Obstetrics

Drug overdose deaths in pregnant and postpartum women rose by about 81% from 2017 to 2020, researchers report in a JAMA research letter published online Dec. 6.

Pregnancy-associated overdose deaths were highest in 2020 as the COVID pandemic began, according to the researchers, Emilie Bruzelius, MPH, and Silvia S. Martins, MD, PHD, with the department of epidemiology, Columbia University School of Public Health in New York.

The deaths were identified using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) pregnancy-related codes and death certificate pregnancy checkbox status.

The checkbox, part of all states’ death certificates, asks whether the person was pregnant at the time of death, within 42 days of death (early postpartum) or within 43-365 days of death (late postpartum).
 

Sharp increase at start of COVID pandemic

The authors note that pregnancy-related overdose deaths have been climbing from 2007 to 2019, but increased sharply in 2020.

“Pregnant and postpartum persons are known to face barriers to accessing drug treatment and harm-reduction services, which when compounded by pandemic-associated stressors, health care shutdowns, and increasingly volatile unregulated drug supply may have increased fatal overdose risk,” the authors write.

Of the 7,642 pregnancy-related deaths in the study period, 1,249 were overdose-related, leading to a cumulative overdose death rate of 8.35 per 100,000. From 2017 to 2020, pregnancy-related overdose deaths rose from 6.56 to 11.85 per 100,000. That translates to an absolute change rate of 5.30 per 100,000 and a relative increase of 81%.

The trend mirrors a pattern in people of reproductive age overall, the authors write.

Overdose mortality among reproductive age women similarly increased from 14.37 to 19.76 per 100,000 (absolute change rate, 5.39 [95% confidence interval, 4.94-5.85] per 100,000; relative increase of 38%).
 

Fentanyl deaths increase

The researchers found large increases in deaths involving fentanyl and other synthetics and psychostimulants (methamphetamine and cocaine, for example).

Pregnancy-associated overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines, heroin, and prescription opioids, however, were mostly stable from 2017 to 2020.

Numbers of late postpartum overdose deaths were notable in the paper.

In that group, there were 3.95 deaths per 100,000, compared with those pregnant at the time of death (2.99 per 100,000 or those identified as early postpartum (1.39 per 100 000).

Davida Schiff, MD, director of the Perinatal and Family-based Substance Use Disorder Care Massachusetts General Hospital substance use disorders initiative in Boston, told this publication it’s important to realize from this study that late postpartum period is the highest-risk period and also the time “when many states that have not expanded Medicaid cut off insurance needed to access life-saving health care services.”“Pregnancy is an important touch point of increased health care access, yet pregnant and parenting people face unique social and legal consequences from their substance use,” Dr. Schiff said.

She added, “I’m left wondering how many of the deaths reported could have been avoided if fear of a punitive response when engaging with our health care system had not prevented them from seeking out the care they needed.”

Dr. Schiff said the study highlights the importance of the pregnancy-checkbox addition to death records to better characterize pregnancy-associated deaths that previously were likely undercounted.

The authors and Dr. Schiff declare no relevant financial relationships.

Drug overdose deaths in pregnant and postpartum women rose by about 81% from 2017 to 2020, researchers report in a JAMA research letter published online Dec. 6.

Pregnancy-associated overdose deaths were highest in 2020 as the COVID pandemic began, according to the researchers, Emilie Bruzelius, MPH, and Silvia S. Martins, MD, PHD, with the department of epidemiology, Columbia University School of Public Health in New York.

The deaths were identified using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) pregnancy-related codes and death certificate pregnancy checkbox status.

The checkbox, part of all states’ death certificates, asks whether the person was pregnant at the time of death, within 42 days of death (early postpartum) or within 43-365 days of death (late postpartum).
 

Sharp increase at start of COVID pandemic

The authors note that pregnancy-related overdose deaths have been climbing from 2007 to 2019, but increased sharply in 2020.

“Pregnant and postpartum persons are known to face barriers to accessing drug treatment and harm-reduction services, which when compounded by pandemic-associated stressors, health care shutdowns, and increasingly volatile unregulated drug supply may have increased fatal overdose risk,” the authors write.

Of the 7,642 pregnancy-related deaths in the study period, 1,249 were overdose-related, leading to a cumulative overdose death rate of 8.35 per 100,000. From 2017 to 2020, pregnancy-related overdose deaths rose from 6.56 to 11.85 per 100,000. That translates to an absolute change rate of 5.30 per 100,000 and a relative increase of 81%.

The trend mirrors a pattern in people of reproductive age overall, the authors write.

Overdose mortality among reproductive age women similarly increased from 14.37 to 19.76 per 100,000 (absolute change rate, 5.39 [95% confidence interval, 4.94-5.85] per 100,000; relative increase of 38%).
 

Fentanyl deaths increase

The researchers found large increases in deaths involving fentanyl and other synthetics and psychostimulants (methamphetamine and cocaine, for example).

Pregnancy-associated overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines, heroin, and prescription opioids, however, were mostly stable from 2017 to 2020.

Numbers of late postpartum overdose deaths were notable in the paper.

In that group, there were 3.95 deaths per 100,000, compared with those pregnant at the time of death (2.99 per 100,000 or those identified as early postpartum (1.39 per 100 000).

Davida Schiff, MD, director of the Perinatal and Family-based Substance Use Disorder Care Massachusetts General Hospital substance use disorders initiative in Boston, told this publication it’s important to realize from this study that late postpartum period is the highest-risk period and also the time “when many states that have not expanded Medicaid cut off insurance needed to access life-saving health care services.”“Pregnancy is an important touch point of increased health care access, yet pregnant and parenting people face unique social and legal consequences from their substance use,” Dr. Schiff said.

She added, “I’m left wondering how many of the deaths reported could have been avoided if fear of a punitive response when engaging with our health care system had not prevented them from seeking out the care they needed.”

Dr. Schiff said the study highlights the importance of the pregnancy-checkbox addition to death records to better characterize pregnancy-associated deaths that previously were likely undercounted.

The authors and Dr. Schiff declare no relevant financial relationships.

Drug overdose deaths in pregnant and postpartum women rose by about 81% from 2017 to 2020, researchers report in a JAMA research letter published online Dec. 6.

Pregnancy-associated overdose deaths were highest in 2020 as the COVID pandemic began, according to the researchers, Emilie Bruzelius, MPH, and Silvia S. Martins, MD, PHD, with the department of epidemiology, Columbia University School of Public Health in New York.

The deaths were identified using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) pregnancy-related codes and death certificate pregnancy checkbox status.

The checkbox, part of all states’ death certificates, asks whether the person was pregnant at the time of death, within 42 days of death (early postpartum) or within 43-365 days of death (late postpartum).
 

Sharp increase at start of COVID pandemic

The authors note that pregnancy-related overdose deaths have been climbing from 2007 to 2019, but increased sharply in 2020.

“Pregnant and postpartum persons are known to face barriers to accessing drug treatment and harm-reduction services, which when compounded by pandemic-associated stressors, health care shutdowns, and increasingly volatile unregulated drug supply may have increased fatal overdose risk,” the authors write.

Of the 7,642 pregnancy-related deaths in the study period, 1,249 were overdose-related, leading to a cumulative overdose death rate of 8.35 per 100,000. From 2017 to 2020, pregnancy-related overdose deaths rose from 6.56 to 11.85 per 100,000. That translates to an absolute change rate of 5.30 per 100,000 and a relative increase of 81%.

The trend mirrors a pattern in people of reproductive age overall, the authors write.

Overdose mortality among reproductive age women similarly increased from 14.37 to 19.76 per 100,000 (absolute change rate, 5.39 [95% confidence interval, 4.94-5.85] per 100,000; relative increase of 38%).
 

Fentanyl deaths increase

The researchers found large increases in deaths involving fentanyl and other synthetics and psychostimulants (methamphetamine and cocaine, for example).

Pregnancy-associated overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines, heroin, and prescription opioids, however, were mostly stable from 2017 to 2020.

Numbers of late postpartum overdose deaths were notable in the paper.

In that group, there were 3.95 deaths per 100,000, compared with those pregnant at the time of death (2.99 per 100,000 or those identified as early postpartum (1.39 per 100 000).

Davida Schiff, MD, director of the Perinatal and Family-based Substance Use Disorder Care Massachusetts General Hospital substance use disorders initiative in Boston, told this publication it’s important to realize from this study that late postpartum period is the highest-risk period and also the time “when many states that have not expanded Medicaid cut off insurance needed to access life-saving health care services.”“Pregnancy is an important touch point of increased health care access, yet pregnant and parenting people face unique social and legal consequences from their substance use,” Dr. Schiff said.

She added, “I’m left wondering how many of the deaths reported could have been avoided if fear of a punitive response when engaging with our health care system had not prevented them from seeking out the care they needed.”

Dr. Schiff said the study highlights the importance of the pregnancy-checkbox addition to death records to better characterize pregnancy-associated deaths that previously were likely undercounted.

The authors and Dr. Schiff declare no relevant financial relationships.

The offspring of mothers who sustain unintentional injuries during pregnancy appear to have a modest 33% increased risk of developing cerebral palsy (CP) – higher when injuries are more severe, multiple, or lead to delivery soon afterward, a Canadian birth cohort study found.

Such children may benefit from long-term monitoring for neurodevelpmental issues, wrote a group led by Asma Ahmed, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric epidemiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute in Toronto in JAMA Pediatrics.

“We need to provide better support for babies whose mothers have been injured in pregnancy, especially after severe injuries,” Dr. Ahmed said in a press release. “As well, these findings suggest the need for early monitoring of babies’ development, regular check-ups, and longer-term neurodevelopmental assessments.” Future studies should directly measure injury severity and its possible link to CP.

Current guidelines, however, focus on monitoring fetal condition immediately after injury with little attention to its long-term effects.

In their findings from the population-based linkage study of 2,110,177 children born in Ontario’s public health system during 2002-2017 and followed to 2018 with a median follow-up of 8 years:

• A total of 81,281 fetuses were exposed in utero to unintentional maternal injury.
• Overall, 0.3% children were diagnosed with CP, and the mean CP incidence rates were 4.36 per 10,000 child-years for the exposed versus 2.93 for the unexposed.
• In those exposed, the hazard ratio was 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.50) after adjusting for maternal sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.
• Injuries resulting in hospitalization or delivery within 1 week were linked to higher adjusted hazard ratios of 2.18 (95% CI, 1.29-3.68) and 3.40 (95% CI, 1.93-6.00), respectively.
• Injuries most frequently resulted from transportation mishaps, falls, and being struck by a person or object. They were most commonly associated with age younger than 20 years, substance use disorder, residence in rural and under-resourced areas, and lower socioeconomic status.

The authors noted that complications after maternal injuries – which affect 6%-8% of pregnant women – include uterine rupture, preterm delivery, and placental abruption and are linked to fetal complications such as asphyxia. The association with an offspring’s neurodevelopment has been rarely investigated. One U.K. population study, however, suggested a link between vehicular crashes and higher CP risk in preterm infants.

A related editorial on the study noted that while CP affects about two to four children per 1,000 live births each year in high-income countries, the etiological causes of most cases remain unknown. “This large population-based cohort study ... should inspire more research into preventing and mitigating factors for maternal injuries and offspring CP development,” wrote Zeyan Liew, PhD, MPH, and Haoran Zhuo, MPH, of Yale University School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn.

This study was supported by Santé-Québec and ICES, a research institute funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care.

Dr. Ahmed and coauthor Seungmi Yang, PhD, reported research funding from Santé-Québec during the conduct of the study.

The offspring of mothers who sustain unintentional injuries during pregnancy appear to have a modest 33% increased risk of developing cerebral palsy (CP) – higher when injuries are more severe, multiple, or lead to delivery soon afterward, a Canadian birth cohort study found.

Such children may benefit from long-term monitoring for neurodevelpmental issues, wrote a group led by Asma Ahmed, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric epidemiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute in Toronto in JAMA Pediatrics.

“We need to provide better support for babies whose mothers have been injured in pregnancy, especially after severe injuries,” Dr. Ahmed said in a press release. “As well, these findings suggest the need for early monitoring of babies’ development, regular check-ups, and longer-term neurodevelopmental assessments.” Future studies should directly measure injury severity and its possible link to CP.

Current guidelines, however, focus on monitoring fetal condition immediately after injury with little attention to its long-term effects.

In their findings from the population-based linkage study of 2,110,177 children born in Ontario’s public health system during 2002-2017 and followed to 2018 with a median follow-up of 8 years:

• A total of 81,281 fetuses were exposed in utero to unintentional maternal injury.
• Overall, 0.3% children were diagnosed with CP, and the mean CP incidence rates were 4.36 per 10,000 child-years for the exposed versus 2.93 for the unexposed.
• In those exposed, the hazard ratio was 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.50) after adjusting for maternal sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.
• Injuries resulting in hospitalization or delivery within 1 week were linked to higher adjusted hazard ratios of 2.18 (95% CI, 1.29-3.68) and 3.40 (95% CI, 1.93-6.00), respectively.
• Injuries most frequently resulted from transportation mishaps, falls, and being struck by a person or object. They were most commonly associated with age younger than 20 years, substance use disorder, residence in rural and under-resourced areas, and lower socioeconomic status.

The authors noted that complications after maternal injuries – which affect 6%-8% of pregnant women – include uterine rupture, preterm delivery, and placental abruption and are linked to fetal complications such as asphyxia. The association with an offspring’s neurodevelopment has been rarely investigated. One U.K. population study, however, suggested a link between vehicular crashes and higher CP risk in preterm infants.

A related editorial on the study noted that while CP affects about two to four children per 1,000 live births each year in high-income countries, the etiological causes of most cases remain unknown. “This large population-based cohort study ... should inspire more research into preventing and mitigating factors for maternal injuries and offspring CP development,” wrote Zeyan Liew, PhD, MPH, and Haoran Zhuo, MPH, of Yale University School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn.

