Timing of antenatal corticosteroid administration in pregnancies with increased risk for premature birth: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate how often antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) were administered within the optimal time frame in women at risk of preterm birth (PTB) in relation to several diagnoses and risk factors.

METHOD

The study was designed as a retrospective cohort trial, in which the data of all births taking place in 2016 in the German federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate were evaluated. Frequency analyses, subgroup analyses, and logistic regression were performed.

RESULTS

Birth occurred within the ideal time frame (≥24 h, ≤7 days) in only 15.2% of all pregnant women who were treated with ACS because of an increased risk of PTB (N = 1544). The ideal time frame after ACS administration was reached in less than 25% of all cases in each subgroup, with little difference between the different diagnoses and risk factors for PTB (range 11.3%-22.2%). Patients with multiple pregnancy had a significantly higher chance for delivery within the ideal time frame. There was an odds ratio greater than 1 for a birth event within the ideal time frame in patients with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes, pre-eclampsia, oligohydramnios, amniotic infection syndrome, and in patients with multiple diagnoses. In most diagnoses, the average time between ACS administration and birth was significantly shorter compared with patients without the diagnosis or risk factor.

CONCLUSION

In women at risk of PTB, the individual risk profile should first be identified before ACS management begins. The likelihood of achieving the ideal time frame additionally depends on the diagnosis.

Optimizing the timing of antenatal corticosteroid administration prior to anticipated preterm birth: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To examine suboptimal antenatal corticosteroid (ACS) administration based on indications and maternal-obstetrical factors.

METHODS

Women who prematurely delivered (24 + 0 to 36 + 6 gestational weeks) a viable neonate following ACS treatment between 2012 and 2019 were identified by a retrospective database review. The cohort was divided into patients in whom ACS administration was optimally timed (≥24 h to ≤7 days) or suboptimally timed (>7 days). The groups were compared for ACS indications and maternal, obstetrical, and neonatal parameters.

RESULTS

The cohort included 399 women. ACS timing was optimal in 233 patients (58%) and was associated with nulliparity (109 [46.8%] vs. 54 [32.5%], P = 0.004) and preterm premature rupture of membranes (89 [38.2%] vs. 45 [27.1%], P = 0.021). Suboptimal timing was associated with chronic hypertension (22 [9.4%] vs. 36 [21.7%], P < 0.001) and asymptomatic cervical shortening (23 [9.9%] vs. 26 [15.7%], P = 0.020). Optimal ACS timing was associated with higher neonatal intensive care unit admission (135 [58%] vs. 71 [42.8%], P = 0.003). On multivariate analysis, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of neonatal intensive care unit admission was 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-0.83, P < 0.001) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.99-1, P = 0.003) when adjusted for gestational age and birth weight, respectively. When adjusting for maternal age, the aOR for suboptimal ACS administraion due to chronic hypertension was 2.65 (95% CI, 1.49-4.72; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Optimal timing of ACS varies based on different maternal characteristics and clinical indications. In the presence of certain parameters physicians tend to administer ACS suboptimally, diminishing its beneficial effect.