Acute hemorrhagic pancreatitis following influenza infection: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Acute hemorrhagic pancreatitis is a life-threatening condition leading to shock and multiorgan failure. Although prevalent in the general population, the incidence during pregnancy is low, with a high maternal and fetal mortality rate. The highest incidence is in the third trimester/early postpartum period. Infectious etiology for acute hemorrhagic pancreatitis is rare with only a handful of cases following influenza infection being documented in the literature. CASE PRESENTATION: A 29-year-old Sinhalese pregnant lady in the third trimester presented with an upper respiratory tract infection and abdominal pain, for which she was managed with oral antibiotics. An elective caesarean section was done at 37 weeks gestation due to a past section. On postoperative day 3 she developed a fever with difficulty in breathing. Despite treatment, she succumbed to death on the sixth postoperative day. The autopsy revealed extensive fat necrosis with saponification. The pancreas was necrosed and hemorrhagic. The lungs showed features of adult respiratory distress syndrome and necrosis was observed in the liver and kidneys. Polymerase chain reaction of lungs detected influenza A virus (subtype H3). CONCLUSION: Although rare, acute hemorrhagic pancreatitis from an infectious etiology carries risk of morbidity and mortality. Therefore, a high level of clinical suspicion must be upheld among clinicians to minimize adverse outcomes.

Obstetric Disorders and Critical Illness.

In this article, we discuss some of the more common obstetric-related conditions that can lead to critical illness and require management in an ICU. These include the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, postpartum hemorrhage, hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelet syndrome, acute fatty liver of pregnancy, amniotic fluid embolism, and peripartum cardiomyopathy. We also discuss pulmonary embolism and Covid-19. Despite not being specific to obstetric patients, pulmonary embolism is a common, life-threatening diagnosis in pregnancy with particular risks and management aspects. Covid-19 does not seem to occur with higher frequency in pregnant women, but it leads to higher rates of ICU admissions and mechanical ventilation in pregnant women than in their nonpregnant peers. Its prevalence during our current global pandemic makes it important to discuss in this article. We provide a basis for critical care physicians to be engaged in informed conversations and management in a multidisciplinary manner with other relevant providers in the care of critically ill pregnant and postpartum women.

Pregnancy and neurologic complications of COVID-19: A scoping review.

While neurologic complications are frequently reported among patients with COVID-19 in the general population, they are unknown in pregnant women. This paper summarizes the case reports of pregnant women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection plus a specified neurologic diagnosis. Until November 2021, 18 case reports were found. Both the central and peripheral nervous systems were equally affected: delirium (n = 1), posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (n = 4), cerebrovascular disease (n = 2), acute cerebral demyelinating disease (n = 1), acute necrotizing encephalopathy (n = 1), Guillain-Barré syndrome (n = 5), including one patient who also had vestibular neuritis, Bell's palsy (n = 3), and rhabdomyolysis (n = 1). The median maternal age was 32.5 (25-35) years, the median gestational age was 34 (30-36.5) weeks, and 38.9% presented previous medical conditions. Respiratory symptoms were reported in 76.5%, and 76.5% received immunotherapies to treat the COVID-19 or the neurologic complications. Half the women required admission to ICU and, more often, were those with central nervous system involvement (77.8% vs. 22.2%; Chi-square test, p = .018). For 64.7% of women, the most common method of delivery was surgical, although just one case was due to the neurologic complication. There were reports of one spontaneous abortion, two fetal deaths, and no maternal deaths. Only one case presented a poor neurologic outcome. It is possible that our findings are underestimated, considering that there are thousands of reports regarding neurologic complications in the general population with COVID-19.

Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy resistant to both therapeutic plasma exchange and albumin dialysis.

Intrahepatic cholestasis in pregnancy (ICP) represents, depending on its severity, a serious risk for the fetus. Those cases with unusually high bile acid levels may be resistant to pharmaceutical treatment and can be treated with plasma exchange or albumin dialysis. However, the success rate of these therapeutic options and the factors influencing therapeutic response are unknown. Furthermore, if these options fail to improve ICP and serum bile acid levels are very high (>200 µm/L), there are no clear recommendations when delivery should be planned. Here, we report a patient with severe ICP resistant to both therapeutic plasma exchange and albumin dialysis. Caesarean section was performed at 32 weeks of gestation followed by rapid remission of ICP.

