Genetic counseling practices among outpatient obstetric providers in the Northeast.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends all pregnant people be offered genetic screening and diagnostic testing regardless of risk factors. Previous studies have demonstrated disparities in referrals for genetic testing by race outside of pregnancy, but limited data exist regarding genetic counseling practices during pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe how patient, provider, and practice demographics influence the offering of diagnostic prenatal genetic testing by outpatient prenatal care providers. STUDY DESIGN: This was a multicenter anonymous survey study conducted between October 2021 and March 2022. Outpatient prenatal care providers, including family medicine and obstetrics attendings, residents, maternal-fetal medicine fellows, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and midwives, were surveyed about their genetic counseling practices and practice demographics. The primary outcome was the proportion of respondents who answered "yes, all patients" to the survey question "Do you offer diagnostic genetic testing to all patients?" The secondary outcomes included the association between patient and practice demographics and offering diagnostic testing. Diagnostic testing was defined as chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis. Screening genetic tests were defined as sequential screen, quadruple screen, cell-free DNA screening, or "other." The chi-square test or Fisher exact test was used as appropriate. For the outcome answers of diagnostic testing, logistic regression was performed to assess the association between the answer of diagnostic genetic testing and the current training level of providers, race and ethnicity, and insurance status variables. Multivariable analysis was performed to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 635 outpatient prenatal care providers across 7 sites were sent the survey. Overall, 419 providers responded for a total response rate of 66%. Of the providers who responded, most were attendings (44.9%), followed by residents (37.5%). Providers indicated the race, insurance status, and primary language of their patient population. Screening genetic testing was offered by 98% of providers. Per provider report, 37% offered diagnostic testing to all patients, 18% did not offer it at all, and 44% only offered it if certain patient factors were present. Moreover, 54.8% of attendings reported universally offering diagnostic testing. On univariable analysis, residents were less likely to offer diagnostic testing than attendings (odds ratio, 0.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.30). Providers who serve non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic Black, and other Hispanic patients were less likely to report offering diagnostic testing than other patient populations. Providers who served non-Hispanic Whites were more likely to offer diagnostic testing (odds ratio, 2.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-3.39). Patient populations who were primarily privately insured were more likely to be offered diagnostic testing compared with primarily publicly insured patients (odds ratio, 6.25; 95% confidence interval, 3.60-10.85). Providers who served a primarily English-speaking population were more likely to offer diagnostic genetic testing than other patient populations (odds ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.69). On multivariable analysis, the factors that remained significantly associated with offering diagnostic testing included level of training (resident odds ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.62; P=.0006; advanced practice provider odds ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.82; P=.02), having at least one-third of the patient population identify as "other Hispanic" (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.77; P=.005), and having private insurance instead of public insurance (primarily private insured odds ratio, 2.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-6.74; P=.02). CONCLUSION: Although offering genetic screening and diagnostic testing to all patients is recommended, no provider group universally offers diagnostic testing. Providers who serve populations from a racial and ethnic minority, those with public insurance, and those whose primary language is not English are less likely to report universally offering diagnostic genetic testing.

Perinatal depression before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City.

BACKGROUND: Quarantining and isolation during previous pandemics have been associated with higher levels of depression symptomatology. Studies in other countries found elevated rates of anxiety and/or depression among pregnant people during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with prepandemic rates. New York City was the initial epicenter of the pandemic in the United States, and the effects of the pandemic on perinatal depression in this population are not well known. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the rates of perinatal depression before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: This is a single-center retrospective cohort study of patients screened for perinatal depression with the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale at 2 private academic practices in New York City. This screen is done in these practices at the time of the glucose challenge test and at the postpartum visit. Patients aged ≥18 years who completed a screen at a postpartum visit and/or glucose challenge test from February 1, 2019 to July 31, 2019 and from February 1, 2020 to July 31, 2020 were identified, and the 2019 and 2020 groups were compared. The primary outcome was a positive screen, defined as ≥13 and ≥15 for postnatal and prenatal screens, respectively. Secondary outcomes included monthly changes in rates of positive screens and factors associated with perinatal depression. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square, or Fisher exact test, and univariate and multivariate analyses with P<.05 defined as significant. RESULTS: A total of 1366 records met the inclusion criteria; 75% of the prepandemic (2019) records were included, as opposed to 65% of pandemic (2020) records due to a lower screen completion rate in the pandemic cohort. The 2020 cohort had a higher proportion of Hispanic patients (P=.003) and higher rates of diabetes mellitus (P=.007), preterm labor (P=.03), and current or former drug use (P<.001). The 2019 cohort had higher rates of hypertension (P=.002) and breastfeeding (P=.03); 4.6% of the 2020 cohort had a suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. There was no difference in perinatal depression between the 2019 and 2020 cohorts (2.8% vs 2.6%; P>.99). This finding persisted after adjusting for baseline differences (adjusted odds ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-1.86; P=.76). There were no differences in rates of positive Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale by month. Several risk factors were associated with a positive screen, including being unmarried (P<.001), pulmonary disease (P=.02), depression (P<.001), anxiety (P=.01), bipolar disorder (P=.009), and use of anxiolytics (P=.04). CONCLUSION: There were no differences in the rates of perinatal depression between the periods before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The rate of perinatal depression in this cohort was below the reported averages in the literature. Fewer women were screened for perinatal depression in 2020, which likely underestimated the prevalence of depression in our cohort. These findings highlight potential gaps in care in a pandemic setting.

