One-step vs 2-step gestational diabetes mellitus screening and pregnancy outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing maternal and neonatal outcomes of patients screened with the 1-step or 2-step screening method for gestational diabetes mellitus. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov, and LILACS were searched from inception up to September 2022. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Only randomized controlled trials were included. Studies that had overlapping populations were excluded (International Prospective Register of Systematic Review registration number: CRD42022358903). METHODS: Risk ratios were computed with 95% confidence intervals by 2 authors. Unpublished data were requested. Large for gestational age was the primary outcome. RESULTS: The search yielded 394 citations. Moreover, 7 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. A total of 54,650 participants were screened for gestational diabetes mellitus by either the 1-step screening method (n=27,163) or the 2-step screening method (n=27,487). For large for gestational age, there was no significant difference found between the groups (risk ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.05; I2=0%). Newborns of patients who underwent 1-step screening had higher rates of neonatal hypoglycemia (risk ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.34; I2=0%) and neonatal intensive care unit admissions (risk ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.21; I2=0%) than newborns of patients who underwent 2-step screening. Patients in the 1-step screening method group were more likely to be diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus (risk ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.44-2.09; I2=80%) than patients in the 2-step screening method group. In addition, among trials that tested all patients before randomization and excluded patients with pregestational diabetes mellitus, newborns were more likely to have macrosomia (risk ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.34; I2=0%). Overall risk of bias assessment was of low concern. CONCLUSION: Large for gestational age did not differ between patients screened using the 1-step screening method and those screened using the 2-step screening method. However, patients randomized to the 1-step screening method had higher rates of neonatal hypoglycemia and neonatal intensive care unit admission and maternal gestational diabetes mellitus diagnosis than the patients randomized to the 2-step screening method.

Confirmation Bias Affects Estimation of Blood Loss and Amniotic Fluid Volume: A Randomized Simulation-Based Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study was aimed to determine if confirmation bias affects diagnoses in obstetrics, specifically estimation of blood loss and amniotic fluid volume. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a randomized simulation-based trial. Participants went through the following three consecutive scenarios: (1) the first involved estimating the volume of blood (actually a blood-like substance) in a container at the simulation model's perineum. The actual volume was either 500 or 1,500 mL. Participants were told it was blood seen after a vaginal delivery. One group was told that the "patient" was normotensive, the other was told that the "patient" was hypotensive. (2) The second scenario involved estimation of amniotic fluid from an ultrasound picture of four quadrants, with one group told that the patient was normotensive and the other group told that the patient had chronic hypertension. (3) The third scenario was a "negative image" of the first (i.e., if they had been randomized to the 500 mL/normotensive in scenario one, then they would be presented with the 1,500 mL/hypotensive). They also filled a survey including demographics and tolerance of ambiguity and confirmation bias scales. RESULTS: From April 2018 through May 2018, a convenience sample of 85 providers was recruited. Participants were more likely to overestimate blood loss when they were told that the patient was hypotensive (p = 0.024), in comparison to when they were told the patient had normal blood pressure. They were also less likely to estimate the amniotic fluid as normal when they were told that the patient was hypertensive (p = 0.032). CONCLUSION: Confirmation bias affects estimates of blood loss and amniotic fluid.

Correlation of Obesity with External Cephalic Version Success among Women with One Previous Cesarean Delivery.

Objective Our aim was to assess the correlation of body mass index (BMI) with the success rate of external cephalic version (ECV) among women with one prior cesarean delivery. Study Design A cross-sectional study of pregnant women with one previous cesarean delivery who underwent ECV. The relationship between BMI and success rate of ECV was assessed. Adverse outcomes were also compared between women with an ECV attempt, and women who had a repeat cesarean delivery. Data were extracted from the U.S. Natality Database from 2014 to 2017. Pearson's correlation coefficient was performed to assess the relationship between BMI and success rate of ECV. Results There were 2,329 women with prior cesarean delivery underwent an ECV attempt. The success rate of ECV among the entire cohort was 68.3%. There was no correlation between BMI and success rate of ECV ( r = 0.024, p = 0.239). Risks of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar between the ECV attempt group and the repeat cesarean delivery group. Conclusion There was no correlation of BMI with the rate of successful ECV among women with one prior cesarean delivery. Given the similar success rates of ECV and adverse outcomes, obese women with one prior cesarean delivery should be offered ECV.