Widespread implementation of a low-cost telehealth service in the delivery of antenatal care during the COVID-19 pandemic: an interrupted time-series analysis.

BACKGROUND: Little evidence is available on the use of telehealth for antenatal care. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed and implemented a new antenatal care schedule integrating telehealth across all models of pregnancy care. To inform this clinical initiative, we aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of telehealth in antenatal care. METHODS: We analysed routinely collected health data on all women giving birth at Monash Health, a large health service in Victoria (Australia), using an interrupted time-series design. We assessed the impact of telehealth integration into antenatal care from March 23, 2020, across low-risk and high-risk care models. Allowing a 1-month implementation period from March 23, 2020, we compared the first 3 months of telehealth integrated care delivered between April 20 and July 26, 2020, with conventional care delivered between Jan 1, 2018, and March 22, 2020. The primary outcomes were detection and outcomes of fetal growth restriction, pre-eclampsia, and gestational diabetes. Secondary outcomes were stillbirth, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and preterm birth (birth before 37 weeks' gestation). FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2018, and March 22, 2020, 20 031 women gave birth at Monash Health during the conventional care period and 2292 women gave birth during the telehealth integrated care period. Of 20 154 antenatal consultations provided in the integrated care period, 10 731 (53%) were delivered via telehealth. Overall, compared with the conventional care period, no significant differences were identified in the integrated care period with regard to the number of babies with fetal growth restriction (birthweight below the 3rd percentile; 2% in the integrated care period vs 2% in the conventional care period, p=0·72, for low-risk care models; 5% in the integrated care period vs 5% in the conventional care period, p=0·50 for high-risk care models), number of stillbirths (1% vs 1%, p=0·79; 2% vs 2%, p=0·70), or pregnancies complicated by pre-eclampsia (3% vs 3%, p=0·70; 9% vs 7%, p=0·15), or gestational diabetes (22% vs 22%, p=0·89; 30% vs 26%, p=0·06). Interrupted time-series analysis showed a significant reduction in preterm birth among women in high-risk models (-0·68% change in incidence per week [95% CI -1·37 to -0·002]; p=0·049), but no significant differences were identified in other outcome measures for low-risk or high-risk care models after telehealth integration compared with conventional care. INTERPRETATION: Telehealth integrated antenatal care enabled the reduction of in-person consultations by 50% without compromising pregnancy outcomes. This care model can help to minimise in-person interactions during the COVID-19 pandemic, but should also be considered in post-pandemic health-care models. FUNDING: None.

Euglycaemic ketoacidosis in pregnant women with COVID-19: two case reports.

BACKGROUND: Euglycaemic ketoacidosis (EKA) is an infrequent but serious condition which usually follows a period of starvation, severe vomiting or illness in individuals with or without diabetes. Ketoacidosis is associated with materno-fetal morbidity and mortality necessitating prompt diagnosis and management. Physiological increases in insulin resistance render pregnancy a diabetogenic state with increased susceptibility to ketosis. COVID-19 is associated with worse clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes and is an independent risk factor for ketoacidosis in normoglycaemic individuals. CASE PRESENTATIONS: We describe two cases of SARS-CoV-2 positive pregnant women presenting with normoglycaemic metabolic ketoacidosis. Both cases were associated with maternal and fetal compromise, requiring aggressive fluid and insulin resuscitation and early delivery. CONCLUSION: We discuss possible physiology and propose a management strategy for euglycaemic ketoacidosis in pregnancy.