This study was supported by Santé-Québec and ICES, a research institute funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care.

Dr. Ahmed and coauthor Seungmi Yang, PhD, reported research funding from Santé-Québec during the conduct of the study.

The offspring of mothers who sustain unintentional injuries during pregnancy appear to have a modest 33% increased risk of developing cerebral palsy (CP) – higher when injuries are more severe, multiple, or lead to delivery soon afterward, a Canadian birth cohort study found.

Such children may benefit from long-term monitoring for neurodevelpmental issues, wrote a group led by Asma Ahmed, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric epidemiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute in Toronto in JAMA Pediatrics.

“We need to provide better support for babies whose mothers have been injured in pregnancy, especially after severe injuries,” Dr. Ahmed said in a press release. “As well, these findings suggest the need for early monitoring of babies’ development, regular check-ups, and longer-term neurodevelopmental assessments.” Future studies should directly measure injury severity and its possible link to CP.

Current guidelines, however, focus on monitoring fetal condition immediately after injury with little attention to its long-term effects.

In their findings from the population-based linkage study of 2,110,177 children born in Ontario’s public health system during 2002-2017 and followed to 2018 with a median follow-up of 8 years:

• A total of 81,281 fetuses were exposed in utero to unintentional maternal injury.
• Overall, 0.3% children were diagnosed with CP, and the mean CP incidence rates were 4.36 per 10,000 child-years for the exposed versus 2.93 for the unexposed.
• In those exposed, the hazard ratio was 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.50) after adjusting for maternal sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.
• Injuries resulting in hospitalization or delivery within 1 week were linked to higher adjusted hazard ratios of 2.18 (95% CI, 1.29-3.68) and 3.40 (95% CI, 1.93-6.00), respectively.
• Injuries most frequently resulted from transportation mishaps, falls, and being struck by a person or object. They were most commonly associated with age younger than 20 years, substance use disorder, residence in rural and under-resourced areas, and lower socioeconomic status.

The authors noted that complications after maternal injuries – which affect 6%-8% of pregnant women – include uterine rupture, preterm delivery, and placental abruption and are linked to fetal complications such as asphyxia. The association with an offspring’s neurodevelopment has been rarely investigated. One U.K. population study, however, suggested a link between vehicular crashes and higher CP risk in preterm infants.

A related editorial on the study noted that while CP affects about two to four children per 1,000 live births each year in high-income countries, the etiological causes of most cases remain unknown. “This large population-based cohort study ... should inspire more research into preventing and mitigating factors for maternal injuries and offspring CP development,” wrote Zeyan Liew, PhD, MPH, and Haoran Zhuo, MPH, of Yale University School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn.

This study was supported by Santé-Québec and ICES, a research institute funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care.

Dr. Ahmed and coauthor Seungmi Yang, PhD, reported research funding from Santé-Québec during the conduct of the study.

Women who develop transient hypertensive disorders during their pregnancy are at risk for developing subsequent cardiovascular disease (CVD), particularly if this experienced at the same time as gestational diabetes.

In a large population-based study, the adjusted hazard ratios for developing CVD following a gestational hypertensive disorder (GHTD) alone were 1.90 (95% confidence interval, 1.151-2.25) within 5 years and 1.41 (95% CI, 1.12-1.76) after 5 years or more.

Vesnaandjic/E+/Getty Images

When gestational diabetes was added into the mix, however, the risk for CVD after 5 years more than doubled (aHR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.60-3.67). Risk in the earlier postpartum period was also raised by the combination, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.78-2.58).

Having gestational diabetes by itself did not seem to increase the risk for later CVD in the analysis, despite being linked to higher heart disease risk in other studies.

“These are women coming out of a pregnancy – young women of reproductive age – so this is not a group that typically has cardiovascular events,” said Ravi Retnakaran, MD, in an interview, an investigator in the new study, which is published in JAMA Network Open.

“If they are somebody who has both disorders concurrently in their pregnancy, they may be at even greater risk than a woman with one or the other disorder,” added Dr. Retnakaran, who is professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and an endocrinologist at the Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes, Mount Sinai Hospital, also in Toronto. “In other words, amongst already high-risk patients. This is identifying a subset at maybe an even higher risk.”

It doesn’t mean that there is a huge absolute risk, Dr. Retnakaran said, but it is showing that there is a heightened risk such that women and their clinicians need to be aware of and potentially the need for greater preventative care in the future.

“It is allowing you to identify future lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
 

Study rationale and design

GHTD is “a forerunner of hypertension,” and gestational diabetes is “a precursor of diabetes” – each associated with a high risk of developing CVD in the years after pregnancy, the investigators said. While studies have looked at their individual contributions to future CVD risk, not many had looked to see what risks having both may confer in the postpregnancy years.

For the analysis, data on 886,295 women with GHTD (43,861), gestational diabetes (54,061), both (4,975), or neither (783,398) were obtained from several Canadian administrative health databases.

The mean age was around 30 years across the groups, with those with both conditions or gestational diabetes alone more likely to be older than those with GTHD alone or neither condition (32 vs. 29 years, respectively, P < .001).

After a total follow-up period of 12 years, 1,999 CVD events were recorded, most of them (1,162) 5 years after the pregnancy.
 

Pregnancy is a stress test for the heart

“We know that what we call adverse pregnancy outcomes – things like gestational hypertension, and gestational diabetes, and preeclampsia – are on the rise globally,” Natalie A. Bello, MD, director of hypertension research at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, commented in an interview.

Women who develop transient hypertensive disorders during their pregnancy are at risk for developing subsequent cardiovascular disease (CVD), particularly if this experienced at the same time as gestational diabetes.

In a large population-based study, the adjusted hazard ratios for developing CVD following a gestational hypertensive disorder (GHTD) alone were 1.90 (95% confidence interval, 1.151-2.25) within 5 years and 1.41 (95% CI, 1.12-1.76) after 5 years or more.

Vesnaandjic/E+/Getty Images

When gestational diabetes was added into the mix, however, the risk for CVD after 5 years more than doubled (aHR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.60-3.67). Risk in the earlier postpartum period was also raised by the combination, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.78-2.58).

Having gestational diabetes by itself did not seem to increase the risk for later CVD in the analysis, despite being linked to higher heart disease risk in other studies.

“These are women coming out of a pregnancy – young women of reproductive age – so this is not a group that typically has cardiovascular events,” said Ravi Retnakaran, MD, in an interview, an investigator in the new study, which is published in JAMA Network Open.

“If they are somebody who has both disorders concurrently in their pregnancy, they may be at even greater risk than a woman with one or the other disorder,” added Dr. Retnakaran, who is professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and an endocrinologist at the Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes, Mount Sinai Hospital, also in Toronto. “In other words, amongst already high-risk patients. This is identifying a subset at maybe an even higher risk.”

It doesn’t mean that there is a huge absolute risk, Dr. Retnakaran said, but it is showing that there is a heightened risk such that women and their clinicians need to be aware of and potentially the need for greater preventative care in the future.

“It is allowing you to identify future lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
 

Study rationale and design

GHTD is “a forerunner of hypertension,” and gestational diabetes is “a precursor of diabetes” – each associated with a high risk of developing CVD in the years after pregnancy, the investigators said. While studies have looked at their individual contributions to future CVD risk, not many had looked to see what risks having both may confer in the postpregnancy years.

For the analysis, data on 886,295 women with GHTD (43,861), gestational diabetes (54,061), both (4,975), or neither (783,398) were obtained from several Canadian administrative health databases.

The mean age was around 30 years across the groups, with those with both conditions or gestational diabetes alone more likely to be older than those with GTHD alone or neither condition (32 vs. 29 years, respectively, P < .001).

After a total follow-up period of 12 years, 1,999 CVD events were recorded, most of them (1,162) 5 years after the pregnancy.
 

Pregnancy is a stress test for the heart

“We know that what we call adverse pregnancy outcomes – things like gestational hypertension, and gestational diabetes, and preeclampsia – are on the rise globally,” Natalie A. Bello, MD, director of hypertension research at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, commented in an interview.

Women who develop transient hypertensive disorders during their pregnancy are at risk for developing subsequent cardiovascular disease (CVD), particularly if this experienced at the same time as gestational diabetes.

In a large population-based study, the adjusted hazard ratios for developing CVD following a gestational hypertensive disorder (GHTD) alone were 1.90 (95% confidence interval, 1.151-2.25) within 5 years and 1.41 (95% CI, 1.12-1.76) after 5 years or more.

Vesnaandjic/E+/Getty Images

When gestational diabetes was added into the mix, however, the risk for CVD after 5 years more than doubled (aHR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.60-3.67). Risk in the earlier postpartum period was also raised by the combination, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.78-2.58).

Having gestational diabetes by itself did not seem to increase the risk for later CVD in the analysis, despite being linked to higher heart disease risk in other studies.

“These are women coming out of a pregnancy – young women of reproductive age – so this is not a group that typically has cardiovascular events,” said Ravi Retnakaran, MD, in an interview, an investigator in the new study, which is published in JAMA Network Open.

“If they are somebody who has both disorders concurrently in their pregnancy, they may be at even greater risk than a woman with one or the other disorder,” added Dr. Retnakaran, who is professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and an endocrinologist at the Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes, Mount Sinai Hospital, also in Toronto. “In other words, amongst already high-risk patients. This is identifying a subset at maybe an even higher risk.”

It doesn’t mean that there is a huge absolute risk, Dr. Retnakaran said, but it is showing that there is a heightened risk such that women and their clinicians need to be aware of and potentially the need for greater preventative care in the future.

“It is allowing you to identify future lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
 

Study rationale and design

GHTD is “a forerunner of hypertension,” and gestational diabetes is “a precursor of diabetes” – each associated with a high risk of developing CVD in the years after pregnancy, the investigators said. While studies have looked at their individual contributions to future CVD risk, not many had looked to see what risks having both may confer in the postpregnancy years.

For the analysis, data on 886,295 women with GHTD (43,861), gestational diabetes (54,061), both (4,975), or neither (783,398) were obtained from several Canadian administrative health databases.

The mean age was around 30 years across the groups, with those with both conditions or gestational diabetes alone more likely to be older than those with GTHD alone or neither condition (32 vs. 29 years, respectively, P < .001).

After a total follow-up period of 12 years, 1,999 CVD events were recorded, most of them (1,162) 5 years after the pregnancy.
 

Pregnancy is a stress test for the heart

“We know that what we call adverse pregnancy outcomes – things like gestational hypertension, and gestational diabetes, and preeclampsia – are on the rise globally,” Natalie A. Bello, MD, director of hypertension research at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, commented in an interview.

Using buprenorphine for opioid use disorder in pregnancy was linked with a lower risk of neonatal side effects than using methadone, but the risk of adverse maternal outcomes was similar between the two treatments, according to new research.

Elizabeth A. Suarez, PhD, MPH, with Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, led the study published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Opioid use disorder in pregnant women has increased steadily in the United States since 2000, the authors write. As of 2017, about 8.2 per 1,000 deliveries were estimated to be affected by the disorder. The numbers were particularly high in people insured by Medicaid. In that group, an estimated 14.6 per 1,000 deliveries were affected.

Researchers studied pregnant women enrolled in public insurance programs in the United States from 2000 through 2018 in a dataset of 2,548,372 pregnancies that ended in live births. They analyzed outcomes in those who received buprenorphine as compared with those who received methadone.

They looked at different periods of exposure to the two medications: early pregnancy (through gestational week 19); late pregnancy (week 20 through the day before delivery); and the 30 days before delivery.

Highlighted differences in infants included:

• Neonatal abstinence syndrome in 52% of the infants who were exposed to buprenorphine in the 30 days before delivery as compared with 69.2% of those exposed to methadone (adjusted relative risk, 0.73).
• Preterm birth in 14.4% of infants exposed to buprenorphine in early pregnancy and in 24.9% of those exposed to methadone (ARR, 0.58).
• Small size for gestational age in 12.1% (buprenorphine) and 15.3% (methadone) (ARR, 0.72).
• Low birth weight in 8.3% (buprenorphine) and 14.9% (methadone) (ARR, 0.56).
• Delivery by cesarean section occurred in 33.6% of pregnant women exposed to buprenorphine in early pregnancy and 33.1% of those exposed to methadone (ARR, 1.02.).

Severe maternal complications developed in 3.3% of the women exposed to buprenorphine and 3.5% of those on methadone (ARR, 0.91.) Exposures in late pregnancy and early pregnancy yielded similar results, the authors say.

Michael Caucci, MD, of the department of psychiatry at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. who also runs the Women’s Mental Health Clinic at the university, said this paper supports preliminary findings from the Maternal Opioid Treatment: Human Experimental Research (MOTHER) study that suggested infants exposed to buprenorphine (compared with methadone) appeared to have lower rates of neonatal complications.

“It also supports buprenorphine as a relatively safe option for treatment of opioid use disorder during pregnancy,” said Dr. Caucci, who was not part of the study by Dr. Suarez and associates. “Reducing the fear of harming the fetus or neonate will help eliminate this barrier to perinatal substance use disorder treatment.”

But he cautions against concluding that, because buprenorphine has lower risks of fetal/neonatal complications, it is safer and therefore better than methadone in pregnancy. 

“Some women do not tolerate buprenorphine and do much better on methadone, Dr. Caucci said. “Current recommendations are that both buprenorphine and methadone are relatively safe options for treatment of OUD [opioid use disorder] in pregnancy.”

Among the differences between the treatments is that while methadone is administered daily during in-person visits to federally regulated opioid treatment programs, buprenorphine can be prescribed by approved providers, which allows patients to administer buprenorphine themselves.

Dr. Caucci said he was intrigued by the finding that there was no difference in pregnancy, neonatal, and maternal outcomes depending on the time of exposure to the agents.  

“I would have expected higher rates of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) or poor fetal growth in those exposed later in pregnancy vs. those with early exposure,” he said. 

The work was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Caucci reports no relevant financial relationships. The authors’ disclosures are available with the full text.

Using buprenorphine for opioid use disorder in pregnancy was linked with a lower risk of neonatal side effects than using methadone, but the risk of adverse maternal outcomes was similar between the two treatments, according to new research.

Elizabeth A. Suarez, PhD, MPH, with Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, led the study published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Opioid use disorder in pregnant women has increased steadily in the United States since 2000, the authors write. As of 2017, about 8.2 per 1,000 deliveries were estimated to be affected by the disorder. The numbers were particularly high in people insured by Medicaid. In that group, an estimated 14.6 per 1,000 deliveries were affected.

Researchers studied pregnant women enrolled in public insurance programs in the United States from 2000 through 2018 in a dataset of 2,548,372 pregnancies that ended in live births. They analyzed outcomes in those who received buprenorphine as compared with those who received methadone.

They looked at different periods of exposure to the two medications: early pregnancy (through gestational week 19); late pregnancy (week 20 through the day before delivery); and the 30 days before delivery.

Highlighted differences in infants included:

• Neonatal abstinence syndrome in 52% of the infants who were exposed to buprenorphine in the 30 days before delivery as compared with 69.2% of those exposed to methadone (adjusted relative risk, 0.73).
• Preterm birth in 14.4% of infants exposed to buprenorphine in early pregnancy and in 24.9% of those exposed to methadone (ARR, 0.58).
• Small size for gestational age in 12.1% (buprenorphine) and 15.3% (methadone) (ARR, 0.72).
• Low birth weight in 8.3% (buprenorphine) and 14.9% (methadone) (ARR, 0.56).
• Delivery by cesarean section occurred in 33.6% of pregnant women exposed to buprenorphine in early pregnancy and 33.1% of those exposed to methadone (ARR, 1.02.).

Severe maternal complications developed in 3.3% of the women exposed to buprenorphine and 3.5% of those on methadone (ARR, 0.91.) Exposures in late pregnancy and early pregnancy yielded similar results, the authors say.

Michael Caucci, MD, of the department of psychiatry at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. who also runs the Women’s Mental Health Clinic at the university, said this paper supports preliminary findings from the Maternal Opioid Treatment: Human Experimental Research (MOTHER) study that suggested infants exposed to buprenorphine (compared with methadone) appeared to have lower rates of neonatal complications.

“It also supports buprenorphine as a relatively safe option for treatment of opioid use disorder during pregnancy,” said Dr. Caucci, who was not part of the study by Dr. Suarez and associates. “Reducing the fear of harming the fetus or neonate will help eliminate this barrier to perinatal substance use disorder treatment.”

But he cautions against concluding that, because buprenorphine has lower risks of fetal/neonatal complications, it is safer and therefore better than methadone in pregnancy. 

“Some women do not tolerate buprenorphine and do much better on methadone, Dr. Caucci said. “Current recommendations are that both buprenorphine and methadone are relatively safe options for treatment of OUD [opioid use disorder] in pregnancy.”

Among the differences between the treatments is that while methadone is administered daily during in-person visits to federally regulated opioid treatment programs, buprenorphine can be prescribed by approved providers, which allows patients to administer buprenorphine themselves.

Dr. Caucci said he was intrigued by the finding that there was no difference in pregnancy, neonatal, and maternal outcomes depending on the time of exposure to the agents.  

“I would have expected higher rates of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) or poor fetal growth in those exposed later in pregnancy vs. those with early exposure,” he said. 

The work was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Caucci reports no relevant financial relationships. The authors’ disclosures are available with the full text.

Using buprenorphine for opioid use disorder in pregnancy was linked with a lower risk of neonatal side effects than using methadone, but the risk of adverse maternal outcomes was similar between the two treatments, according to new research.

Elizabeth A. Suarez, PhD, MPH, with Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, led the study published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Opioid use disorder in pregnant women has increased steadily in the United States since 2000, the authors write. As of 2017, about 8.2 per 1,000 deliveries were estimated to be affected by the disorder. The numbers were particularly high in people insured by Medicaid. In that group, an estimated 14.6 per 1,000 deliveries were affected.

Researchers studied pregnant women enrolled in public insurance programs in the United States from 2000 through 2018 in a dataset of 2,548,372 pregnancies that ended in live births. They analyzed outcomes in those who received buprenorphine as compared with those who received methadone.

They looked at different periods of exposure to the two medications: early pregnancy (through gestational week 19); late pregnancy (week 20 through the day before delivery); and the 30 days before delivery.

Highlighted differences in infants included:

• Neonatal abstinence syndrome in 52% of the infants who were exposed to buprenorphine in the 30 days before delivery as compared with 69.2% of those exposed to methadone (adjusted relative risk, 0.73).
• Preterm birth in 14.4% of infants exposed to buprenorphine in early pregnancy and in 24.9% of those exposed to methadone (ARR, 0.58).
• Small size for gestational age in 12.1% (buprenorphine) and 15.3% (methadone) (ARR, 0.72).
• Low birth weight in 8.3% (buprenorphine) and 14.9% (methadone) (ARR, 0.56).
• Delivery by cesarean section occurred in 33.6% of pregnant women exposed to buprenorphine in early pregnancy and 33.1% of those exposed to methadone (ARR, 1.02.).

Severe maternal complications developed in 3.3% of the women exposed to buprenorphine and 3.5% of those on methadone (ARR, 0.91.) Exposures in late pregnancy and early pregnancy yielded similar results, the authors say.

Michael Caucci, MD, of the department of psychiatry at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. who also runs the Women’s Mental Health Clinic at the university, said this paper supports preliminary findings from the Maternal Opioid Treatment: Human Experimental Research (MOTHER) study that suggested infants exposed to buprenorphine (compared with methadone) appeared to have lower rates of neonatal complications.

“It also supports buprenorphine as a relatively safe option for treatment of opioid use disorder during pregnancy,” said Dr. Caucci, who was not part of the study by Dr. Suarez and associates. “Reducing the fear of harming the fetus or neonate will help eliminate this barrier to perinatal substance use disorder treatment.”

But he cautions against concluding that, because buprenorphine has lower risks of fetal/neonatal complications, it is safer and therefore better than methadone in pregnancy. 

“Some women do not tolerate buprenorphine and do much better on methadone, Dr. Caucci said. “Current recommendations are that both buprenorphine and methadone are relatively safe options for treatment of OUD [opioid use disorder] in pregnancy.”

Among the differences between the treatments is that while methadone is administered daily during in-person visits to federally regulated opioid treatment programs, buprenorphine can be prescribed by approved providers, which allows patients to administer buprenorphine themselves.

Dr. Caucci said he was intrigued by the finding that there was no difference in pregnancy, neonatal, and maternal outcomes depending on the time of exposure to the agents.  

“I would have expected higher rates of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) or poor fetal growth in those exposed later in pregnancy vs. those with early exposure,” he said. 

The work was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Caucci reports no relevant financial relationships. The authors’ disclosures are available with the full text.

Women who conceived within 6 months of having a miscarriage or an induced abortion did not appear to be at an increased risk of a problematic pregnancy, a new study of more than 70,000 live births in Norway has found.

The findings, published online in PLOS Medicine, should help women and clinicians navigate conflicting guidance over how soon it is safe to conceive again after a pregnancy loss, said Gizachew Tessema, PhD, senior research fellow at Curtin University, Perth, Australia, and the lead author of the research.

“Especially after a miscarriage, women want to conceive again,” Dr. Tessema told this news organization. “Why should they wait if there’s no increased risk?”

On the international front, the World Health Organization advises patients not to attempt to become pregnant until a minimum of 6 months after an abortion or miscarriage. Those 2007 recommendations spurred Dr. Tessema and his colleagues to take a deeper dive into risk factors associated with pregnancies following a shorter interval. 

Two-thirds of women in the study conceived again within 6 months of having a miscarriage. Only a quarter of women who had an induced abortion were pregnant again within that same timeframe.

Using Norway’s national health registries, the researchers examined the outcomes of 49,058 births following a miscarriage and 23,707 births after an induced abortion between 2008 and 2016. The birth registry includes information on livebirths, stillbirths, miscarriages, and induced abortions, with detailed descriptions provided around how a miscarriage or abortion is identified. The study included only miscarriages reported through the health care system.

Expanding on other studies that have shown no adverse outcomes with those pregnancy intervals, Dr. Tessema and colleagues found that women who became pregnant shortly after a miscarriage or abortion were not at a higher risk for delivering preterm, having newborns that were small for gestational age (SGA) or large for gestational age (LGA), or developing preeclampsia or gestational diabetes.

Dr. Tessema and his colleagues found a slightly smaller percentage of women who conceived within 3 months, compared with those who became pregnant within 6-11 months after a miscarriage (8.6% to 10.1%). Women who conceived within 3 months of an induced abortion had a slightly, but statistically nonsignificant (P = .07), increased risk for SGA, compared with those who conceived between 6 and 11 months (11.5% to 10%).

No greater risk was shown for the other adverse outcomes – preterm births, LGA, preeclampsia, and GDM – for women who became pregnant within 6 months of an abortion or miscarriage.

The results should reassure women who want to get pregnant again soon after abortions or miscarriage, according to Scott Sullivan, MD, the director of high-risk ob.gyn. at Inova Health, Fairfax, Va.

Often, patients hear conflicting advice from doctors, friends, or medical associations about the best time to try for a baby following a miscarriage or abortion, in part because there are differences in various guidelines. Adding to the confusion is a lack of robust research and data on pregnancy loss, especially in the United States, he said.

“The entire topic of pregnancy loss is underappreciated by the public at large – how painful this is for people, how common it is,” Dr. Sullivan said in an interview. “We need research and resources on it. It’s not even tracked routinely in the United States like it is in other countries.”

Dr. Sullivan said he typically tells patients they can try to get pregnant again right away, following recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which say that patients can conceive as quickly as 2 weeks after an early pregnancy loss.

But he cautions that not all patients are mentally ready to make another attempt that soon, especially if they are still grieving their pregnancy loss.

“Even if you’re physically ready, a lot of people are not emotionally ready, because there’s a grieving process,” Dr. Sullivan said. “That’s very different for people.”
 

The WHO’s guidelines for developed countries

The WHO developed its guidelines based on research from lower income countries, including one study across Latin America that concluded pregnancy outcomes were worse for women who waited less than 6 months to conceive following an abortion or miscarriage.

Dr. Tessema noted his research is limited because it focused on Norway, a high-income country where women have guaranteed access to health care. Outcomes may be worse in developing countries where incomes are lower and health care inequality is greater, he said.

“The issue is when this international guideline was developed, most of the evidence is from low- and middle-income countries,” Dr. Tessema said. “No studies were conducted from high income cities. We said: ‘This is a different context.’ These recommendations may not be appropriate for this setting.”

The study was supported with funding by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence funding program, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Raine Medical Research Foundation, and the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. None of the authors report relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women who conceived within 6 months of having a miscarriage or an induced abortion did not appear to be at an increased risk of a problematic pregnancy, a new study of more than 70,000 live births in Norway has found.

The findings, published online in PLOS Medicine, should help women and clinicians navigate conflicting guidance over how soon it is safe to conceive again after a pregnancy loss, said Gizachew Tessema, PhD, senior research fellow at Curtin University, Perth, Australia, and the lead author of the research.

“Especially after a miscarriage, women want to conceive again,” Dr. Tessema told this news organization. “Why should they wait if there’s no increased risk?”

On the international front, the World Health Organization advises patients not to attempt to become pregnant until a minimum of 6 months after an abortion or miscarriage. Those 2007 recommendations spurred Dr. Tessema and his colleagues to take a deeper dive into risk factors associated with pregnancies following a shorter interval. 

Two-thirds of women in the study conceived again within 6 months of having a miscarriage. Only a quarter of women who had an induced abortion were pregnant again within that same timeframe.

Using Norway’s national health registries, the researchers examined the outcomes of 49,058 births following a miscarriage and 23,707 births after an induced abortion between 2008 and 2016. The birth registry includes information on livebirths, stillbirths, miscarriages, and induced abortions, with detailed descriptions provided around how a miscarriage or abortion is identified. The study included only miscarriages reported through the health care system.

Expanding on other studies that have shown no adverse outcomes with those pregnancy intervals, Dr. Tessema and colleagues found that women who became pregnant shortly after a miscarriage or abortion were not at a higher risk for delivering preterm, having newborns that were small for gestational age (SGA) or large for gestational age (LGA), or developing preeclampsia or gestational diabetes.

Dr. Tessema and his colleagues found a slightly smaller percentage of women who conceived within 3 months, compared with those who became pregnant within 6-11 months after a miscarriage (8.6% to 10.1%). Women who conceived within 3 months of an induced abortion had a slightly, but statistically nonsignificant (P = .07), increased risk for SGA, compared with those who conceived between 6 and 11 months (11.5% to 10%).

No greater risk was shown for the other adverse outcomes – preterm births, LGA, preeclampsia, and GDM – for women who became pregnant within 6 months of an abortion or miscarriage.

The results should reassure women who want to get pregnant again soon after abortions or miscarriage, according to Scott Sullivan, MD, the director of high-risk ob.gyn. at Inova Health, Fairfax, Va.

Often, patients hear conflicting advice from doctors, friends, or medical associations about the best time to try for a baby following a miscarriage or abortion, in part because there are differences in various guidelines. Adding to the confusion is a lack of robust research and data on pregnancy loss, especially in the United States, he said.

“The entire topic of pregnancy loss is underappreciated by the public at large – how painful this is for people, how common it is,” Dr. Sullivan said in an interview. “We need research and resources on it. It’s not even tracked routinely in the United States like it is in other countries.”

