health of mothers and their babies.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search by utilizing online sources. Scientific papers that were written in English on the effects of COVID-19 on both mother and their newborn were assessed.

RESULTS

COVID-19 can be fatal, especially in pregnant women with accompanying chronic diseases. The timing and mode of delivery should be decided by the status of the mother and fetus instead of SARS-CoV-2 positivity in pregnant women. At the nursery, routine separation of SARS-CoV-2 positive mothers and their infants is not recommended. However, it is important to take preventive measures to reduce the risk of transmission. The advantages of breastfeeding seem to outweigh the potential dangers of viral transmission. Neonatal COVID-19 infections may cause different clinical pictures from asymptomatic infections to life-threatening diseases. International health authorities specifically recommend that pregnant and lactating women get vaccinated to diminish the risk of transmission of the virus to the mother and fetus, not giving preference to a certain vaccine. It is prudent to apply universal screening only in populations with a high prevalence of COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare professionals should carefully manage the perinatal period during the COVID-19 outbreak, using the most up-to-date information to protect and promote maternal and newborn health. Further scientific studies are needed to clarify the early and long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on maternal-neonatal morbidity and mortality.

Successful establishment and five-year sustainability of a neonatal-specific antimicrobial stewardship program in a low middle-income country

Introduction: Antibiotic use varies substantially among neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) without any appreciable impact on outcomes. An increased use of antimicrobials has been reported in low-middle income countries. This raises the concern for potential overuse of antibiotics in a fragile patient population, thus increasing the rates of multidrug resistant organisms and affecting the developing microbiome. The presence of a neonatal-specific antimicrobial stewardship program can aid with the judicious use of antibiotics in the neonatal population and thus decrease the overuse of such medications. Methods: In this quality improvement project, we established and implemented a neonatal-specific antimicrobial stewardship program with the aim of reducing antimicrobial use in the neonatal intensive care units within a year of starting. Several interventions using a multidisciplinary approach included implementing standard algorithms, direct audit and feedback, and automated hard stops. Results: These series of interventions led to a 35% decrease in antimicrobial usage in the first 3 months and further decrease was seen with a median of 63% decline for a total of 5 years after project implementation. The use of the most commonly prescribed antibiotics, ampicillin and gentamicin, decreased by 63% and 79%, respectively. There was no evidence that this change in practice affected or jeopardized patient outcomes. Additionally, it showed sustainability and resilience despite the many challenges such as COVID-19 pandemic, political and financial unrest, and healthcare sector collapse. Discussion: This model-based and multidisciplinary low-cost approach can lead to marked improvement affecting neonatal outcomes and can be replicated in other similar centers.

The Association of Patent Ductus Arteriosus with Inflammation: A Narrative Review of the Role of Inflammatory Biomarkers and Treatment Strategy in Premature Infants

Patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) is a common cardiovascular complication that complicates clinical care in the intensive care of premature infants. Prenatal and postnatal infections and the inflammation process can contribute to PDA, and intrauterine inflammation is a known risk factor of PDA. A variety of inflammatory biomarkers have been reported to be associated with PDA. Chorioamnionitis induces the fetal inflammatory process via several cytokines that have been reported to be associated with the presence of PDA and may have a role in the vascular remodeling process or vessel dilation of the ductus. On the other hand, anti-inflammatory agents, such as antenatal steroids, decrease PDA incidence and severity in patients born to those with chorioamnionitis. Proinflammatory cytokines, which are expressed more significantly in preterm neonates and chorioamnionitis, are associated with the presence of PDA. In this review, we focus on the pathogenesis of PDA in preterm infants and the role of biomarkers associated with the perinatal inflammatory process.

COVID-19 pandemic and population-level pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in general population: A living systematic review and meta-analysis (Update#2: November 20, 2021)

INTRODUCTION

Conflicting reports of increases and decreases in rates of preterm birth (PTB) and stillbirth in the general population during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have surfaced. The objective of our study was to conduct a living systematic review and meta-analyses of studies reporting pregnancy and neonatal outcomes by comparing the pandemic and pre-pandemic periods.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We searched the PubMed and Embase databases and reference lists of articles published up until November 20, 2021, and included English language studies that compared outcomes between the COVID-19 pandemic time period with pre-pandemic time periods. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis using the inverse variance method.

