Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 20(1)2022 12 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2245281

ABSTRACT

Background: Although current guidelines recommend that mothers with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection should be encouraged to initiate and continue breastfeeding, up-to-date literature shows conflicting data regarding breastfeeding experiences in infected women. This survey aimed to report on the psychological impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on breastfeeding practice and medical counselling in a single tertiary center in Southern Italy. Methods: One-hundred breastfeeding women with SARS-CoV-2 infection at delivery were given an anonymous questionnaire regarding breastfeeding and women's perception of the impact of COVID-19 on breastfeeding. Results: 75% of women reported they had difficulty breastfeeding; among them, 66 (66%) declared that separation from their babies after delivery affected their ability to breastfeed. Incidence of reported difficulties in breastfeeding was higher in women who underwent caesarean section compared to women with vaginal delivery (56/65, 86.2% vs. 19/35, 54.3%, χ2 = 12.322, p < 0.001) and in women with a hospital stay of more than 5 days (48/57, 84.2% vs. 23/37, 62.2%, χ2 = 5.902, p = 0.015). Furthermore, the incidence of difficulties in breastfeeding was higher in women who subsequently decided to use exclusively infant formula compared to women who mixed maternal milk with infant formula and women who breastfed exclusively with maternal milk (48/49, 98% vs. 20/25, 80% vs. 7/26, 26.9%, χ2 = 46.160, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our survey highlights the importance of healthcare support and information on hygiene practices to decrease the perceived stress related to breastfeeding for infected mothers under restrictions, especially in women undergoing cesarean section and with a long hospital stay.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious , Infant , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Breast Feeding , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Cesarean Section , Pregnant Women , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/epidemiology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical
3.
Arch Gynecol Obstet ; 305(4): 859-867, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1375635

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COronaVIrus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread in Italy since February 2020, inducing the government to call for lockdown of any activity, apart primary needs, during the months March-May 2020. During the lockdown, a reduction of admissions and hospitalizations for ischemic diseases was noticed. Purpose of this study was to observe if there has been the same reduction trend in Accident & Emergency (A&E) unit admissions also for obstetric-gynecological conditions. METHODS: Medical records and electronic clinical databases were searched for all patients who were admitted to the obstetric A&E department or hospitalized at the Gynecology and Obstetrics Unit of University hospital of Naples Federico II, during the quarter March-May in the years 2019 and 2020. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) of monthly admission to the obstetric A&E department and hospitalization of the year 2020 was compared with that of the year 2019, using the unpaired T test with α error set to 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Admissions were 1483 in the year 2020 and 1786 in 2019. Of total, 1225 (37.5%) women were hospitalized: 583 in the year 2020, 642 in 2019. Mean ± SD of patients monthly admitted to our obstetric A&E department was 494 ± 33.7 in the year 2020, and 595.3 ± 30.9 in 2019, with a mean difference of - 101.3 (95% CI - 103.5 to - 99.1; p < 0.0001). Mean ± SD of patients monthly hospitalized to our department was 194 ± 19.1 in the year 2020, 213.7 ± 4.7 in 2019, with a mean difference of - 19.7 (95% CI - 23.8 to - 15.6; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: A significant decrease in the mean of monthly admissions and hospitalizations during the COVID-19 pandemic when compared to the previous year was found also for obstetric-gynecological conditions. Further studies are necessary to assess COVID-19 impact and to take the most appropriate countermeasures.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Obstetrics , Accidents , COVID-19/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control , Female , Hospitalization , Hospitals , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Pandemics , Pregnancy , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM ; 3(4): 100352, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1245828

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Since coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines have been distributed, a debate has raised on whether pregnant women should get the vaccine. No available data exist so far regarding the safety, efficacy, and toxicology of these vaccines when administered during pregnancy. Most of the Obstetrics and Gynecology societies suggested that pregnant could agree to be vaccinated, after a thorough counseling of risks and benefits with their gynecologists, thus leading to an autonomous decision. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the attitude to coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination in pregnant and breastfeeding women in Italy. STUDY DESIGN: A survey was made at the University of Naples Federico II and the Ospedale Cristo Re, Tor Vergata University of Rome, on pregnant and breastfeeding women asking their perspectives on the available vaccines after reading the recommendations issued by our national Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Neonatology societies. The questionnaire included 12 items finalized to evaluate general features of the women and 6 items specifically correlated to their attitudes toward the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination. Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests were used to compare group differences of categorical variables and Wilcoxon signed rank or Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables. The study was approved by the institutional review boards of the University of Naples Federico II (ref. no. 409/2020) and the Ospedale Cristo Re, Tor Vergata University of Rome (ref. #Ost4-2020). RESULTS: Most of the included women did not agree to eventually receive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine during pregnancy (40 [28.2%] vs 102 [71.8%]). Being pregnant was considered a determinant factor to refuse the vaccine prophylaxis (99 [69.7%] vs 43 [30.3%]; chi-square test=24.187; P<.001), even if a very large percentage declared to be generally in favor of vaccines (128 [90.1%] vs 14 [9.9%]; chi-square test=6.091; P=.014) and most of them confirmed they received or would receive other recommended vaccines during pregnancy (75 [52.8%] vs 67 [47.2%]; chi-square test=10.996; P=.001). CONCLUSION: Urgent data are needed on the safety, efficacy, and toxicology of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccines during pregnancy to modify this trend and to help obstetricians during the counseling. Furthermore, pregnant women should be included in future vaccine development trials to not incur again in such uncertainty.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Vaccines , Female , Humans , Italy , Pregnancy , Pregnant Women
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL