Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic on Obstetric Interventions at a Public Hospital.
Johnson, Tatyana A; Jamieson, Denise J; Geary, Franklyn H; Stanhope, Kaitlyn K; Boulet, Sheree L.
  • Johnson TA; Department of Pediatrics, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
  • Jamieson DJ; Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
  • Geary FH; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
  • Stanhope KK; Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
  • Boulet SL; Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: sheree.lynn.boulet@emory.edu.
Womens Health Issues ; 2022 Aug 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2231509
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, health systems quickly implemented changes in care delivery with a goal of balancing patient-focused obstetric care with the need to protect pregnant persons and health care providers from infection. Yet, there is no consensus within the scientific community on the impact these measures have on obstetric outcomes in vulnerable populations. We aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on rates of obstetric procedures and severe maternal morbidity (SMM) among births at an urban safety net institution.

METHODS:

We used an interrupted time series design to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing monthly rates of labor induction, cesarean births (overall and among nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex births), operative vaginal births, and SMM among births occurring at a public hospital before (March 1, 2016, to February 29, 2020) and during (March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021) the COVID-19 pandemic.

RESULTS:

There were 10,714 and 2,736 births in the prepandemic and postpandemic periods, respectively. Overall, the rates of obstetric interventions and SMM were constant over the two time periods. There were no significant differences in rates of labor induction (42% during prepandemic period vs. 45% during pandemic period; RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.93-1.34), operative vaginal births (5% vs. 6%; RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.88-1.76), cesarean births (28% vs. 33%; RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.94-1.28), or nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex cesarean births (24% vs. 31%; RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.92-1.74). Rates of SMM (7% vs. 8%; RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.86-1.65) were also unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our findings indicate that the rapid implementation of measures to reduce viral transmission in the labor and delivery setting did not materially affect routine clinical management or rates of serious maternal complications.

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Experimental Studies / Prognostic study Language: English Journal subject: Gynecology / Obstetrics / Women's Health Year: 2022 Document Type: Article

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Experimental Studies / Prognostic study Language: English Journal subject: Gynecology / Obstetrics / Women's Health Year: 2022 Document Type: Article