The Relationship between Status at Presentation and Outcomes among Pregnant Women with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: This study was aimed to compare maternal and pregnancy outcomes of symptomatic and asymptomatic pregnant women with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study of pregnant women with COVID-19. Pregnant women were divided into two groups based on status at admission, symptomatic or asymptomatic. All testing was done by nasopharyngeal swab using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Initially, nasopharyngeal testing was performed only on women with a positive screen (symptoms or exposure) but subsequently, testing was universally performed on all women admitted to labor and delivery. Chi-square and Wilcoxon's rank-sum tests were used to compare outcomes between groups. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients were tested because of a positive screen (symptoms [n = 60] or exposure only [n = 21]) and 75 patients were universally tested (all asymptomatic). In total, there were 46 symptomatic women and 22 asymptomatic women (tested based on exposure only [n = 12] or as part of universal screening [n = 10]) with confirmed COVID-19. Of symptomatic women (n = 46), 27.3% had preterm delivery and 26.1% needed respiratory support while none of the asymptomatic women (n = 22) had preterm delivery or need of respiratory support (p = 0.007 and 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSION: Pregnant women who presented with COVID19-related symptoms and subsequently tested positive for COVID-19 have a higher rate of preterm delivery and need for respiratory support than asymptomatic pregnant women. It is important to be particularly rigorous in caring for COVID-19 infected pregnant women who present with symptoms. KEY POINTS: · Respiratory support is often needed for women who present with symptoms.. · Low rate of severe disease in women who present without symptoms.. · There were no neonatal infections on day 0 of life..

Caring for Pregnant Patients with COVID-19: Practical Tips Getting from Policy to Practice.

Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic with most American cases in New York. As an institution residing in a high-prevalence zip code, with over 8,000 births annually, we have cared for over 80 COVID-19-infected pregnant women, and have encountered many challenges in applying new national standards for care. In this article, we review how to change outpatient and inpatient practices, develop, and disseminate new hospital protocols, and we highlight the psychosocial challenges for pregnant patients and their providers. KEY POINTS: · Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) information rapidly changes.. · Multidisciplinary communication is key.. · This study addresses psychosocial challenges..

Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes after Attempted External Cephalic Version among Women with One Previous Cesarean Delivery.

Objective This study was aimed to evaluate success rates of (1) external cephalic version (ECV) among women with one prior cesarean delivery (CD) and (2) maternal and neonatal outcomes after ECV among women with prior CD. Study Design Two linked studies using U.S. Natality Database were performed. First we performed a retrospective cohort comparing ECV success rates of women with prior CD and women without prior CD. Then we compared the outcomes of TOLACs (trial of labor after cesarean delivery) that occurred after ECV with those that occurred without ECV. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to estimate adverse outcomes. Results A total of 715 women had ECV after 36 weeks with prior CD and 9,976 had ECV without prior scar. ECV success rate with scar was 80.6% and without scar was 86.4% ( p < 0.001). Seven hundred and sixteen women underwent TOLAC after ECV attempt and 234,617 underwent TOLAC without a preceding attempt. Women with preceding version had increased risks of maternal transfusion (1 vs. 0.4%, adjusted OR [odds ratio]: 2.48 [95% CI (confidence interval): 1.17-5.23]), unplanned hysterectomy (0.4 vs. 0.06%, adjusted OR: 6.90 [95% CI: 2.19-21.78]), and low 5-minute Apgar's score (2.5 vs. 1.5%, adjusted OR: 1.76 [95% CI: 1.10-2.82]). Conclusion Women with prior CD may have a decrease in the rate of successful ECV. While the absolute risks are low, ECV appears to increase risks of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes among women undergoing a trial of labor.