Scaling Up Maternal Mental healthcare by Increasing access to Treatment (SUMMIT) through non-specialist providers and telemedicine: a study protocol for a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety impact up to 1 in 5 pregnant and postpartum women worldwide. Yet, as few as 20% of these women are treated with frontline interventions such as evidence-based psychological treatments. Major barriers to uptake are the limited number of specialized mental health treatment providers in most settings, and problems with accessing in-person care, such as childcare or transportation. Task sharing of treatment to non-specialist providers with delivery on telemedicine platforms could address such barriers. However, the equivalence of these strategies to specialist and in-person models remains unproven. METHODS: This study protocol outlines the Scaling Up Maternal Mental healthcare by Increasing access to Treatment (SUMMIT) randomized trial. SUMMIT is a pragmatic, non-inferiority test of the comparable effectiveness of two types of providers (specialist vs. non-specialist) and delivery modes (telemedicine vs. in-person) of a brief, behavioral activation (BA) treatment for perinatal depressive and anxiety symptoms. Specialists (psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers with ≥ 5 years of therapy experience) and non-specialists (nurses and midwives with no formal training in mental health care) were trained in the BA protocol, with the latter supervised by a BA expert during treatment delivery. Consenting pregnant and postpartum women with Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) score of ≥ 10 (N = 1368) will be randomized to one of four arms (telemedicine specialist, telemedicine non-specialist, in-person specialist, in-person non-specialist), stratified by pregnancy status (antenatal/postnatal) and study site. The primary outcome is participant-reported depressive symptoms (EPDS) at 3 months post-randomization. Secondary outcomes are maternal symptoms of anxiety and trauma symptoms, perceived social support, activation levels and quality of life at 3-, 6-, and 12-month post-randomization, and depressive symptoms at 6- and 12-month post-randomization. Primary analyses are per-protocol and intent-to-treat. The study has successfully continued despite the COVID-19 pandemic, with needed adaptations, including temporary suspension of the in-person arms and ongoing randomization to telemedicine arms. DISCUSSION: The SUMMIT trial is expected to generate evidence on the non-inferiority of BA delivered by a non-specialist provider compared to specialist and telemedicine compared to in-person. If confirmed, results could pave the way to a dramatic increase in access to treatment for perinatal depression and anxiety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04153864 . Registered on November 6, 2019.

Using Helping Mothers Survive to Improve Intrapartum Care.

Data from the past decade have revealed that neonatal mortality represents a growing burden of the under-5 mortality rate. To further reduce these deaths, the focus must expand to include building capacity of the workforce to provide high-quality obstetric and intrapartum care. Obstetric complications, such as hypertensive disorders and obstructed labor, are significant contributors to neonatal morbidity and mortality. A well-prepared workforce with the necessary knowledge, skills, attitudes, and motivation is required to rapidly detect and manage these complications to save both maternal and newborn lives. Traditional off-site, didactic, and lengthy training approaches have not always yielded the desired results. Helping Mothers Survive training was modeled after Helping Babies Breathe and incorporates further evidence-based methodology to deliver training on-site to the entire team of providers, who continue to practice after training with their peers. Research has revealed that significant gains in health outcomes can be reached by using this approach. In the coronavirus disease 2019 era, we must look to translate the best practices of these training programs into a flexible and sustainable model that can be delivered remotely to maintain quality services to women and their newborns.

A screening and treatment programme to deal with perinatal anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During a pandemic, pregnancy and the postnatal period are complicated by multiple factors. On the one hand, worries about one's own health and the health of loved ones, in particular of the newborn child, can increase the risk of some mental disorders, such as depression and anxiety in the pregnant woman. On the other hand, as happened for the COVID-19 epidemic in Italy, given the need for physical distancing, the maintenance of the social and family network, so important for new parents in the perinatal period, is lacking. In addition, health services are forced to reorganize their offerings to ensure maximum safety for their operators and patients. This work proposes a model of screening and treatment aimed at identifying women at risk and providing them with effective and safe treatment.

