The impact of assisted reproductive technology and ovulation induction on breech presentation: A whole of population-based cohort study.

AIMS: Multiple studies have suggested a likely association between breech presentation and assisted reproductive technology (ART) for conception. The aims were to determine whether conception via in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and ovulation induction (OI) is associated with fetal malpresentation at birth and to ascertain what mediating factors most significantly contribute to fetal malpresentation. METHODS: This whole-population-based cohort study included 355 990 singleton pregnancies born in Queensland, Australia, between July 2012 and July 2018. Multinomial logistic regression models estimated the adjusted odds of breech, transverse/shoulder and face/brow malpresentations in pregnancies conceived via spontaneous conception, OI (OI group) and IVF with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ART group). RESULTS: After adjustment for potential confounding factors, breech presentation occurred approximately 20% more often in singleton pregnancies conceived via both ART (adjusted odds ratio: 1.20, 95% confidence interval: 1.10-1.30, P < 0.001) and OI (1.21, 95% confidence interval: 1.04-1.39, P < 0.05). No significant associations were observed between the three modes of conception and transverse/shoulder or face/brow presentations. Low birthweight was found to be the most significant mediating factor for breech presentation in pregnancies conceived via ART and OI. CONCLUSIONS: Similar levels of increased odds of breech presentation are present in pregnancies conceived via OI and ART, suggesting a shared underlying mechanism for the aetiology of breech presentation. For women who are considering or have conceived via these methods, counselling with respect to this increased risk is recommended.

Incidence and Prevalence of Pressure Injuries in Adult Intensive Care Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically assess the incidence and prevalence of pressure injuries in adult ICU patients and the most frequently occurring pressure injury sites. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies reporting incidence rates, cumulative incidence, and prevalence of pressure injuries. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analyses of pooled weighted estimates were calculated using random effect models with 95% CIs reported due to high heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses included studies that used skin inspection to identify a pressure injury, studies at low risk of bias, studies that excluded stage 1 and each stage of pressure injury. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-two studies, 10 reporting cumulative incidence of pressure injury irrespective of stage, one reporting incidence rate (198/1,000 hospital-days), and 12 reporting prevalence were included. The 95% CI of cumulative incidence and prevalence were 10.0-25.9% and 16.9-23.8%. In studies that used skin inspection to identify pressure injuries, the 95% CI of cumulative incidence was 9.4-27.5%; all prevalence studies used skin inspection therefore the results were unchanged. In studies assessed as low risk of bias, the 95% CI of cumulative incidence and prevalence were 6.6-36.8% and 12.2-24.5%. Excluding stage 1, the 95% CI of cumulative incidence and prevalence were 0.0-23.8% and 12.4-15.5%. Five studies totalling 406 patients reported usable data on location; 95% CI of frequencies of PIs were as follows: sacrum 26.9-48.0%, buttocks 4.1-46.4%, heel 18.5-38.9%, hips 10.9-15.7%, ears 4.3-19.7%, and shoulders 0.0-40.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Although well-designed studies are needed to ensure the scope of the problem of pressure injuries is better understood, it is clear prevention strategies are also required.