Decision-to-delivery interval and obstetric outcomes of emergency caesarean sections in a Nigerian teaching hospital

Prolonged Decision-to-Delivery interval (DDI) is associated with adverse maternal-foetal outcomes following emergency Caesarean section (EmCS). Objectives: To determine the DDI, predictive factors, and the foeto-maternal outcomes of patients that had EmCS in a Nigerian Teaching Hospital. Methods: A descriptive study of all EmCS performed at the Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospitals Complex (OAUTHC), Ile-Ife, Nigeria, from 1st June 2020 to 31st May 2021, was conducted. Relevant data were extracted from the documentations of doctors, nurses and anaesthetists using a designed proforma. The data obtained were analysed using the IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 25. Results: The median (IQR) DDI was 297 (175-434) minutes. Only one patient was delivered within the recommended DDI of 30 minutes. The most common cause of prolonged DDI was delay in procuring materials for CS by patients' relatives(s)/caregiver(s) (264, 85.2%). Repeat CS (AOR = 4.923, 95% CI 1.09-22.36; p = 0.039), prolonged decision-to-operating room time (AOR = 8.22, 95% CI 1.87-8.66; p<0.001), and junior cadre of surgeon (AOR = 25.183, 95% CI 2.698-35.053; p = 0.005) were significant predictors of prolonged DDI. Prolonged DDI > 150 minutes was significantly associated with maternal morbidity (p = 0.001), stillbirth (p = 0.008) and early neonatal death (p = 0.049). Conclusion: The recommended DDI of 30 minutes for CS is challenging in the setting studied. To improve foetomaternal outcomes, efforts to reduce the DDI should be pursued vigorously, using the recommended 30 minutesas a benchmark.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes in Patients with COVID-19 and Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Much of routine cancer care has been disrupted due to the perceived susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer patients. Here, we systematically review the current evidence base pertaining to the prevalence, presentation and outcome of COVID-19 in cancer patients, in order to inform policy and practice going forwards. A keyword-structured systematic search was conducted on Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase and MedRxiv databases for studies reporting primary data on COVID-19 in cancer patients. Studies were critically appraised using the NIH National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's quality assessment tool set. The pooled prevalence of cancer as a co-morbidity in patients with COVID-19 and pooled in-hospital mortality risk of COVID-19 in cancer patients were derived by random-effects meta-analyses. In total, 110 studies from 10 countries were included. The pooled prevalence of cancer as a co-morbidity in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was 2.6% (95% confidence interval 1.8%, 3.5%, I2: 92.0%). Specifically, 1.7% (95% confidence interval 1.3%, 2.3%, I2: 57.6.%) in China and 5.6% (95% confidence interval 4.5%, 6.7%, I2: 82.3%) in Western countries. Patients most commonly presented with non-specific symptoms of fever, dyspnoea and chest tightness in addition to decreased arterial oxygen saturation, ground glass opacities on computer tomography and non-specific changes in inflammatory markers. The pooled in-hospital mortality risk among patients with COVID-19 and cancer was 14.1% (95% confidence interval 9.1%, 19.8%, I2: 52.3%). We identified impeding questions that need to be answered to provide the foundation for an iterative review of the developing evidence base, and inform policy and practice going forwards. Analyses of the available data corroborate an unfavourable outcome of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Our findings encourage future studies to report detailed social, demographic and clinical characteristics of cancer patients, including performance status, primary cancer type and stage, as well as a history of anti-cancer therapeutic interventions.