RESULTS

Fifty-two studies with low-to-moderate risk of bias, reporting on 2 372 521 pregnancies during the pandemic period and 28 518 300 pregnancies during the pre-pandemic period, were included. There was significant reduction in unadjusted estimates of PTB (43 studies, unadjusted odds ratio [uaOR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.93-0.98), but not in adjusted estimates (five studies, adjusted OR [aOR] 0.94, 95% CI 0.74-1.19). This reduction was noted in studies from single centers/health areas (29 studies, uaOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85-0.94) but not in regional/national studies (14 studies, uaOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.01). There was reduction in spontaneous PTB (nine studies, uaOR 0.91, 95% CI 0.88-0.94) but not in induced PTB (eight studies, uaOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79-1.01). There was no difference in the odds of stillbirth between the pandemic and pre-pandemic time periods (32 studies, uaOR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97-1.18 and three studies, aOR 1.18, 95% CI 0.86-1.63). There was an increase in mean birthweight during the pandemic period compared with the pre-pandemic period (nine studies, mean difference 21 g, 95% CI 13-30 g). The odds of maternal mortality were increased (five studies, uaOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05-1.26); however, only unadjusted estimates were available, and the result was mostly influenced by one study from Mexico. There was significant publication bias for the outcome of PTB.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic may be associated with a reduction in PTB; however, referral bias cannot be excluded. There was no statistically significant difference in stillbirths between pandemic and pre-pandemic periods.

Obstetric interventions and pregnancy outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in England: A nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted maternity services worldwide and imposed restrictions on societal behaviours. This national study aimed to compare obstetric intervention and pregnancy outcome rates in England during the pandemic and corresponding pre-pandemic calendar periods, and to assess whether differences in these rates varied according to ethnic and socioeconomic background.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a national study of singleton births in English National Health Service hospitals. We compared births during the COVID-19 pandemic period (23 March 2020 to 22 February 2021) with births during the corresponding calendar period 1 year earlier. The Hospital Episode Statistics database provided administrative hospital data about maternal characteristics, obstetric inventions (induction of labour, elective or emergency cesarean section, and instrumental birth), and outcomes (stillbirth, preterm birth, small for gestational age [SGA; birthweight < 10th centile], prolonged maternal length of stay (≥3 days), and maternal 42-day readmission). Multi-level logistic regression models were used to compare intervention and outcome rates between the corresponding pre-pandemic and pandemic calendar periods and to test for interactions between pandemic period and ethnic and socioeconomic background. All models were adjusted for maternal characteristics including age, obstetric history, comorbidities, and COVID-19 status at birth. The study included 948,020 singleton births (maternal characteristics: median age 30 years, 41.6% primiparous, 8.3% with gestational diabetes, 2.4% with preeclampsia, and 1.6% with pre-existing diabetes or hypertension); 451,727 births occurred during the defined pandemic period. Maternal characteristics were similar in the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. Compared to the pre-pandemic period, stillbirth rates remained similar (0.36% pandemic versus 0.37% pre-pandemic, p = 0.16). Preterm birth and SGA birth rates were slightly lower during the pandemic (6.0% versus 6.1% for preterm births, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.97; 5.6% versus 5.8% for SGA births, aOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.93-0.96; both p < 0.001). Slightly higher rates of obstetric intervention were observed during the pandemic (40.4% versus 39.1% for induction of labour, aOR 1.04, 95% CI 1.03-1.05; 13.9% versus 12.9% for elective cesarean section, aOR 1.13, 95% CI 1.11-1.14; 18.4% versus 17.0% for emergency cesarean section, aOR 1.07, 95% CI 1.06-1.08; all p < 0.001). Lower rates of prolonged maternal length of stay (16.7% versus 20.2%, aOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.76-0.78, p < 0.001) and maternal readmission (3.0% versus 3.3%, aOR 0.88, 95% CI 0.86-0.90, p < 0.001) were observed during the pandemic period. There was some evidence that differences in the rates of preterm birth, emergency cesarean section, and unassisted vaginal birth varied according to the mother's ethnic background but not according to her socioeconomic background. A key limitation is that multiple comparisons were made, increasing the chance of false-positive results.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we found very small decreases in preterm birth and SGA birth rates and very small increases in induction of labour and elective and emergency cesarean section during the COVID-19 pandemic, with some evidence of a slightly different pattern of results in women from ethnic minority backgrounds. These changes in obstetric intervention rates and pregnancy outcomes may be linked to women's behaviour, environmental exposure, changes in maternity practice, or reduced staffing levels.