Screening for Vaginal and Endocervical Infections in the First Trimester of Pregnancy? A Study That Ignites an Old Debate

Objectives: Vaginal and endocervical infections are considered a global health problem, especially after recent evidence of their association with preterm delivery and other adverse obstetric outcomes. Still, there is no consensus on the efficacy of a screening strategy for these infections in the first trimester of pregnancy. This study evaluated their prevalence and whether screening and treatment resulted as effective in reducing pregnancy and perinatal complications. Methods: A single-center prospective observational study was designed; a sample size of 400 first-trimester pregnant women was established and they were recruited between March 2016–October 2019 at the Puerta de Hierro University Hospital (Spain). They were screened for vaginal and endocervical infections and treated in case of abnormal flora. Pregnancy and delivery outcomes were compared between abnormal and normal flora groups by univariate analysis. Results: 109 patients had an abnormal flora result (27.2%). The most frequently detected infection was Ureaplasma urealyticum (12.3%), followed by Candida spp. (11.8%), bacterial vaginosis (5%), Mycoplasma hominis (1.2%) and Trichomonas vaginalis (0.8%). Patients with abnormal flora had a 5-fold increased risk of preterm premature rupture of membranes (5.3% vs. 1.1% of patients with normal flora, Odds Ratio 5.11, 95% Confidence Interval 1.20–21.71, p = 0.028). No significant differences were observed regarding preterm delivery or neonatal morbidity. Conclusions: Considering the morbimortality related to prematurity and that the results of our study suggest that the early treatment of abnormal flora could improve perinatal outcomes, the implementation of a screening program during the first trimester should be considered.

Perinatal outcomes of pregnancies resulting from assisted reproduction technology in SARS-CoV-2-infected women: a prospective observational study

Objective

To evaluate the perinatal and maternal outcomes of pregnancies in women infected with SARS-CoV-2, comparing spontaneous and in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancies (with either own or donor oocytes).

Design

Multicenter, prospective, observational study.

Setting

78 centers participating in the Spanish COVID19 Registry.

Patient(s)

1,347 pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 positive results registered consecutively between February 26 and November 5, 2020.

Intervention(s)

The patients’ information was collected from their medical records, and multivariable regression analyses were performed, controlling for maternal age and the clinical presentation of the infection.

Main Outcome Measure(s)

Obstetrics and neonatal outcomes, pregnancy comorbidities, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation need, and medical conditions.

Result(s)

The IVF group included 74 (5.5%) women whereas the spontaneous pregnancy group included 1,275 (94.5%) women. The operative delivery rate was high in all patients, especially in the IVF group, where cesarean section became the most frequent method of delivery (55.4%, compared with 26.1% of the spontaneous pregnancy group). The reason for cesarean section was induction failure in 56.1% of the IVF patients. IVF women had more gestational hypertensive disorders (16.2% vs. 4.5% among spontaneous pregnancy women, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 5.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.45–10.93) irrespective of oocyte origin. The higher rate of intensive care unit admittance observed in the IVF group (8.1% vs. 2.4% in the spontaneous pregnancy group) was attributed to preeclampsia (aOR 11.82, 95% CI 5.25–25.87), not to the type of conception.

Conclusion(s)

A high rate of operative delivery was observed in pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2, especially in those with IVF pregnancies; method of conception did not affect fetal or maternal outcomes, except for preeclampsia.

Clinical Trial Registration Number

NCT04558996.