Adherence and acceptability of telehealth appointments for high-risk obstetrical patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Background: Telehealth has been successfully implemented for the delivery of obstetrical care. However, little is known regarding the attitudes and acceptability of patients and providers in high-risk obstetrics and whether the implementation of a telehealth model improves access to care in nonrural settings. Objective: This study aimed to describe patient and provider attitudes toward telehealth for the delivery of high-risk obstetrical care in a large healthcare system with both urban and suburban settings and to determine whether the implementation of a telehealth model improves patient adherence to scheduled appointments in this patient population. Study Design: Two self-administered surveys were designed. The first survey was sent to all high-risk obstetrical patients who received a telehealth visit between March 1, 2020, and May 30, 2020. The second survey was designed for providers who participated in these visits. We also compared the attended, cancelled, and no-show visit rates before (March 1 to May 30, 2019) and after (March 1 to May 30, 2020) the telehealth implementation and telehealth vs in-person visits in 2020. We reviewed scheduled high-risk prenatal care appointments, diabetes mellitus education sessions, and genetic counseling and Maternal-Fetal Medicine consultations. Results: A total of 91 patient surveys and 33 provider surveys were analyzed. Overall, 86.9% of patients were satisfied with the care they received and 78.3% would recommend telehealth visits to others. Notably, 87.8% of providers reported having a positive experience using telehealth, and 90.9% believed that telehealth improved patients' access to care. When comparing patient and provider preference regarding future obstetrical care after experiencing telehealth, 73.8% of patients desired a combination of in-person and telehealth visits during their pregnancy. However, a significantly higher rate of providers preferred in-person than telehealth visits (56% vs 23%, P=.024, respectively). When comparing visits between 2019 and 2020, there was a significantly lower rate of no-show appointments (8.49% vs 4.61%, P<.001), patient-cancelled appointments (7.06% vs 4.96%, P<.001), and patient same-day cancellations (2.30% vs 1.35%, P<.001) with the implementation of telehealth. There was also a significantly lower rate of patient-cancelled appointments (3.82% vs 5.44%, P=.021) and patient same-day cancellations (0.60% vs 1.65%, P=.002) with those receiving telehealth visits than in-person visits in 2020. Conclusion: The implementation of a telehealth model in high-risk obstetrics has the potential to improve access to high-risk obstetrical care, by reducing the rate of missed appointments. Both patients and providers surveyed expressed a high rate of satisfaction with telehealth visits and a desire to integrate telehealth into the traditional model of high-risk obstetrical care.

Effects of psychological stress on adverse pregnancy outcomes and nonpharmacologic approaches for reduction: an expert review.

Both acute and chronic stress can cause allostatic overload, or long-term imbalance in mediators of homeostasis, that results in disruptions in the maternal-placental-fetal endocrine and immune system responses. During pregnancy, disruptions in homeostasis may increase the likelihood of preterm birth and preeclampsia. Expectant mothers traditionally have high rates of anxiety and depressive disorders, and many are susceptible to a variety of stressors during pregnancy. These common life stressors include financial concerns and relationship challenges and may be exacerbated by the biological, social, and psychological changes occurring during pregnancy. In addition, external stressors such as major weather events (eg, hurricanes, tornados, floods) and other global phenomena (eg, the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic) may contribute to stress during pregnancy. This review investigates recent literature published about the use of nonpharmacologic modalities for stress relief in pregnancy and examines the interplay between psychiatric diagnoses and stressors, with the purpose of evaluating the feasibility of implementing nonpharmacologic interventions as sole therapies or in conjunction with psychotherapy or psychiatric medication therapy. Further, the effectiveness of each nonpharmacologic therapy in reducing symptoms of maternal stress is reviewed. Mindfulness meditation and biofeedback have shown effectiveness in improving one's mental health, such as depressive symptoms and anxiety. Exercise, including yoga, may improve both depressive symptoms and birth outcomes. Expressive writing has successfully been applied postpartum and in response to pregnancy challenges. Although some of these nonpharmacologic interventions can be convenient and low cost, there is a trend toward inconsistent implementation of these modalities. Future investigations should focus on methods to increase ease of uptake, ensure each option is available at home, and provide a standardized way to evaluate whether combinations of different interventions may provide added benefit.

Addressing mental health in patients and providers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The pandemic, and the associated changes to pregnancy and postpartum experiences, can lead to profound psychological reactions including panic, hyperarousal, sleep disturbance, anxiety, depression, and traumatic stress disorders. Providers face compassion fatigue and shared trauma. In this article, we describe the mental health outcomes known to date in regard to the novel coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic for obstetric patients and their providers as well as therapeutic approaches, including our novel embedded mental health service, to address these mental health needs.