Postpartum depression, mode of delivery, and indication for unscheduled cesarean delivery: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between postpartum depression (PPD), mode of delivery (MOD), and indication for unscheduled cesarean delivery (uCD). METHODS: Patients with antenatal and postpartum Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) scores were compared by MOD and indication for uCD if applicable. Patients with an antenatal EPDS>12 were excluded to ascertain the incidence of new depression. The primary outcome was EPDS≥13 by MOD. The secondary outcome was EPDS≥13 by indication for uCD. RESULTS: Seven hundred and thirty eight patients met inclusion criteria. There were statistically significant differences in MOD by age, race, BMI, and multi-gestation pregnancy. Patients delivered via uCD had a higher rate of peripartum complications and NICU admission. There were no differences in medical comorbidities or use of psychiatric medications by MOD. There was no difference in EPDS by MOD. The rate of PPD was higher in patients with uCD for non-reassuring fetal heart tones (NRFHT) compared to other indications for uCD (p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: While there was no difference in the incidence of PPD by MOD, the incidence of PPD was higher among patients delivered via uCD for NRFHT. These findings may have implications for patient counseling, post-operative mental health surveillance, and support of postpartum patients.

The Impact of Uterine Incision Closure Techniques on Post-cesarean Delivery Niche Formation and Size: Sonohysterographic Examination of Nonpregnant Women.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence and size of residual niche in the nongravid uterus following Cesarean delivery (CD) with different hysterotomy closure techniques (HCTs). METHODS: Saline infusion sonohysterogram (SIS) was performed in women after one prior CD, documenting the presence or absence of a postoperative niche and measuring its depth, width, length, and residual myometrial thickness. Women were grouped by HCT: Technique A (endometrium-free) and Technique B (routine non-endometrium-free). The primary outcome was the prevalence of a clinically significant niche, defined as a depth of >2 mm. HCT groups were compared using χ2 , T-test (ANOVA), and analyzed using logistic regression and two-sided test (P < .05). RESULTS: Forty-five women had SIS performed, 25 and 20 via Technique A and B, respectively. Technique groups varied by average interval time from CD to SIS (13.6 versus 74.5 months, P = 0.006) but were otherwise similar. Twenty niches were diagnosed, 85% of which were clinically significant, including five following Technique A, nine following Technique B with double-layer closure, and three following Technique B with single-layer (P = .018). The average niche depth was 2.4 mm and 4.9 mm among the two-layer subgroups following Techniques A and B, respectively (P = .005). A clinically significant niche development was six times higher with Technique B when compared to Technique A (OR 6.0, 95% CI 1.6-22.6, P = .008); this significance persisted after controlling for SIS interval on multivariate analysis (OR 4.4, 95% CI 1.1-18.3, P = .04). The average niche depth was 5.7 ± 2.9 mm following Technique B with single-layer. CONCLUSION: Hysterotomy closure techniques determine the prevalence of post-Cesarean delivery niche formation and size. Exclusion of the endometrium at uterine closure reduces the development of significant scar defects.

COVID-19 in pregnancy: creating an outpatient surveillance model in a public hospital system.

Objectives We describe a standardized, scalable outpatient surveillance model for pregnant women with COVID-19 with several objectives: (1) to identify and track known, presumed, and suspected COVID-positive pregnant patients both during their acute illness and after recovery, (2) to regularly assess patient symptoms and escalate care for those with worsening disease while reducing unnecessary hospital exposure for others, (3) to educate affected patients on warning symptoms, hygiene, and quarantine recommendations, and (4) to cohort patient care, isolating stable infected patients at home and later within the same physical clinic area upon their return to prenatal care. Methods Pregnant women in an urban public hospital system with presumed or confirmed COVID-19 were added to a list in our electronic medical record as they came to the attention of providers. They received a series of phone calls based on their illness severity and were periodically assessed until deemed stable. Results A total of 83 patients were followed between March 19 and May 31, 2020. Seven (8%) were asymptomatic, 62 (75%) had mild disease, 11 (13%) had severe disease, and three (4%) had critical illness. Conclusions We encourage others to develop and utilize outpatient surveillance systems to facilitate appropriate care and to optimize maternal and fetal well-being.

Acute Respiratory Decompensation Requiring Intubation in Pregnant Women with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19).

There is a current paucity of information about the obstetric and perinatal outcomes of pregnant novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in North America. Data from China suggest that pregnant women with COVID-19 have favorable maternal and neonatal outcomes, with rare cases of critical illness or respiratory compromise. However, we report two cases of pregnant women diagnosed with COVID-19 in the late preterm period admitted to tertiary care hospitals in New York City for respiratory indications. After presenting with mild symptoms, both quickly developed worsening respiratory distress requiring intubation, and both delivered preterm via caesarean delivery. These cases highlight the potential for rapid respiratory decompensation in pregnant COVID-19 patients and the maternal-fetal considerations in managing these cases.