Dr. Sullivan said he typically tells patients they can try to get pregnant again right away, following recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which say that patients can conceive as quickly as 2 weeks after an early pregnancy loss.

But he cautions that not all patients are mentally ready to make another attempt that soon, especially if they are still grieving their pregnancy loss.

“Even if you’re physically ready, a lot of people are not emotionally ready, because there’s a grieving process,” Dr. Sullivan said. “That’s very different for people.”
 

The WHO’s guidelines for developed countries

The WHO developed its guidelines based on research from lower income countries, including one study across Latin America that concluded pregnancy outcomes were worse for women who waited less than 6 months to conceive following an abortion or miscarriage.

Dr. Tessema noted his research is limited because it focused on Norway, a high-income country where women have guaranteed access to health care. Outcomes may be worse in developing countries where incomes are lower and health care inequality is greater, he said.

“The issue is when this international guideline was developed, most of the evidence is from low- and middle-income countries,” Dr. Tessema said. “No studies were conducted from high income cities. We said: ‘This is a different context.’ These recommendations may not be appropriate for this setting.”

The study was supported with funding by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence funding program, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Raine Medical Research Foundation, and the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. None of the authors report relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women who conceived within 6 months of having a miscarriage or an induced abortion did not appear to be at an increased risk of a problematic pregnancy, a new study of more than 70,000 live births in Norway has found.

The findings, published online in PLOS Medicine, should help women and clinicians navigate conflicting guidance over how soon it is safe to conceive again after a pregnancy loss, said Gizachew Tessema, PhD, senior research fellow at Curtin University, Perth, Australia, and the lead author of the research.

“Especially after a miscarriage, women want to conceive again,” Dr. Tessema told this news organization. “Why should they wait if there’s no increased risk?”

On the international front, the World Health Organization advises patients not to attempt to become pregnant until a minimum of 6 months after an abortion or miscarriage. Those 2007 recommendations spurred Dr. Tessema and his colleagues to take a deeper dive into risk factors associated with pregnancies following a shorter interval. 

Two-thirds of women in the study conceived again within 6 months of having a miscarriage. Only a quarter of women who had an induced abortion were pregnant again within that same timeframe.

Using Norway’s national health registries, the researchers examined the outcomes of 49,058 births following a miscarriage and 23,707 births after an induced abortion between 2008 and 2016. The birth registry includes information on livebirths, stillbirths, miscarriages, and induced abortions, with detailed descriptions provided around how a miscarriage or abortion is identified. The study included only miscarriages reported through the health care system.

Expanding on other studies that have shown no adverse outcomes with those pregnancy intervals, Dr. Tessema and colleagues found that women who became pregnant shortly after a miscarriage or abortion were not at a higher risk for delivering preterm, having newborns that were small for gestational age (SGA) or large for gestational age (LGA), or developing preeclampsia or gestational diabetes.

Dr. Tessema and his colleagues found a slightly smaller percentage of women who conceived within 3 months, compared with those who became pregnant within 6-11 months after a miscarriage (8.6% to 10.1%). Women who conceived within 3 months of an induced abortion had a slightly, but statistically nonsignificant (P = .07), increased risk for SGA, compared with those who conceived between 6 and 11 months (11.5% to 10%).

No greater risk was shown for the other adverse outcomes – preterm births, LGA, preeclampsia, and GDM – for women who became pregnant within 6 months of an abortion or miscarriage.

The results should reassure women who want to get pregnant again soon after abortions or miscarriage, according to Scott Sullivan, MD, the director of high-risk ob.gyn. at Inova Health, Fairfax, Va.

Often, patients hear conflicting advice from doctors, friends, or medical associations about the best time to try for a baby following a miscarriage or abortion, in part because there are differences in various guidelines. Adding to the confusion is a lack of robust research and data on pregnancy loss, especially in the United States, he said.

“The entire topic of pregnancy loss is underappreciated by the public at large – how painful this is for people, how common it is,” Dr. Sullivan said in an interview. “We need research and resources on it. It’s not even tracked routinely in the United States like it is in other countries.”

Dr. Sullivan said he typically tells patients they can try to get pregnant again right away, following recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which say that patients can conceive as quickly as 2 weeks after an early pregnancy loss.

But he cautions that not all patients are mentally ready to make another attempt that soon, especially if they are still grieving their pregnancy loss.

“Even if you’re physically ready, a lot of people are not emotionally ready, because there’s a grieving process,” Dr. Sullivan said. “That’s very different for people.”
 

The WHO’s guidelines for developed countries

The WHO developed its guidelines based on research from lower income countries, including one study across Latin America that concluded pregnancy outcomes were worse for women who waited less than 6 months to conceive following an abortion or miscarriage.

Dr. Tessema noted his research is limited because it focused on Norway, a high-income country where women have guaranteed access to health care. Outcomes may be worse in developing countries where incomes are lower and health care inequality is greater, he said.

“The issue is when this international guideline was developed, most of the evidence is from low- and middle-income countries,” Dr. Tessema said. “No studies were conducted from high income cities. We said: ‘This is a different context.’ These recommendations may not be appropriate for this setting.”

The study was supported with funding by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence funding program, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Raine Medical Research Foundation, and the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. None of the authors report relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The safety of vaginal breech delivery has been controversial since the Term Breech Trial in 2000 suggested increased neonatal mortality and short-term morbidity associated with vaginal breech delivery. The stance against breech delivery has softened since that time. Fruscalzo and colleagues provide yet more evidence supporting the safety of vaginal breech deliveries with their single-center, retrospective study, which included 804 singleton pregnant women who underwent vaginal breech vs emergency cesarean section vs elective cesarean section in Coesfeld, Germany. They found no significant differences between the vaginal breech–delivery group vs the other two groups in regard to umbilical artery pH < 7, low Apgar scores, or neonatal intensive care unit admissions. The only significant difference noted was umbilical artery pH < 7.1. This suggests that in experienced hands (each of the candidates was referred to a senior obstetrician for consultation), vaginal breech delivery can be safe, including for nulliparous women (67% were nulliparous), showing that even the short-term morbidity associated with vaginal breech delivery approaches that of planned cesarean section.

Two other articles raise caution regarding SD and increased risk for fetal death and PPH. Linde and colleagues used data from The Medical Birth Registry of Norway and Statistics Norway to examine recurrence risk for PPH associated with various causes. PPH associated with SD led the way: The recurrence risk adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 6.8 for SD vs 5.9 for retained products of conception, 4.0 for uterine atony, 3.9 for obstetric trauma, and 2.2 for PPH of undefined cause. This study suggests that the risks for SD recurrence should be focused not just on SD, but also on PPH. Another concern regarding shoulder dystocia is raised by Davidesko and colleagues in their analysis of risk factors for intrapartum fetal death. Using a generalized estimation equation model to help identify independent risk factors for intrapartum fetal death, they examined 344,536 deliveries from 1991 to 2016 at Soroka University Medical Center in Israel and noted that SD again led the way: aOR was 23.8 for SD vs 19.0 for uterine rupture, 11.9 for preterm birth, 6.2 for placental abruption, and 3.6 for fetal malpresentation. This high risk for intrapartum fetal death associated with SD suggests a need for even more robust SD drills to help deal with this dreaded and often unpredictable obstetric emergency.

The safety of vaginal breech delivery has been controversial since the Term Breech Trial in 2000 suggested increased neonatal mortality and short-term morbidity associated with vaginal breech delivery. The stance against breech delivery has softened since that time. Fruscalzo and colleagues provide yet more evidence supporting the safety of vaginal breech deliveries with their single-center, retrospective study, which included 804 singleton pregnant women who underwent vaginal breech vs emergency cesarean section vs elective cesarean section in Coesfeld, Germany. They found no significant differences between the vaginal breech–delivery group vs the other two groups in regard to umbilical artery pH < 7, low Apgar scores, or neonatal intensive care unit admissions. The only significant difference noted was umbilical artery pH < 7.1. This suggests that in experienced hands (each of the candidates was referred to a senior obstetrician for consultation), vaginal breech delivery can be safe, including for nulliparous women (67% were nulliparous), showing that even the short-term morbidity associated with vaginal breech delivery approaches that of planned cesarean section.

Two other articles raise caution regarding SD and increased risk for fetal death and PPH. Linde and colleagues used data from The Medical Birth Registry of Norway and Statistics Norway to examine recurrence risk for PPH associated with various causes. PPH associated with SD led the way: The recurrence risk adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 6.8 for SD vs 5.9 for retained products of conception, 4.0 for uterine atony, 3.9 for obstetric trauma, and 2.2 for PPH of undefined cause. This study suggests that the risks for SD recurrence should be focused not just on SD, but also on PPH. Another concern regarding shoulder dystocia is raised by Davidesko and colleagues in their analysis of risk factors for intrapartum fetal death. Using a generalized estimation equation model to help identify independent risk factors for intrapartum fetal death, they examined 344,536 deliveries from 1991 to 2016 at Soroka University Medical Center in Israel and noted that SD again led the way: aOR was 23.8 for SD vs 19.0 for uterine rupture, 11.9 for preterm birth, 6.2 for placental abruption, and 3.6 for fetal malpresentation. This high risk for intrapartum fetal death associated with SD suggests a need for even more robust SD drills to help deal with this dreaded and often unpredictable obstetric emergency.

The safety of vaginal breech delivery has been controversial since the Term Breech Trial in 2000 suggested increased neonatal mortality and short-term morbidity associated with vaginal breech delivery. The stance against breech delivery has softened since that time. Fruscalzo and colleagues provide yet more evidence supporting the safety of vaginal breech deliveries with their single-center, retrospective study, which included 804 singleton pregnant women who underwent vaginal breech vs emergency cesarean section vs elective cesarean section in Coesfeld, Germany. They found no significant differences between the vaginal breech–delivery group vs the other two groups in regard to umbilical artery pH < 7, low Apgar scores, or neonatal intensive care unit admissions. The only significant difference noted was umbilical artery pH < 7.1. This suggests that in experienced hands (each of the candidates was referred to a senior obstetrician for consultation), vaginal breech delivery can be safe, including for nulliparous women (67% were nulliparous), showing that even the short-term morbidity associated with vaginal breech delivery approaches that of planned cesarean section.

Two other articles raise caution regarding SD and increased risk for fetal death and PPH. Linde and colleagues used data from The Medical Birth Registry of Norway and Statistics Norway to examine recurrence risk for PPH associated with various causes. PPH associated with SD led the way: The recurrence risk adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 6.8 for SD vs 5.9 for retained products of conception, 4.0 for uterine atony, 3.9 for obstetric trauma, and 2.2 for PPH of undefined cause. This study suggests that the risks for SD recurrence should be focused not just on SD, but also on PPH. Another concern regarding shoulder dystocia is raised by Davidesko and colleagues in their analysis of risk factors for intrapartum fetal death. Using a generalized estimation equation model to help identify independent risk factors for intrapartum fetal death, they examined 344,536 deliveries from 1991 to 2016 at Soroka University Medical Center in Israel and noted that SD again led the way: aOR was 23.8 for SD vs 19.0 for uterine rupture, 11.9 for preterm birth, 6.2 for placental abruption, and 3.6 for fetal malpresentation. This high risk for intrapartum fetal death associated with SD suggests a need for even more robust SD drills to help deal with this dreaded and often unpredictable obstetric emergency.

CASE Concern for surgical management after repeat miscarriage

A 34-year-old woman (G3P0030) with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss was recently diagnosed with a 7-week missed abortion. After her second miscarriage, she had an evaluation for recurrent pregnancy loss which was unremarkable. Both prior miscarriages were managed with dilation & curettage (D&C), but cytogenetic testing of the tissue did not yield a result in either case. The karyotype from the first pregnancy resulted as 46, XX but was confirmed to be due to maternal cell contamination, and the karyotype from the second pregnancy resulted in cell culture failure. The patient is interested in surgical management for her current missed abortion to help with tissue collection for cytogenetic testing, she but is concerned about her risk of intrauterine adhesions with repeated uterine instrumentation given 2 prior D&Cs, one of which was complicated by retained products of conception.

How do you approach the surgical management of this patient with recurrent pregnancy loss?

Approximately 1 in every 8 recognized pregnancies results in miscarriage. The risk of loss is lowest in women with no history of miscarriage (11%), and increases by about 10% for each additional miscarriage, reaching 42% in women with 3 or more previous losses. The population prevalence of women who have had 1 miscarriage is 11%, 2 miscarriages is 2%, and 3 or more is <1%.¹ While 90% of miscarriages occur in the first trimester, their etiology can be quite varied.² A woman’s age is the most strongly associated risk factor, with both very young (<20 years) and older age (>35 years) groups at highest risk. This association is largely attributed to an age-related increase in embryonic chromosomal aneuploidies, of which trisomies, particularly trisomy 16, are the most common.³ Maternal anatomic anomalies such as leiomyomas, intrauterine adhesions, Müllerian anomalies, and adenomyosis have been linked to an increased risk of miscarriage in addition to several lifestyle and environmental factor exposures.¹

Regardless of the etiology, women with recurrent miscarriage are exposed to the potential for iatrogenic harm from the management of their pregnancy loss, including intrauterine adhesions and retained products, which may negatively impact future reproductive attempts. The management of patients with recurrent miscarriages demands special attention to reduce the risk of iatrogenic harm, maximize diagnostic evaluation of the products of conception, and improve future reproductive outcomes.

Management strategies

First trimester pregnancy loss may be managed expectantly, medically, or surgically. Approximately 76% of women who opt for expectant management will successfully pass pregnancy tissue, but for 1 out of every 6 women it may take longer than 14 days.⁴ For patients who prefer to expedite this process, medication abortion is a highly effective and safe option. According to Schreiber and colleagues, a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol together resulted in expulsion in approximately 91% of 148 patients, although 9% still required surgical intervention for incomplete passage of tissue.⁵ Both expectant management and medical management strategies are associated with the potential for retained products of conception requiring subsequent instrumentation as well as tissue that is often unsuitable or contaminated for cytogenetic analysis.