Simulation-Based Education to Train Learners to "Speak Up" in the Clinical Environment: Results of a Randomized Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Assertiveness is essential for communication and/or speaking up. We performed a randomized trial to assess the effectiveness of assertiveness/advocacy/CUS/two-challenge rule (AACT) simulation-based education for labor and delivery, as well as postpartum nurses. We aimed to determine whether this training would improve labor and delivery and postpartum nurses speaking up in the clinical setting. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial among nurses on labor and delivery and postpartum units. During the intervention, participants were trained on abnormal vital signs, underwent a baseline assertiveness self-assessment, and were block-randomized (by work location: labor and delivery or postpartum) to either simulation-based AACT (intervention) or I-PASS [Illness Severity, Patient Summary, Action List, Situational Awareness and Contingency Planning, Synthesis by Receiver hand-off tool education] (control) simulation-based education. The outcome part of the study consisted of an in situ simulated clinical encounter during which each individual learner's assertive behaviors were assessed as they found out about a patient's abnormal vital signs. Two raters, different from those that participated in the intervention part of the experiment, and who were blinded to whether the learner was in the control or intervention arm, scored participants. The learner (Registered Nurse) was not aware that this was an in situ simulation and perceived this as a real clinical encounter. The degree to which the learners spoke up was measured using a validated scale (Pian-Smith). RESULTS: Seventy nurses completed the study. There were 34 learners in the intervention and 36 in the control groups. Among those in the intervention group, there were 18 labor and delivery (LDI) nurses and 16 postpartum (PPI) nurses. Among the control group, there were 14 labor and delivery (LDC) nurses and 22 postpartum (PPC) nurses. Using a five-point Pian-Smith scale, we demonstrated that there was no difference in the likelihood of speaking up between the overall intervention and control groups (2.00 ± 1.00 and 1.65 ± 0.82, P = 0.10). Among controls, the likelihood of speaking up was higher for labor and delivery nurses than for postpartum nurses (P < 0.006). There was a significant interaction (P = 0.02) between treatment group and work location. Although the control and intervention groups from labor and delivery showed similar higher levels of speaking up (2.29 ± 0.89 and 2.06 ± 0.95, respectively, P = 0.49), postpartum nurses in the intervention arm were more likely to speak up than were postpartum nurses in the control arm (1.97 ± 1.07 vs. 1.25 ± 0.43, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no difference in speaking up scores between intervention and control groups overall, simulation-based AACT training among postpartum nurses was associated with a statistically significant increase in the likelihood of speaking up during a challenging simulated clinical encounter. The degree of change makes the clinical significance uncertain. There was no statistically significant difference in the likelihood of speaking up among labor and delivery nurses.

Clinical Correlates of Posterior Reversible Encephalopathy Syndrome in Pregnancy.

The authors aimed to determine whether clinical findings of preeclampsia predict magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) diagnosis of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES). The course among preeclamptics/eclamptics with clinically suspected PRES with vs without MRI diagnosis of PRES was compared. Of 46 patients who underwent MRI (eight eclamptics, 38 preeclamptics), five eclamptics (62.5%) and four preeclamptics (10.5%) had confirmed PRES (P=.004). Patients with PRES were younger (26 years vs 31 years, P=.008) and had a higher prevalence of thrombocytopenia (33% vs 8%, P=.04), a greater prevalence of proteinuria (100% vs 61%, P=.04), and higher peak systolic and diastolic blood pressures (P<.05). As opposed to findings from previous reports, PRES was not seen uniformly among eclamptic women and was found in 10.5% of preeclamptics with clinical suspicion of PRES in this study. Given that no single or set of findings were reliable predictors of PRES, consideration for rigorous management of hypertension should be applied to all patients with preeclampsia and eclampsia.

Influence of surgeon behavior on trainee willingness to speak up: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to determine if a surgeon's behaviors can encourage or discourage trainees from speaking up when they witness a surgical mistake. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized clinical trial in which medical students (n = 55) were randomly assigned to an "encouraged" (n = 28) or "discouraged" (n = 27) group. Participants underwent personality tests to assess decision-making styles, and were then trained on basic tasks ("burn" then "cut") on a laparoscopic surgery simulator. After randomization, students assisted at a simulated laparoscopic salpingectomy. The senior surgeon used either an "encourage" script (eg, "Your opinion is important.") or a "discourage" script (eg, "Do what I say. Save questions for next time."). Otherwise, the surgery was conducted identically. Subsequently, a surgical mistake was made by the senior surgeon when he instructed students to cut without burning. Students were considered to have spoken up if they questioned the instruction and did not cut. Potential personality bias was assessed with two validated personality tests before simulation. Data were processed with Mann-Whitney and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: The students in the encouraged group were significantly more likely to speak up (23 of 28 [82%] vs 8 of 27 [30%]; p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in personality traits, student training level (p = 1.0), or sex (p = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: A discouraging environment decreases the frequency with which trainees speak up when witnessing a surgical error. The senior surgeon plays an important role in improving intraoperative communication between junior and senior clinicians and can enhance patient safety.

The relationship of praise/criticism to learning during obstetrical simulation: a randomized clinical trial.

AIMS: The effect of positive vs. negative comments (praise vs. criticism) on trainees' subsequent cognitive and technical performance is unknown, but of potential importance. We performed a randomized trial of giving either praise or criticism during simulated normal vaginal deliveries (using a high-fidelity birthing simulator) to assess the differential effect of these types of comments on students' cognitive and technical performance, and perceived confidence after their learning experience. METHODS: Medical and nursing students underwent stratified randomization to praise or criticism. Students (n=59) initially participated in a teaching demonstration and practiced normal spontaneous vaginal delivery using a birthing simulator. A baseline assessment of cognitive and technical skills, and of self-confidence, was followed by a second simulation during which positive or negative comments were given using standardized scripts. Cognitive performance, technical performance and confidence measures were then scored again. RESULTS: Cognitive and technical performance scores in the "praise" group improved significantly by 2.5 (P=0.007) and 1.8 (P=0.032), respectively, while those in the "criticism" group remained unchanged. The self-reported confidence scores did not show any significant change from baseline in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Praise strengthens students' cognitive and technical performances, while criticism does not.