Building an obstetric intensive care unit during the COVID-19 pandemic at a tertiary hospital and selected maternal-fetal and delivery considerations.

During the novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic, New York City became an international epicenter for this highly infectious respiratory virus. In anticipation of the unfortunate reality of community spread and high disease burden, the Anesthesia and Obstetrics and Gynecology departments at NewYork-Presbyterian / Columbia University Irving Medical Center, an academic hospital system in Manhattan, created an Obstetric Intensive Care Unit on Labor and Delivery to defray volume from the hospital's preexisting intensive care units. Its purpose was threefold: (1) to accommodate the anticipated influx of critically ill pregnant and postpartum patients due to novel coronavirus, (2) to care for critically ill obstetric patients who would previously have been transferred to a non-obstetric intensive care unit, and (3) to continue caring for our usual census of pregnant and postpartum patients, who are novel Coronavirus negative and require a higher level of care. In this chapter, we share key operational details for the conversion of a non-intensive care space into an obstetric intensive care unit, with an emphasis on the infrastructure, personnel and workflow, as well as the goals for maternal and fetal monitoring.

Stillbirths and the COVID-19 pandemic: Looking beyond SARS-CoV-2 infection.

OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak and subsequent lockdown on the incidence, associated causes, and modifiable factors of stillbirth. METHODS: An analytical case-control study was performed comparing stillbirths from March to September 2020 (cases) and March to September 2019 (controls) in a tertiary care center in India. Modifiable factors were observed as level-I, level-II, and level-III delays. RESULTS: A significant difference in the rate of stillbirths was found among cases (37.4/1000) and controls (29.9/1000) (P = 0.045). Abruption in normotensive women was significantly higher in cases compared to controls (P = 0.03). Modifiable factors or preventable causes were noted in 76.1% of cases and 59.6% of controls; the difference was highly significant (P < 0.001, relative risk [RR] 1.8). Level-II delays or delays in reaching the hospital for delivery due to lack of transport were observed in 12.7% of cases compared to none in controls (P < 0.006, RR 47.7). Level-III delays or delays in providing care at the facility were observed in 31.3% of cases and 11.5% of controls (P < 0.001, RR 2.7). CONCLUSION: Although there was no difference in causes of stillbirth between cases and controls, level-II and level-III delays were significantly impacted by the pandemic, leading to a higher rate of preventable stillbirths in pregnant women not infected with COVID-19.

Lockdown with a Price: The impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Prenatal Care and Perinatal Outcomes in a Tertiary Care Center.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization classified coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) as a pandemic and recommends strict restrictions regarding most aspects of daily activities. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether the pandemic has changed the prenatal care and pregnancy outcome in pregnant women without COVID-19. METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional study to describe changes in outpatient clinic visits and to compare the rates of cesarean and instrumental deliveries between two periods of time: March-April 2020 (during the COVID-19 outbreak) with March-April of the preceding year, 2019. RESULTS: During the COVID-19 outbreak, visits to obstetric triage, gynecologic triage, high-risk clinic, and ultrasound units decreased by 36.4%, 34.7%, 32.8%, and 18.1%, respectively. The medical center experienced a 17.8% drop in the total number of births (610 births) compared with March and April 2019 (742 births). During the outbreak women were more likely to be nulliparous (33.3% vs. 27.6%, P = 0.02) and present with hypertensive disorders during pregnancy (7.5% vs. 4%, P = 0.005) or gestational diabetes (13% vs. 10%, P = 0.03). More epidural analgesia was used (83.1% vs. 77.1%, P = 0.006). There were more operative vaginal deliveries during the outbreak (16.7% vs. 6.8%, P = 0.01). All other maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between the two periods. CONCLUSIONS: The medical facility experienced a major decline in all aspects of the routine obstetrics activities during the time of the pandemic. The higher rate of operative vaginal deliveries among nulliparous may be associated with the pandemic effect on the rate of high-risk patients.