The most definitive treatment option is surgical management via manual or electric vacuum aspiration or curettage, with efficacy approaching 99.6% in some series.⁶ While highly effective, even ultrasound-guided evacuation carries with it procedure-related risks that are of particular consequence for patients of reproductive age, including adhesion formation and retained products of conception.

In 1997, Goldenberg and colleagues reported on the use of hysteroscopy for the management of retained products of conception as a strategy to minimize trauma to the uterus and maximize excision of retained tissue, both of which reduce potential for adhesion formation.⁷ Based on these data, several groups have extended the use of hysteroscopic resection for retained tissue to upfront evacuation following pregnancy loss, in lieu of D&C.^8,9 This approach allows for the direct visualization of the focal removal of the implanted pregnancy tissue, which can:

• decrease the risk of intrauterine adhesion formation
• decrease the risk of retained products of conception
• allow for directed tissue sampling to improve the accuracy of cytogenetic testing
• allow for detection of embryo anatomic anomalies that often go undetected on traditional cytogenetic analysis.

For the remainder of this article, we will discuss the advantages of hysteroscopic management of a missed abortion in greater detail.

Continue to: Hysteroscopic management...

Hysteroscopic management

Like aspiration or curettage, hysteroscopic management may be offered once the diagnosis of fetal demise is confirmed on ultrasonography. The procedure may be accomplished in the office setting or in the operative room with either morcellation or resectoscopic instruments. Morcellation allows for improved visibility during the procedure given the ability of continuous suction to manage tissue fragments in the surgical field, while resectoscopic instruments offer the added benefit of electrosurgery should bleeding that is unresponsive to increased distention pressure be encountered. Use of the cold loop of the resectoscope to accomplish evacuation is advocated to avoid the thermal damage to the endometrium with electrosurgery. Regardless of the chosen instrument, there are several potential benefits for a hysteroscopic approach over the traditional ultrasound-guided or blind D&C.

Reducing risk of iatrogenic harm

Intrauterine adhesions form secondary to trauma to the endometrial basalis layer, where a population of adult progenitor stem cells continuously work to regenerate the overlying functionalis layer. Once damaged, adhesions may form and range from thin, filmy adhesions to dense, cavity obliterating bands of scar tissue (FIGURE). The degree of severity and location of the adhesions account for the variable presentation that range from menstrual abnormalities to infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss. While several classification systems exist for scoring severity of adhesions, the American Fertility Society (now American Society for Reproductive Medicine) Classification system from 1988 is still commonly utilized (TABLE 1).

ILLUSTRATIONS: MARCIA HARTSOCK FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Intrauterine adhesions from D&C after pregnancy loss are not uncommon. A 2014 meta-analysis of 10 prospective studies including 912 women reported a pooled prevalence for intrauterine adhesions of 19.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.8–27.5) on hysteroscopic evaluation within 12 months following curettage.¹⁰ Once formed, these adhesions are associated with long-term impairment in reproductive outcomes, regardless of if they were treated or not. In a long-term follow-up study of women with and without adhesions after recurrent D&C for miscarriage, women with treated adhesions reported lower live birth rates, longer time to pregnancy, higher rates of preterm birth and higher rates of peripartum complications compared with those without adhesions.¹¹

Compared with curettage, hysteroscopy affords the surgeon complete visualization of the uterine cavity and tissue to be resected. This, in turn, minimizes trauma to the surrounding uterine cavity, minimizes the potential for post-procedural adhesion formation and their associated sequelae, and maximizes complete resection of tissue. Those treated with D&C appear to be significantly more likely to have adhesions than those treated via a hysteroscopic approach (30% vs 13%).¹²

Retained products of conception. Classically, a “gritty” sensation of the endometrium following evacuation of the uterus with a sharp curette has been used to indicate complete removal of tissue. The evolution from a nonvisualized procedure to ultrasound-guided vacuum aspiration of 1st trimester pregnancy tissue has been associated with a decreased risk of procedural complications and retained products of conception.¹³ However, even with intraoperative imaging, the risk of retained products of conception remains because it can be difficult to distinguish a small blood clot from retained pregnancy tissue on ultrasonography.

Retained pregnancy tissue can result in abnormal or heavy bleeding, require additional medical or surgical intervention, and is associated with endometrial inflammation and infection. Approximately 1 in every 4 women undergoing hysteroscopic resection of retained products are found to have evidence of endometritis in the resected tissue.¹⁴ This number is even higher in women with a diagnosis of recurrent pregnancy loss (62%).¹⁵

These complications from retained products of conception can be avoided with the hysteroscopic approach due to the direct visualization of the tissue removal. This benefit may be particularly beneficial in patients with known abnormal uterine cavities, such as those with Müllerian anomalies, uterine leiomyomas, preexisting adhesions, and history of placenta accreta spectrum disorder.

Continue to: Maximizing diagnostic yield...

Maximizing diagnostic yield

Many patients prefer surgical management of a missed abortion not for the procedural advantages, but to assist with tissue collection for cytogenetic testing of the pregnancy tissue. Given that embryonic chromosomal aneuploidy is implicated in 70% of miscarriages prior to 20 weeks’ gestation, genetic evaluation of the products of conception is commonly performed to identify a potential cause for the miscarriage.¹⁶ G-band karyotype is the most commonly performed genetic evaluation. Karyotype requires culturing of pregnancy tissue for 7-14 days to produce metaphase cells that are then chemically treated to arrest them at their maximally contracted stage. Cytogenetic evaluation is often curtailed when nonviable cells from products of conception fail to culture due to either time elapsed from diagnosis to demise or damage from tissue handling. Careful, directly observed tissue handling via a hysteroscopic approach may alleviate culture failure secondary to tissue damage.

Another concern with cultures of products of conception is the potential for maternal cell contamination. Early studies from the 1970s noted a significant skew toward 46, XX karyotype results in miscarried tissue as compared with 46, XY results. It was not until microsatellite analysis technology was available that it was determined that the result was due to analysis of maternal cells instead of products of conception.¹⁷ A 2014 study by Levy and colleagues and another by Lathi and colleagues that utilized single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray found that maternal cell contamination affected 22% of all miscarriage samples analyzed and over half of karyotypes with a 46, XX result.^18,19

Traditional “blind” suction and curettage may inadvertently collect maternal endometrial tissue and contaminate the culture of fetal cells, limiting the validity of karyotype for products of conception.²⁰ The hysteroscopic approach may provide a higher diagnostic yield for karyotype analysis of fetal tissue by the nature of targeted tissue sampling under direct visualization, minimizing maternal cell contamination. One retrospective study by Cholkeri-Singh and colleagues evaluated rates of fetal chromosome detection without maternal contamination in a total of 264 patients undergoing either suction curettage or hysteroscopic resection. They found that fetal chromosomal detection without contamination was significantly higher in the hysteroscopy group compared with the suction curettage group (88.5 vs 64.8%, P< .001).²¹ Additionally, biopsies of tissue under direct visualization may enable the diagnosis of a true placental mosaicism and the study of the individual karyotype of each embryo in dizygotic twin missed abortions.

Finally, a hysteroscopic approach may afford the opportunity to also perform morphologic evaluation of the intact early fetus furthering the diagnostic utility of the procedure. With hysteroscopy, the gestational sac is identified and carefully entered, allowing for complete visualization of the early fetus and assessment of anatomic malformations that may provide insight into the pregnancy loss (ie, embryoscopy). In one series of 272 patients with missed abortions, while nearly 75% of conceptuses had abnormal karyotypes, 18% were found to have gross morphologic defects with a normal karyotype.²²

Bottom line

When faced with a patient with an early pregnancy loss, physicians should consider the decreased iatrogenic risks and improved diagnostic yield when deciding between D&C versus hysteroscopy for surgical management. There are certain patients with pre-existing risk factors that may stand to benefit the most (TABLE 2). Much like the opening case, those at risk for intrauterine adhesions, retained products of conception, or in whom a successful and accurate cytogenetic analysis is essential are the most likely to benefit from a hysteroscopic approach. The hysteroscopic approach also affords concurrent diagnosis and treatment of intrauterine pathology, such as leiomyomas and uterine septum, which are encountered approximately 12.5% of the time after one miscarriage and 29.4% of the time in patients with a history of more than one miscarriage.¹⁰ In the appropriately counseled patient and clinical setting, clinicians could also perform definitive surgical management during the same hysteroscopy. Finally, evaluation of the morphology of the demised fetus may provide additional information for patient counseling in those with euploid pregnancy losses.

CASE Resolved

Ultimately, our patient underwent complete hysteroscopic resection of the pregnancy tissue, which confirmed both a morphologically abnormal fetus and a 45, X karyotype of the products of conception. ●

CASE Concern for surgical management after repeat miscarriage

A 34-year-old woman (G3P0030) with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss was recently diagnosed with a 7-week missed abortion. After her second miscarriage, she had an evaluation for recurrent pregnancy loss which was unremarkable. Both prior miscarriages were managed with dilation & curettage (D&C), but cytogenetic testing of the tissue did not yield a result in either case. The karyotype from the first pregnancy resulted as 46, XX but was confirmed to be due to maternal cell contamination, and the karyotype from the second pregnancy resulted in cell culture failure. The patient is interested in surgical management for her current missed abortion to help with tissue collection for cytogenetic testing, she but is concerned about her risk of intrauterine adhesions with repeated uterine instrumentation given 2 prior D&Cs, one of which was complicated by retained products of conception.

How do you approach the surgical management of this patient with recurrent pregnancy loss?

Approximately 1 in every 8 recognized pregnancies results in miscarriage. The risk of loss is lowest in women with no history of miscarriage (11%), and increases by about 10% for each additional miscarriage, reaching 42% in women with 3 or more previous losses. The population prevalence of women who have had 1 miscarriage is 11%, 2 miscarriages is 2%, and 3 or more is <1%.¹ While 90% of miscarriages occur in the first trimester, their etiology can be quite varied.² A woman’s age is the most strongly associated risk factor, with both very young (<20 years) and older age (>35 years) groups at highest risk. This association is largely attributed to an age-related increase in embryonic chromosomal aneuploidies, of which trisomies, particularly trisomy 16, are the most common.³ Maternal anatomic anomalies such as leiomyomas, intrauterine adhesions, Müllerian anomalies, and adenomyosis have been linked to an increased risk of miscarriage in addition to several lifestyle and environmental factor exposures.¹

Regardless of the etiology, women with recurrent miscarriage are exposed to the potential for iatrogenic harm from the management of their pregnancy loss, including intrauterine adhesions and retained products, which may negatively impact future reproductive attempts. The management of patients with recurrent miscarriages demands special attention to reduce the risk of iatrogenic harm, maximize diagnostic evaluation of the products of conception, and improve future reproductive outcomes.

Management strategies

First trimester pregnancy loss may be managed expectantly, medically, or surgically. Approximately 76% of women who opt for expectant management will successfully pass pregnancy tissue, but for 1 out of every 6 women it may take longer than 14 days.⁴ For patients who prefer to expedite this process, medication abortion is a highly effective and safe option. According to Schreiber and colleagues, a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol together resulted in expulsion in approximately 91% of 148 patients, although 9% still required surgical intervention for incomplete passage of tissue.⁵ Both expectant management and medical management strategies are associated with the potential for retained products of conception requiring subsequent instrumentation as well as tissue that is often unsuitable or contaminated for cytogenetic analysis.

The most definitive treatment option is surgical management via manual or electric vacuum aspiration or curettage, with efficacy approaching 99.6% in some series.⁶ While highly effective, even ultrasound-guided evacuation carries with it procedure-related risks that are of particular consequence for patients of reproductive age, including adhesion formation and retained products of conception.

In 1997, Goldenberg and colleagues reported on the use of hysteroscopy for the management of retained products of conception as a strategy to minimize trauma to the uterus and maximize excision of retained tissue, both of which reduce potential for adhesion formation.⁷ Based on these data, several groups have extended the use of hysteroscopic resection for retained tissue to upfront evacuation following pregnancy loss, in lieu of D&C.^8,9 This approach allows for the direct visualization of the focal removal of the implanted pregnancy tissue, which can:

• decrease the risk of intrauterine adhesion formation
• decrease the risk of retained products of conception
• allow for directed tissue sampling to improve the accuracy of cytogenetic testing
• allow for detection of embryo anatomic anomalies that often go undetected on traditional cytogenetic analysis.

For the remainder of this article, we will discuss the advantages of hysteroscopic management of a missed abortion in greater detail.

Continue to: Hysteroscopic management...

Hysteroscopic management

Like aspiration or curettage, hysteroscopic management may be offered once the diagnosis of fetal demise is confirmed on ultrasonography. The procedure may be accomplished in the office setting or in the operative room with either morcellation or resectoscopic instruments. Morcellation allows for improved visibility during the procedure given the ability of continuous suction to manage tissue fragments in the surgical field, while resectoscopic instruments offer the added benefit of electrosurgery should bleeding that is unresponsive to increased distention pressure be encountered. Use of the cold loop of the resectoscope to accomplish evacuation is advocated to avoid the thermal damage to the endometrium with electrosurgery. Regardless of the chosen instrument, there are several potential benefits for a hysteroscopic approach over the traditional ultrasound-guided or blind D&C.

Reducing risk of iatrogenic harm

Intrauterine adhesions form secondary to trauma to the endometrial basalis layer, where a population of adult progenitor stem cells continuously work to regenerate the overlying functionalis layer. Once damaged, adhesions may form and range from thin, filmy adhesions to dense, cavity obliterating bands of scar tissue (FIGURE). The degree of severity and location of the adhesions account for the variable presentation that range from menstrual abnormalities to infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss. While several classification systems exist for scoring severity of adhesions, the American Fertility Society (now American Society for Reproductive Medicine) Classification system from 1988 is still commonly utilized (TABLE 1).

