Roman Starikov

Can hemoglobin A1c in early pregnancy predict adverse pregnancy outcomes in diabetic patients

OBJECTIVE To examine the association of elevated early pregnancy hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels with adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with preexisting diabetes mellitus. STUDY DESIGN Retrospective cohort study of 330 women with preexisting diabetes enrolled in a Diabetes in Pregnancy Program at an academic institution between 2003 and 2011 who had an early HbA1c determination. The frequencies of composite maternal adverse pregnancy outcomes (birth at<37 weeks, preeclampsia, and medically indicated birth <39 weeks), and composite fetal adverse pregnancy outcomes [shoulder dystocia, Apgar scores<7 at 5 minutes, small for gestational age (SGA), large for gestational age (LGA), and stillbirth] were compared between HbA1c categories (<6.5, 6.5-7.4, 7.5-8.4 and ≥ 8.5%). RESULTS There was no statistically significant difference between composite adverse maternal pregnancy outcomes and composite adverse fetal pregnancy outcomes as well as other individual outcomes between different HbA1c categories. Of the vaginally delivered women in our cohort, the 37 patients with HbA1c levels of ≥ 8.5% had a significantly higher frequency of fetal shoulder dystocia than the 62 with HbA1c levels of < 8.5% (24.2 vs. 1.6%, P = 0.002). Neonates of patients with HbA1c ≥ 8.5% were more likely to have low five minute Apgar scores than neonates of patients with HbA1c < 8.5%, but this was of borderline statistical significance (7.4% vs. 0.5%, P = 0.05). CONCLUSION In patients with preexisting diabetes mellitus, HbA1c levels of ≥ 8.5% during early pregnancy are not useful in predicting most adverse outcomes, although there may be an increased risk for shoulder dystocia.

The “virtual” obstetrical intensive care unit: providing critical care for contemporary obstetrics in nontraditional locations

Management of the critically ill pregnant patient presents a clinical dilemma in which there are sparse objective data to determine the optimal setting for provision of high-quality care to these patients. This clinical scenario will continue to present a challenge for providers as the chronic illness and comorbid conditions continue to become more commonly encountered in the obstetric population. Various care models exist across a broad spectrum of facilities that are characterized by differing levels of resources; however, no studies have identified which model provides the highest level of care and patient safety while maintaining a reasonable degree of cost-effectiveness. The health care needs of the critically ill obstetric patient calls for clinicians to move beyond the traditional definition of the intensive care unit and develop a well-rounded, quickly responsive, and communicative interdisciplinary team that can provide high-quality, unique, and versatile care that best meets the needs of each particular patient. We propose a model in which a virtual intensive care unit team composed of preselected specialists from multiple disciplines (maternal-fetal medicine, neonatology, obstetric anesthesiology, cardiology, pulmonology, etc) participate in the provision of individualized, precontemplated care that is readily adapted to the specific patients clinical needs, regardless of setting. With this team-based approach, an environment of trust and familiarity is fostered among team members and well thought-out patient care plans are developed through routine prebrief discussions regarding individual clinical care for parturients anticipated to required critical care services. Incorporating debriefings between team members following these intricate cases will allow for the continued evolution of care as the medical needs of this patient population change as well.

Uterine incision-to-delivery interval and perinatal outcomes in transverse versus vertical incisions in preterm cesarean deliveries

Abstract Objective: To compare the uterine incision-to-delivery interval and neonatal and maternal complications in vertical versus transverse uterine incisions in preterm cesarean births. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of singleton cesarean deliveries from 2002 to 2009 between 23 and 34 weeks of gestation. Statistical analysis utilized Wilcoxon rank-sum test and multivariable logistic regression. Results: Of the 773 singleton cesarean deliveries, 586 (75.8%) had a transverse uterine incision and 187 (24.2%) had vertical uterine incision (classical = 134 and low vertical incision = 53). After adjusting for confounders, there was no significant difference in incision-to-delivery interval between the two types of incisions. The risk for maternal transfusion was higher among those with a vertical incision (odds ratio: 2.17; 95% confidence interval: 1.00, 4.67) than those with a transverse incision. Incision type was not associated with any neonatal outcomes studied, including intraventricular hemorrhage, Apgar scores and neonatal mortality. Conclusion: We observed no difference in Uterine Incision-to-Delivery interval and neonatal complications between vertical and transverse incision. Performance of a vertical uterine incision for the sole reason of facilitating a more rapid delivery is not justified. Development of methods to better determine transverse incision feasibility may facilitate a decrease in vertical uterine incisions.