Improved performance of maternal-fetal medicine staff after maternal cardiac arrest simulation-based training.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of simulation-based maternal cardiac arrest training on performance, knowledge, and confidence among Maternal-Fetal Medicine staff. STUDY DESIGN: Maternal-Fetal Medicine staff (n = 19) participated in a maternal arrest simulation program. Based on evaluation of performance during initial simulations, an intervention was designed including: basic life support course, advanced cardiac life support pregnancy modification lecture, and simulation practice. Postintervention evaluative simulations were performed. All simulations included a knowledge test, confidence survey, and debriefing. A checklist with 9 pregnancy modification (maternal) and 16 critical care (25 total) tasks was used for scoring. RESULTS: Postintervention scores reflected statistically significant improvement. Maternal-Fetal Medicine staff demonstrated statistically significant improvement in timely initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (120 vs 32 seconds, P = .042) and cesarean delivery (240 vs 159 seconds, P = .017). CONCLUSION: Prompt cardiopulmonary resuscitation initiation and pregnancy modifications application are critical in maternal and fetal survival during cardiac arrest. Simulation is a useful tool for Maternal-Fetal Medicine staff to improve skills, knowledge, and confidence in the management of this catastrophic event.

Resident training for eclampsia and magnesium toxicity management: simulation or traditional lecture?

OBJECTIVE: To compare eclampsia and magnesium toxicity management among residents randomly assigned to lecture or simulation-based education. STUDY DESIGN: Statified by year, residents (n = 38) were randomly assigned to 3 educational intervention groups: Simulation→Lecture, Simulation, and Lecture. Postintervention simulations were performed for all and scored using standardized lists. Maternal, fetal, eclampsia management, and magnesium toxcity scores were assigned. Mann-Whitney U, Wilcoxon rank sum and χ(2) tests were used for analysis. RESULTS: Postintervention maternal (16 and 15 vs 12; P < .05) and eclampsia (19 vs 16; P < .05) scores were significantly better in simulation based compared with lecture groups. Postintervention magnesium toxcitiy and fetal scores were not different among groups. Lecture added to simulation did not lead to incremental benefit when eclampsia scores were compared between Simulation→Lecture and Simulation (19 vs 19; P = nonsignificant). CONCLUSION: Simulation training is superior to traditional lecture alone for teaching crucial skills for the optimal management of both eclampsia and magnesium toxicity, 2 life-threatening obstetric emergencies.

Simulation training improves medical students' learning experiences when performing real vaginal deliveries.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between simulation training for vaginal delivery maneuvers and subsequent participation in live deliveries during the clinical rotation and to assess medical students' performance and confidence in vaginal delivery maneuvers with and without simulation training. METHODS: Medical students were randomized to receive or not to receive simulation training for vaginal delivery maneuvers on a mannequin simulator at the start of a 6-week clerkship. Both groups received traditional didactic and clinical teaching. One researcher, blinded to randomization, scored student competence of delivery maneuvers and overall delivery performance on simulator. Delivery performance was scored (1-5, with 5 being the highest) at weeks 1 and 5 of the clerkship. Students were surveyed to assess self-confidence in the ability to perform delivery maneuvers at weeks 1 and 5, and participation in live deliveries was evaluated using student obstetric patient logs. RESULTS: Thirty-three students were randomized, 18 to simulation training [simulation group (SIM)] and 15 to no simulation training [control group (CON)]. Clerkship logs demonstrated that SIM students participated in more deliveries than CON students (9.8 +/- 3.7 versus 6.2 +/- 2.8, P < 0.005). SIM reported increased confidence in ability to perform a vaginal delivery, when compared with CON at the end of the clerkship (3.81 +/- 0.83 versus 3.00 +/- 1.0, respectively, P < 0.05). The overall delivery performance score was significantly higher in SIM, when compared with CON at week 1 (3.94 +/- 0.94 versus 2.07 +/- 1.22, respectively, P < 0.001) and week 5 (4.88 +/- 0.33 versus 4.31 +/- 0.63, P < 0.001) in the simulated environment. CONCLUSIONS: Students who receive simulation training participate more actively in the clinical environment during the course of the clerkship. Student simulation training is beneficial to learn obstetric skills in a minimal risk environment, demonstrate competency with maneuvers, and translate this competence into increased clinical participation and confidence.