ILLUSTRATIONS: MARCIA HARTSOCK FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Intrauterine adhesions from D&C after pregnancy loss are not uncommon. A 2014 meta-analysis of 10 prospective studies including 912 women reported a pooled prevalence for intrauterine adhesions of 19.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.8–27.5) on hysteroscopic evaluation within 12 months following curettage.¹⁰ Once formed, these adhesions are associated with long-term impairment in reproductive outcomes, regardless of if they were treated or not. In a long-term follow-up study of women with and without adhesions after recurrent D&C for miscarriage, women with treated adhesions reported lower live birth rates, longer time to pregnancy, higher rates of preterm birth and higher rates of peripartum complications compared with those without adhesions.¹¹

Compared with curettage, hysteroscopy affords the surgeon complete visualization of the uterine cavity and tissue to be resected. This, in turn, minimizes trauma to the surrounding uterine cavity, minimizes the potential for post-procedural adhesion formation and their associated sequelae, and maximizes complete resection of tissue. Those treated with D&C appear to be significantly more likely to have adhesions than those treated via a hysteroscopic approach (30% vs 13%).¹²

Retained products of conception. Classically, a “gritty” sensation of the endometrium following evacuation of the uterus with a sharp curette has been used to indicate complete removal of tissue. The evolution from a nonvisualized procedure to ultrasound-guided vacuum aspiration of 1st trimester pregnancy tissue has been associated with a decreased risk of procedural complications and retained products of conception.¹³ However, even with intraoperative imaging, the risk of retained products of conception remains because it can be difficult to distinguish a small blood clot from retained pregnancy tissue on ultrasonography.

Retained pregnancy tissue can result in abnormal or heavy bleeding, require additional medical or surgical intervention, and is associated with endometrial inflammation and infection. Approximately 1 in every 4 women undergoing hysteroscopic resection of retained products are found to have evidence of endometritis in the resected tissue.¹⁴ This number is even higher in women with a diagnosis of recurrent pregnancy loss (62%).¹⁵

These complications from retained products of conception can be avoided with the hysteroscopic approach due to the direct visualization of the tissue removal. This benefit may be particularly beneficial in patients with known abnormal uterine cavities, such as those with Müllerian anomalies, uterine leiomyomas, preexisting adhesions, and history of placenta accreta spectrum disorder.

Continue to: Maximizing diagnostic yield...

Maximizing diagnostic yield

Many patients prefer surgical management of a missed abortion not for the procedural advantages, but to assist with tissue collection for cytogenetic testing of the pregnancy tissue. Given that embryonic chromosomal aneuploidy is implicated in 70% of miscarriages prior to 20 weeks’ gestation, genetic evaluation of the products of conception is commonly performed to identify a potential cause for the miscarriage.¹⁶ G-band karyotype is the most commonly performed genetic evaluation. Karyotype requires culturing of pregnancy tissue for 7-14 days to produce metaphase cells that are then chemically treated to arrest them at their maximally contracted stage. Cytogenetic evaluation is often curtailed when nonviable cells from products of conception fail to culture due to either time elapsed from diagnosis to demise or damage from tissue handling. Careful, directly observed tissue handling via a hysteroscopic approach may alleviate culture failure secondary to tissue damage.

Another concern with cultures of products of conception is the potential for maternal cell contamination. Early studies from the 1970s noted a significant skew toward 46, XX karyotype results in miscarried tissue as compared with 46, XY results. It was not until microsatellite analysis technology was available that it was determined that the result was due to analysis of maternal cells instead of products of conception.¹⁷ A 2014 study by Levy and colleagues and another by Lathi and colleagues that utilized single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray found that maternal cell contamination affected 22% of all miscarriage samples analyzed and over half of karyotypes with a 46, XX result.^18,19

Traditional “blind” suction and curettage may inadvertently collect maternal endometrial tissue and contaminate the culture of fetal cells, limiting the validity of karyotype for products of conception.²⁰ The hysteroscopic approach may provide a higher diagnostic yield for karyotype analysis of fetal tissue by the nature of targeted tissue sampling under direct visualization, minimizing maternal cell contamination. One retrospective study by Cholkeri-Singh and colleagues evaluated rates of fetal chromosome detection without maternal contamination in a total of 264 patients undergoing either suction curettage or hysteroscopic resection. They found that fetal chromosomal detection without contamination was significantly higher in the hysteroscopy group compared with the suction curettage group (88.5 vs 64.8%, P< .001).²¹ Additionally, biopsies of tissue under direct visualization may enable the diagnosis of a true placental mosaicism and the study of the individual karyotype of each embryo in dizygotic twin missed abortions.

Finally, a hysteroscopic approach may afford the opportunity to also perform morphologic evaluation of the intact early fetus furthering the diagnostic utility of the procedure. With hysteroscopy, the gestational sac is identified and carefully entered, allowing for complete visualization of the early fetus and assessment of anatomic malformations that may provide insight into the pregnancy loss (ie, embryoscopy). In one series of 272 patients with missed abortions, while nearly 75% of conceptuses had abnormal karyotypes, 18% were found to have gross morphologic defects with a normal karyotype.²²

Bottom line

When faced with a patient with an early pregnancy loss, physicians should consider the decreased iatrogenic risks and improved diagnostic yield when deciding between D&C versus hysteroscopy for surgical management. There are certain patients with pre-existing risk factors that may stand to benefit the most (TABLE 2). Much like the opening case, those at risk for intrauterine adhesions, retained products of conception, or in whom a successful and accurate cytogenetic analysis is essential are the most likely to benefit from a hysteroscopic approach. The hysteroscopic approach also affords concurrent diagnosis and treatment of intrauterine pathology, such as leiomyomas and uterine septum, which are encountered approximately 12.5% of the time after one miscarriage and 29.4% of the time in patients with a history of more than one miscarriage.¹⁰ In the appropriately counseled patient and clinical setting, clinicians could also perform definitive surgical management during the same hysteroscopy. Finally, evaluation of the morphology of the demised fetus may provide additional information for patient counseling in those with euploid pregnancy losses.

CASE Resolved

Ultimately, our patient underwent complete hysteroscopic resection of the pregnancy tissue, which confirmed both a morphologically abnormal fetus and a 45, X karyotype of the products of conception. ●

CASE Concern for surgical management after repeat miscarriage

A 34-year-old woman (G3P0030) with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss was recently diagnosed with a 7-week missed abortion. After her second miscarriage, she had an evaluation for recurrent pregnancy loss which was unremarkable. Both prior miscarriages were managed with dilation & curettage (D&C), but cytogenetic testing of the tissue did not yield a result in either case. The karyotype from the first pregnancy resulted as 46, XX but was confirmed to be due to maternal cell contamination, and the karyotype from the second pregnancy resulted in cell culture failure. The patient is interested in surgical management for her current missed abortion to help with tissue collection for cytogenetic testing, she but is concerned about her risk of intrauterine adhesions with repeated uterine instrumentation given 2 prior D&Cs, one of which was complicated by retained products of conception.

How do you approach the surgical management of this patient with recurrent pregnancy loss?

Approximately 1 in every 8 recognized pregnancies results in miscarriage. The risk of loss is lowest in women with no history of miscarriage (11%), and increases by about 10% for each additional miscarriage, reaching 42% in women with 3 or more previous losses. The population prevalence of women who have had 1 miscarriage is 11%, 2 miscarriages is 2%, and 3 or more is <1%.¹ While 90% of miscarriages occur in the first trimester, their etiology can be quite varied.² A woman’s age is the most strongly associated risk factor, with both very young (<20 years) and older age (>35 years) groups at highest risk. This association is largely attributed to an age-related increase in embryonic chromosomal aneuploidies, of which trisomies, particularly trisomy 16, are the most common.³ Maternal anatomic anomalies such as leiomyomas, intrauterine adhesions, Müllerian anomalies, and adenomyosis have been linked to an increased risk of miscarriage in addition to several lifestyle and environmental factor exposures.¹

Regardless of the etiology, women with recurrent miscarriage are exposed to the potential for iatrogenic harm from the management of their pregnancy loss, including intrauterine adhesions and retained products, which may negatively impact future reproductive attempts. The management of patients with recurrent miscarriages demands special attention to reduce the risk of iatrogenic harm, maximize diagnostic evaluation of the products of conception, and improve future reproductive outcomes.

Management strategies

First trimester pregnancy loss may be managed expectantly, medically, or surgically. Approximately 76% of women who opt for expectant management will successfully pass pregnancy tissue, but for 1 out of every 6 women it may take longer than 14 days.⁴ For patients who prefer to expedite this process, medication abortion is a highly effective and safe option. According to Schreiber and colleagues, a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol together resulted in expulsion in approximately 91% of 148 patients, although 9% still required surgical intervention for incomplete passage of tissue.⁵ Both expectant management and medical management strategies are associated with the potential for retained products of conception requiring subsequent instrumentation as well as tissue that is often unsuitable or contaminated for cytogenetic analysis.

The most definitive treatment option is surgical management via manual or electric vacuum aspiration or curettage, with efficacy approaching 99.6% in some series.⁶ While highly effective, even ultrasound-guided evacuation carries with it procedure-related risks that are of particular consequence for patients of reproductive age, including adhesion formation and retained products of conception.

In 1997, Goldenberg and colleagues reported on the use of hysteroscopy for the management of retained products of conception as a strategy to minimize trauma to the uterus and maximize excision of retained tissue, both of which reduce potential for adhesion formation.⁷ Based on these data, several groups have extended the use of hysteroscopic resection for retained tissue to upfront evacuation following pregnancy loss, in lieu of D&C.^8,9 This approach allows for the direct visualization of the focal removal of the implanted pregnancy tissue, which can:

• decrease the risk of intrauterine adhesion formation
• decrease the risk of retained products of conception
• allow for directed tissue sampling to improve the accuracy of cytogenetic testing
• allow for detection of embryo anatomic anomalies that often go undetected on traditional cytogenetic analysis.

For the remainder of this article, we will discuss the advantages of hysteroscopic management of a missed abortion in greater detail.

Continue to: Hysteroscopic management...

Hysteroscopic management

Like aspiration or curettage, hysteroscopic management may be offered once the diagnosis of fetal demise is confirmed on ultrasonography. The procedure may be accomplished in the office setting or in the operative room with either morcellation or resectoscopic instruments. Morcellation allows for improved visibility during the procedure given the ability of continuous suction to manage tissue fragments in the surgical field, while resectoscopic instruments offer the added benefit of electrosurgery should bleeding that is unresponsive to increased distention pressure be encountered. Use of the cold loop of the resectoscope to accomplish evacuation is advocated to avoid the thermal damage to the endometrium with electrosurgery. Regardless of the chosen instrument, there are several potential benefits for a hysteroscopic approach over the traditional ultrasound-guided or blind D&C.

Reducing risk of iatrogenic harm

Intrauterine adhesions form secondary to trauma to the endometrial basalis layer, where a population of adult progenitor stem cells continuously work to regenerate the overlying functionalis layer. Once damaged, adhesions may form and range from thin, filmy adhesions to dense, cavity obliterating bands of scar tissue (FIGURE). The degree of severity and location of the adhesions account for the variable presentation that range from menstrual abnormalities to infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss. While several classification systems exist for scoring severity of adhesions, the American Fertility Society (now American Society for Reproductive Medicine) Classification system from 1988 is still commonly utilized (TABLE 1).

ILLUSTRATIONS: MARCIA HARTSOCK FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Intrauterine adhesions from D&C after pregnancy loss are not uncommon. A 2014 meta-analysis of 10 prospective studies including 912 women reported a pooled prevalence for intrauterine adhesions of 19.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.8–27.5) on hysteroscopic evaluation within 12 months following curettage.¹⁰ Once formed, these adhesions are associated with long-term impairment in reproductive outcomes, regardless of if they were treated or not. In a long-term follow-up study of women with and without adhesions after recurrent D&C for miscarriage, women with treated adhesions reported lower live birth rates, longer time to pregnancy, higher rates of preterm birth and higher rates of peripartum complications compared with those without adhesions.¹¹

Compared with curettage, hysteroscopy affords the surgeon complete visualization of the uterine cavity and tissue to be resected. This, in turn, minimizes trauma to the surrounding uterine cavity, minimizes the potential for post-procedural adhesion formation and their associated sequelae, and maximizes complete resection of tissue. Those treated with D&C appear to be significantly more likely to have adhesions than those treated via a hysteroscopic approach (30% vs 13%).¹²

Retained products of conception. Classically, a “gritty” sensation of the endometrium following evacuation of the uterus with a sharp curette has been used to indicate complete removal of tissue. The evolution from a nonvisualized procedure to ultrasound-guided vacuum aspiration of 1st trimester pregnancy tissue has been associated with a decreased risk of procedural complications and retained products of conception.¹³ However, even with intraoperative imaging, the risk of retained products of conception remains because it can be difficult to distinguish a small blood clot from retained pregnancy tissue on ultrasonography.

Retained pregnancy tissue can result in abnormal or heavy bleeding, require additional medical or surgical intervention, and is associated with endometrial inflammation and infection. Approximately 1 in every 4 women undergoing hysteroscopic resection of retained products are found to have evidence of endometritis in the resected tissue.¹⁴ This number is even higher in women with a diagnosis of recurrent pregnancy loss (62%).¹⁵

These complications from retained products of conception can be avoided with the hysteroscopic approach due to the direct visualization of the tissue removal. This benefit may be particularly beneficial in patients with known abnormal uterine cavities, such as those with Müllerian anomalies, uterine leiomyomas, preexisting adhesions, and history of placenta accreta spectrum disorder.

Continue to: Maximizing diagnostic yield...

Maximizing diagnostic yield

Many patients prefer surgical management of a missed abortion not for the procedural advantages, but to assist with tissue collection for cytogenetic testing of the pregnancy tissue. Given that embryonic chromosomal aneuploidy is implicated in 70% of miscarriages prior to 20 weeks’ gestation, genetic evaluation of the products of conception is commonly performed to identify a potential cause for the miscarriage.¹⁶ G-band karyotype is the most commonly performed genetic evaluation. Karyotype requires culturing of pregnancy tissue for 7-14 days to produce metaphase cells that are then chemically treated to arrest them at their maximally contracted stage. Cytogenetic evaluation is often curtailed when nonviable cells from products of conception fail to culture due to either time elapsed from diagnosis to demise or damage from tissue handling. Careful, directly observed tissue handling via a hysteroscopic approach may alleviate culture failure secondary to tissue damage.

Another concern with cultures of products of conception is the potential for maternal cell contamination. Early studies from the 1970s noted a significant skew toward 46, XX karyotype results in miscarried tissue as compared with 46, XY results. It was not until microsatellite analysis technology was available that it was determined that the result was due to analysis of maternal cells instead of products of conception.¹⁷ A 2014 study by Levy and colleagues and another by Lathi and colleagues that utilized single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray found that maternal cell contamination affected 22% of all miscarriage samples analyzed and over half of karyotypes with a 46, XX result.^18,19

Traditional “blind” suction and curettage may inadvertently collect maternal endometrial tissue and contaminate the culture of fetal cells, limiting the validity of karyotype for products of conception.²⁰ The hysteroscopic approach may provide a higher diagnostic yield for karyotype analysis of fetal tissue by the nature of targeted tissue sampling under direct visualization, minimizing maternal cell contamination. One retrospective study by Cholkeri-Singh and colleagues evaluated rates of fetal chromosome detection without maternal contamination in a total of 264 patients undergoing either suction curettage or hysteroscopic resection. They found that fetal chromosomal detection without contamination was significantly higher in the hysteroscopy group compared with the suction curettage group (88.5 vs 64.8%, P< .001).²¹ Additionally, biopsies of tissue under direct visualization may enable the diagnosis of a true placental mosaicism and the study of the individual karyotype of each embryo in dizygotic twin missed abortions.

Finally, a hysteroscopic approach may afford the opportunity to also perform morphologic evaluation of the intact early fetus furthering the diagnostic utility of the procedure. With hysteroscopy, the gestational sac is identified and carefully entered, allowing for complete visualization of the early fetus and assessment of anatomic malformations that may provide insight into the pregnancy loss (ie, embryoscopy). In one series of 272 patients with missed abortions, while nearly 75% of conceptuses had abnormal karyotypes, 18% were found to have gross morphologic defects with a normal karyotype.²²

Bottom line

When faced with a patient with an early pregnancy loss, physicians should consider the decreased iatrogenic risks and improved diagnostic yield when deciding between D&C versus hysteroscopy for surgical management. There are certain patients with pre-existing risk factors that may stand to benefit the most (TABLE 2). Much like the opening case, those at risk for intrauterine adhesions, retained products of conception, or in whom a successful and accurate cytogenetic analysis is essential are the most likely to benefit from a hysteroscopic approach. The hysteroscopic approach also affords concurrent diagnosis and treatment of intrauterine pathology, such as leiomyomas and uterine septum, which are encountered approximately 12.5% of the time after one miscarriage and 29.4% of the time in patients with a history of more than one miscarriage.¹⁰ In the appropriately counseled patient and clinical setting, clinicians could also perform definitive surgical management during the same hysteroscopy. Finally, evaluation of the morphology of the demised fetus may provide additional information for patient counseling in those with euploid pregnancy losses.

CASE Resolved

Ultimately, our patient underwent complete hysteroscopic resection of the pregnancy tissue, which confirmed both a morphologically abnormal fetus and a 45, X karyotype of the products of conception. ●

In what is believed to be a record, twins in Oregon were born this past Halloween from embryos that were frozen in 1992.

The National Embryo Donation Center says the twins, named Lydia and Timothy Ridgeway, are the longest frozen embryos to result in live birth, CNN reported.

Lydia was born at 5 pounds, 11 ounces. Timothy was born at 6 pounds, 7 ounces.

“There is something mind-boggling about it,” Philip Ridgeway told CNN as he and wife, Rachel Ridgeway, held their newborns. “I was 5 years old when God gave life to Lydia and Timothy, and he’s been preserving that life ever since.”

The babies were a result of embryo donation, usually from parents who have extra embryos after successfully having babies via in vitro fertilization (IVF).

In the case of newborns Lydia and Timothy, their donor parents are an anonymous married couple. The husband was in his early 50s at the time, and the couple used a 34-year-old egg donor, CNN reported.

After the embryos sat in storage on the West Coast from 1992 to 2007, the donor parents donated them to the National Embryo Donation Center in Knoxville, Tenn.

“In a sense, they’re our oldest children, even though they’re our smallest children,” said Philip Ridgeway.

The couple already had four other children, ages 8, 6, 3, and one that’s almost 2. None of their other children was conceived via IVF or donors.

“We’ve never had in our minds a set number of children we’d like to have,” Philip Ridgeway said. “We’ve always thought we’ll have as many as God wants to give us, and ... when we heard about embryo adoption, we thought that’s something we would like to do.”

In an article for Harvard Medical School, fertility expert Ellen S. Glazer said there are countless IVF-created embryos whose future path has five options.

“Those embarking on an IVF cycle are often laser-focused on the baby they long for,” wrote Ms. Glazer, a clinical social worker whose practice focuses on reproductive issues. “Most hope a cycle will yield several embryos, because it frequently takes more than one embryo transfer to achieve a successful full-term pregnancy. Any remaining embryos may offer the hope of future pregnancies and additional children.”

If the embryos are not used, the five options are:

• Discard the remaining embryos.
• Have another child anyway, even if a larger family wasn’t the original plan.
• Donate the embryos to science.
• Donate the embryos to another person or couple.
• Decide not to decide. (In this situation, clinics use the term “abandon” when a family avoids contact and stops paying storage fees.)

For the Ridgeways, when they were offered information to help them choose among donated embryos, they decided to focus on those with the lowest identification numbers on the list.

“We weren’t looking to get the embryos that have been frozen the longest in the world,” Philip Ridgeway said. “We just wanted the ones that had been waiting the longest.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

In what is believed to be a record, twins in Oregon were born this past Halloween from embryos that were frozen in 1992.

The National Embryo Donation Center says the twins, named Lydia and Timothy Ridgeway, are the longest frozen embryos to result in live birth, CNN reported.

Lydia was born at 5 pounds, 11 ounces. Timothy was born at 6 pounds, 7 ounces.

“There is something mind-boggling about it,” Philip Ridgeway told CNN as he and wife, Rachel Ridgeway, held their newborns. “I was 5 years old when God gave life to Lydia and Timothy, and he’s been preserving that life ever since.”

The babies were a result of embryo donation, usually from parents who have extra embryos after successfully having babies via in vitro fertilization (IVF).

In the case of newborns Lydia and Timothy, their donor parents are an anonymous married couple. The husband was in his early 50s at the time, and the couple used a 34-year-old egg donor, CNN reported.

After the embryos sat in storage on the West Coast from 1992 to 2007, the donor parents donated them to the National Embryo Donation Center in Knoxville, Tenn.

“In a sense, they’re our oldest children, even though they’re our smallest children,” said Philip Ridgeway.

The couple already had four other children, ages 8, 6, 3, and one that’s almost 2. None of their other children was conceived via IVF or donors.

“We’ve never had in our minds a set number of children we’d like to have,” Philip Ridgeway said. “We’ve always thought we’ll have as many as God wants to give us, and ... when we heard about embryo adoption, we thought that’s something we would like to do.”

In an article for Harvard Medical School, fertility expert Ellen S. Glazer said there are countless IVF-created embryos whose future path has five options.

“Those embarking on an IVF cycle are often laser-focused on the baby they long for,” wrote Ms. Glazer, a clinical social worker whose practice focuses on reproductive issues. “Most hope a cycle will yield several embryos, because it frequently takes more than one embryo transfer to achieve a successful full-term pregnancy. Any remaining embryos may offer the hope of future pregnancies and additional children.”

If the embryos are not used, the five options are:

• Discard the remaining embryos.
• Have another child anyway, even if a larger family wasn’t the original plan.
• Donate the embryos to science.
• Donate the embryos to another person or couple.
• Decide not to decide. (In this situation, clinics use the term “abandon” when a family avoids contact and stops paying storage fees.)

For the Ridgeways, when they were offered information to help them choose among donated embryos, they decided to focus on those with the lowest identification numbers on the list.

“We weren’t looking to get the embryos that have been frozen the longest in the world,” Philip Ridgeway said. “We just wanted the ones that had been waiting the longest.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

In what is believed to be a record, twins in Oregon were born this past Halloween from embryos that were frozen in 1992.

The National Embryo Donation Center says the twins, named Lydia and Timothy Ridgeway, are the longest frozen embryos to result in live birth, CNN reported.

Lydia was born at 5 pounds, 11 ounces. Timothy was born at 6 pounds, 7 ounces.

“There is something mind-boggling about it,” Philip Ridgeway told CNN as he and wife, Rachel Ridgeway, held their newborns. “I was 5 years old when God gave life to Lydia and Timothy, and he’s been preserving that life ever since.”

The babies were a result of embryo donation, usually from parents who have extra embryos after successfully having babies via in vitro fertilization (IVF).

In the case of newborns Lydia and Timothy, their donor parents are an anonymous married couple. The husband was in his early 50s at the time, and the couple used a 34-year-old egg donor, CNN reported.

After the embryos sat in storage on the West Coast from 1992 to 2007, the donor parents donated them to the National Embryo Donation Center in Knoxville, Tenn.

“In a sense, they’re our oldest children, even though they’re our smallest children,” said Philip Ridgeway.

The couple already had four other children, ages 8, 6, 3, and one that’s almost 2. None of their other children was conceived via IVF or donors.

“We’ve never had in our minds a set number of children we’d like to have,” Philip Ridgeway said. “We’ve always thought we’ll have as many as God wants to give us, and ... when we heard about embryo adoption, we thought that’s something we would like to do.”

In an article for Harvard Medical School, fertility expert Ellen S. Glazer said there are countless IVF-created embryos whose future path has five options.

“Those embarking on an IVF cycle are often laser-focused on the baby they long for,” wrote Ms. Glazer, a clinical social worker whose practice focuses on reproductive issues. “Most hope a cycle will yield several embryos, because it frequently takes more than one embryo transfer to achieve a successful full-term pregnancy. Any remaining embryos may offer the hope of future pregnancies and additional children.”

If the embryos are not used, the five options are:

• Discard the remaining embryos.
• Have another child anyway, even if a larger family wasn’t the original plan.
• Donate the embryos to science.
• Donate the embryos to another person or couple.
• Decide not to decide. (In this situation, clinics use the term “abandon” when a family avoids contact and stops paying storage fees.)

For the Ridgeways, when they were offered information to help them choose among donated embryos, they decided to focus on those with the lowest identification numbers on the list.

“We weren’t looking to get the embryos that have been frozen the longest in the world,” Philip Ridgeway said. “We just wanted the ones that had been waiting the longest.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

More women gave birth at home in America last year, continuing a pandemic trend and reaching the highest level in decades, according to figures released by the CDC.

The report said that almost 52,000 births occurred at home in 2021, out of 4 million total births in the country. This was an increase of 12% from 2020. The figure rose by 22% in 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, over 2019.

There were several possible reasons for the increase in home births. Infection rates and hospitalizations were high. Vaccinations were not available or were not widely used, and many people avoided going to hospitals or the doctor, said Elizabeth Gregory, the report’s lead author.

Also, some women didn’t have health insurance, lived far from a medical facility, or could not get to a hospital fast enough. About 25% of home births are not planned, the Associated Press reported.

Increases in home births occurred across all races, but home births were less common among Hispanics.

The AP reported that home births are riskier than hospital births, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The organization advises against home births for women carrying multiple babies or who have previously had a cesarean section.

“Hospitals and accredited birth centers are the safest places to give birth, because although serious complications associated with labor and delivery are rare, they can be catastrophic,” said Jeffrey Ecker, M.D., chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

More women gave birth at home in America last year, continuing a pandemic trend and reaching the highest level in decades, according to figures released by the CDC.

The report said that almost 52,000 births occurred at home in 2021, out of 4 million total births in the country. This was an increase of 12% from 2020. The figure rose by 22% in 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, over 2019.

There were several possible reasons for the increase in home births. Infection rates and hospitalizations were high. Vaccinations were not available or were not widely used, and many people avoided going to hospitals or the doctor, said Elizabeth Gregory, the report’s lead author.

Also, some women didn’t have health insurance, lived far from a medical facility, or could not get to a hospital fast enough. About 25% of home births are not planned, the Associated Press reported.

Increases in home births occurred across all races, but home births were less common among Hispanics.

The AP reported that home births are riskier than hospital births, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The organization advises against home births for women carrying multiple babies or who have previously had a cesarean section.

“Hospitals and accredited birth centers are the safest places to give birth, because although serious complications associated with labor and delivery are rare, they can be catastrophic,” said Jeffrey Ecker, M.D., chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

More women gave birth at home in America last year, continuing a pandemic trend and reaching the highest level in decades, according to figures released by the CDC.

The report said that almost 52,000 births occurred at home in 2021, out of 4 million total births in the country. This was an increase of 12% from 2020. The figure rose by 22% in 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, over 2019.

There were several possible reasons for the increase in home births. Infection rates and hospitalizations were high. Vaccinations were not available or were not widely used, and many people avoided going to hospitals or the doctor, said Elizabeth Gregory, the report’s lead author.

Also, some women didn’t have health insurance, lived far from a medical facility, or could not get to a hospital fast enough. About 25% of home births are not planned, the Associated Press reported.

Increases in home births occurred across all races, but home births were less common among Hispanics.

The AP reported that home births are riskier than hospital births, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The organization advises against home births for women carrying multiple babies or who have previously had a cesarean section.

“Hospitals and accredited birth centers are the safest places to give birth, because although serious complications associated with labor and delivery are rare, they can be catastrophic,” said Jeffrey Ecker, M.D., chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Much of the focus of reproductive psychiatry over the last 1 to 2 decades has been on issues regarding risk of fetal exposure to psychiatric medications in the context of the specific risk for teratogenesis or organ malformation. Concerns and questions are mostly focused on exposure to any number of medications that women take during the first trimester, as it is during that period that the major organs are formed.

More recently, there has been appropriate interest in the effect of fetal exposure to psychiatric medications with respect to risk for obstetrical and neonatal complications. This particularly has been the case with respect to antidepressants where fetal exposure to these medications, which while associated with symptoms of transient jitteriness and irritability about 20% of the time, have not been associated with symptoms requiring frank clinical intervention.

Concerning mood stabilizers, the risk for organ dysgenesis following fetal exposure to sodium valproate has been very well established, and we’ve known for over a decade about the adverse effects of fetal exposure to sodium valproate on behavioral outcomes (Lancet Neurol. 2013 Mar;12[3]:244-52). We also now have ample data on lamotrigine, one of the most widely used medicines by reproductive-age women for treatment of bipolar disorder that supports the absence of a risk of organ malformation in first-trimester exposure.

Most recently, in a study of 292 children of women with epilepsy, an evaluation of women being treated with more modern anticonvulsants such as lamotrigine and levetiracetam alone or as polytherapy was performed. The results showed no difference in language, motor, cognitive, social, emotional, and general adaptive functioning in children exposed to either lamotrigine or levetiracetam relative to unexposed children of women with epilepsy. However, the researchers found an increase in anti-epileptic drug plasma level appeared to be associated with decreased motor and sensory function. These are reassuring data that really confirm earlier work, which failed to reveal a signal of concern for lamotrigine and now provide some of the first data on levetiracetam, which is widely used by reproductive-age women with epilepsy (JAMA Neurol. 2021 Aug 1;78[8]:927-936). While one caveat of the study is a short follow-up of 2 years, the absence of a signal of concern is reassuring. With more and more data demonstrating bipolar disorder is an illness that requires chronic treatment for many people, and that discontinuation is associated with high risk for relapse, it is an advance in the field to have data on risk for teratogenesis and data on longer-term neurobehavioral outcomes.

There is vast information regarding reproductive safety, organ malformation, and acute neonatal outcomes for antidepressants. The last decade has brought interest in and analysis of specific reports of increased risk of both autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) following fetal exposure to antidepressants. What can be said based on reviews of pooled meta-analyses is that the risk for ASD and ADHD has been put to rest for most clinicians and patients (J Clin Psychiatry. 2020 May 26;81[3]:20f13463). With other neurodevelopmental disorders, results have been somewhat inconclusive. Over the last 5-10 years, there have been sporadic reports of concerns about problems in a specific domain of neurodevelopment in offspring of women who have used antidepressants during pregnancy, whether it be speech, language, or motor functioning, but no signal of concern has been consistent.

In a previous column, I addressed a Danish study that showed no increased risk of longer-term sequelae after fetal exposure to antidepressants. Now, a new study has examined 1.93 million pregnancies in the Medicaid Analytic eXtract and 1.25 million pregnancies in the IBM MarketScan Research Database with follow-up up to 14 years of age where the specific interval for fetal exposure was from gestational age of 19 weeks to delivery, as that is the period that corresponds most to synaptogenesis in the brain. The researchers examined a spectrum of neurodevelopmental disorders such as developmental speech issues, ADHD, ASD, dyslexia, and learning disorders, among others. They found a twofold increased risk for neurodevelopmental disorders in the unadjusted models that flattened to no finding when factoring in environmental and genetic risk variables, highlighting the importance of dealing appropriately with confounders when performing these analyses. Those confounders examined include the mother’s use of alcohol and tobacco, and her body mass index and overall general health (JAMA Intern Med. 2022;182[11]:1149-60).

Given the consistency of these results with earlier data, patients can be increasingly comfortable as they weigh the benefits and risks of antidepressant use during pregnancy, factoring in the risk of fetal exposure with added data on long-term neurobehavioral sequelae. With that said, we need to remember the importance of initiatives to address alcohol consumption, poor nutrition, tobacco use, elevated BMI, and general health during pregnancy. These are modifiable risks that we as clinicians should focus on in order to optimize outcomes during pregnancy.

We have come so far in knowledge about fetal exposure to antidepressants relative to other classes of medications women take during pregnancy, about which, frankly, we are still starved for data. As use of psychiatric medications during pregnancy continues to grow, we can rest a bit more comfortably. But we should also address some of the other behaviors that have adverse effects on maternal and child well-being.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

Much of the focus of reproductive psychiatry over the last 1 to 2 decades has been on issues regarding risk of fetal exposure to psychiatric medications in the context of the specific risk for teratogenesis or organ malformation. Concerns and questions are mostly focused on exposure to any number of medications that women take during the first trimester, as it is during that period that the major organs are formed.

More recently, there has been appropriate interest in the effect of fetal exposure to psychiatric medications with respect to risk for obstetrical and neonatal complications. This particularly has been the case with respect to antidepressants where fetal exposure to these medications, which while associated with symptoms of transient jitteriness and irritability about 20% of the time, have not been associated with symptoms requiring frank clinical intervention.

Concerning mood stabilizers, the risk for organ dysgenesis following fetal exposure to sodium valproate has been very well established, and we’ve known for over a decade about the adverse effects of fetal exposure to sodium valproate on behavioral outcomes (Lancet Neurol. 2013 Mar;12[3]:244-52). We also now have ample data on lamotrigine, one of the most widely used medicines by reproductive-age women for treatment of bipolar disorder that supports the absence of a risk of organ malformation in first-trimester exposure.

Most recently, in a study of 292 children of women with epilepsy, an evaluation of women being treated with more modern anticonvulsants such as lamotrigine and levetiracetam alone or as polytherapy was performed. The results showed no difference in language, motor, cognitive, social, emotional, and general adaptive functioning in children exposed to either lamotrigine or levetiracetam relative to unexposed children of women with epilepsy. However, the researchers found an increase in anti-epileptic drug plasma level appeared to be associated with decreased motor and sensory function. These are reassuring data that really confirm earlier work, which failed to reveal a signal of concern for lamotrigine and now provide some of the first data on levetiracetam, which is widely used by reproductive-age women with epilepsy (JAMA Neurol. 2021 Aug 1;78[8]:927-936). While one caveat of the study is a short follow-up of 2 years, the absence of a signal of concern is reassuring. With more and more data demonstrating bipolar disorder is an illness that requires chronic treatment for many people, and that discontinuation is associated with high risk for relapse, it is an advance in the field to have data on risk for teratogenesis and data on longer-term neurobehavioral outcomes.

There is vast information regarding reproductive safety, organ malformation, and acute neonatal outcomes for antidepressants. The last decade has brought interest in and analysis of specific reports of increased risk of both autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) following fetal exposure to antidepressants. What can be said based on reviews of pooled meta-analyses is that the risk for ASD and ADHD has been put to rest for most clinicians and patients (J Clin Psychiatry. 2020 May 26;81[3]:20f13463). With other neurodevelopmental disorders, results have been somewhat inconclusive. Over the last 5-10 years, there have been sporadic reports of concerns about problems in a specific domain of neurodevelopment in offspring of women who have used antidepressants during pregnancy, whether it be speech, language, or motor functioning, but no signal of concern has been consistent.

In a previous column, I addressed a Danish study that showed no increased risk of longer-term sequelae after fetal exposure to antidepressants. Now, a new study has examined 1.93 million pregnancies in the Medicaid Analytic eXtract and 1.25 million pregnancies in the IBM MarketScan Research Database with follow-up up to 14 years of age where the specific interval for fetal exposure was from gestational age of 19 weeks to delivery, as that is the period that corresponds most to synaptogenesis in the brain. The researchers examined a spectrum of neurodevelopmental disorders such as developmental speech issues, ADHD, ASD, dyslexia, and learning disorders, among others. They found a twofold increased risk for neurodevelopmental disorders in the unadjusted models that flattened to no finding when factoring in environmental and genetic risk variables, highlighting the importance of dealing appropriately with confounders when performing these analyses. Those confounders examined include the mother’s use of alcohol and tobacco, and her body mass index and overall general health (JAMA Intern Med. 2022;182[11]:1149-60).

Given the consistency of these results with earlier data, patients can be increasingly comfortable as they weigh the benefits and risks of antidepressant use during pregnancy, factoring in the risk of fetal exposure with added data on long-term neurobehavioral sequelae. With that said, we need to remember the importance of initiatives to address alcohol consumption, poor nutrition, tobacco use, elevated BMI, and general health during pregnancy. These are modifiable risks that we as clinicians should focus on in order to optimize outcomes during pregnancy.

We have come so far in knowledge about fetal exposure to antidepressants relative to other classes of medications women take during pregnancy, about which, frankly, we are still starved for data. As use of psychiatric medications during pregnancy continues to grow, we can rest a bit more comfortably. But we should also address some of the other behaviors that have adverse effects on maternal and child well-being.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

Much of the focus of reproductive psychiatry over the last 1 to 2 decades has been on issues regarding risk of fetal exposure to psychiatric medications in the context of the specific risk for teratogenesis or organ malformation. Concerns and questions are mostly focused on exposure to any number of medications that women take during the first trimester, as it is during that period that the major organs are formed.

More recently, there has been appropriate interest in the effect of fetal exposure to psychiatric medications with respect to risk for obstetrical and neonatal complications. This particularly has been the case with respect to antidepressants where fetal exposure to these medications, which while associated with symptoms of transient jitteriness and irritability about 20% of the time, have not been associated with symptoms requiring frank clinical intervention.

Concerning mood stabilizers, the risk for organ dysgenesis following fetal exposure to sodium valproate has been very well established, and we’ve known for over a decade about the adverse effects of fetal exposure to sodium valproate on behavioral outcomes (Lancet Neurol. 2013 Mar;12[3]:244-52). We also now have ample data on lamotrigine, one of the most widely used medicines by reproductive-age women for treatment of bipolar disorder that supports the absence of a risk of organ malformation in first-trimester exposure.

Most recently, in a study of 292 children of women with epilepsy, an evaluation of women being treated with more modern anticonvulsants such as lamotrigine and levetiracetam alone or as polytherapy was performed. The results showed no difference in language, motor, cognitive, social, emotional, and general adaptive functioning in children exposed to either lamotrigine or levetiracetam relative to unexposed children of women with epilepsy. However, the researchers found an increase in anti-epileptic drug plasma level appeared to be associated with decreased motor and sensory function. These are reassuring data that really confirm earlier work, which failed to reveal a signal of concern for lamotrigine and now provide some of the first data on levetiracetam, which is widely used by reproductive-age women with epilepsy (JAMA Neurol. 2021 Aug 1;78[8]:927-936). While one caveat of the study is a short follow-up of 2 years, the absence of a signal of concern is reassuring. With more and more data demonstrating bipolar disorder is an illness that requires chronic treatment for many people, and that discontinuation is associated with high risk for relapse, it is an advance in the field to have data on risk for teratogenesis and data on longer-term neurobehavioral outcomes.

There is vast information regarding reproductive safety, organ malformation, and acute neonatal outcomes for antidepressants. The last decade has brought interest in and analysis of specific reports of increased risk of both autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) following fetal exposure to antidepressants. What can be said based on reviews of pooled meta-analyses is that the risk for ASD and ADHD has been put to rest for most clinicians and patients (J Clin Psychiatry. 2020 May 26;81[3]:20f13463). With other neurodevelopmental disorders, results have been somewhat inconclusive. Over the last 5-10 years, there have been sporadic reports of concerns about problems in a specific domain of neurodevelopment in offspring of women who have used antidepressants during pregnancy, whether it be speech, language, or motor functioning, but no signal of concern has been consistent.

In a previous column, I addressed a Danish study that showed no increased risk of longer-term sequelae after fetal exposure to antidepressants. Now, a new study has examined 1.93 million pregnancies in the Medicaid Analytic eXtract and 1.25 million pregnancies in the IBM MarketScan Research Database with follow-up up to 14 years of age where the specific interval for fetal exposure was from gestational age of 19 weeks to delivery, as that is the period that corresponds most to synaptogenesis in the brain. The researchers examined a spectrum of neurodevelopmental disorders such as developmental speech issues, ADHD, ASD, dyslexia, and learning disorders, among others. They found a twofold increased risk for neurodevelopmental disorders in the unadjusted models that flattened to no finding when factoring in environmental and genetic risk variables, highlighting the importance of dealing appropriately with confounders when performing these analyses. Those confounders examined include the mother’s use of alcohol and tobacco, and her body mass index and overall general health (JAMA Intern Med. 2022;182[11]:1149-60).

Given the consistency of these results with earlier data, patients can be increasingly comfortable as they weigh the benefits and risks of antidepressant use during pregnancy, factoring in the risk of fetal exposure with added data on long-term neurobehavioral sequelae. With that said, we need to remember the importance of initiatives to address alcohol consumption, poor nutrition, tobacco use, elevated BMI, and general health during pregnancy. These are modifiable risks that we as clinicians should focus on in order to optimize outcomes during pregnancy.

We have come so far in knowledge about fetal exposure to antidepressants relative to other classes of medications women take during pregnancy, about which, frankly, we are still starved for data. As use of psychiatric medications during pregnancy continues to grow, we can rest a bit more comfortably. But we should also address some of the other behaviors that have adverse effects on maternal and child well-being.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].