Treatment of Nausea and Vomiting in Pregnancy: Factors Associated with ED Revisits.

INTRODUCTION: Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP) is a condition that commonly affects women in the first trimester of pregnancy. Despite frequently leading to emergency department (ED) visits, little evidence exists to characterize the nature of ED visits or to guide its treatment in the ED. Our objectives were to evaluate the treatment of NVP in the ED and to identify factors that predict return visits to the ED for NVP. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective database analysis using the electronic medical record from a single, large academic hospital. Demographic and treatment variables were collected using a chart review of 113 ED patient visits with a billing diagnosis of "nausea and vomiting in pregnancy" or "hyperemesis gravidarum." Logistic regression analysis was used with a primary outcome of return visit to the ED for the same diagnoses. RESULTS: There was wide treatment variability of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy patients in the ED. Of the 113 patient visits, 38 (33.6%) had a return ED visit for NVP. High gravidity (OR 1.31, 95% CI [1.06-1.61]), high parity (OR 1.50 95% CI [1.12-2.00]), and early gestational age (OR 0.74 95% CI [0.60-0.90]) were associated with an increase in return ED visits in univariate logistic regression models, while only early gestational age (OR 0.74 95% CI [0.59-0.91]) was associated with increased return ED visits in a multiple regression model. Admission to the hospital was found to decrease the likelihood of return ED visits (p=0.002). CONCLUSION: NVP can be difficult to manage and has a high ED return visit rate. Optimizing care with aggressive, standardized treatment in the ED and upon discharge, particularly if factors predictive of return ED visits are present, may improve quality of care and reduce ED utilization for this condition.

Success of autologous pubovaginal sling after failed synthetic mid urethral sling.

PURPOSE: There is no consensus on the management of persistent or recurrent stress incontinence after a failed synthetic mid urethral sling. After a mesh complication or sling failure many women and surgeons prefer to avoid a repeat mesh procedure and choose an autologous pubovaginal sling. However, little empirical work has been performed to assess the efficacy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 66 women who underwent autologous pubovaginal sling with rectus fascia after 1 or more failed synthetic mid urethral sling from 2007 to 2012. RESULTS: Mesh removal was performed before autologous pubovaginal sling in 21 patients (31.8%) while 6 (9.1%) had mesh removed simultaneously with autologous pubovaginal sling. Indications for the autologous pubovaginal sling were pure stress urinary incontinence in 16 patients (24.2%) and mixed incontinence in 50 (75.8%), 8 of whom were deemed complex with a prior urethral diverticulum or urethrovaginal fistula/urethral mesh erosion. At a mean of 14.5 months after autologous pubovaginal sling 46 (69.7%) patients reported cure of stress urinary incontinence. Of these patients 25 (37.9%) had complete cure with no stress or urgency incontinence, 17 had cure of stress urinary incontinence but had persistent urgency incontinence, and 4 had cure of stress urinary incontinence but experienced do novo urgency incontinence. Requiring a mesh excision did not predict worse outcomes compared to cases in which mesh was not removed (p=0.13). Patients with pure stress urinary incontinence were significantly more likely to be cured of all incontinence (62.5%) than those women with preoperative mixed incontinence (30.0%) (p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Even after a failed synthetic mid urethral sling, autologous pubovaginal sling is effective and cured stress urinary incontinence in 69.7% of cases.

Apical descent in the office and the operating room: the effect of prolapse size.

OBJECTIVES: The support of the uterine cervix with Valsalva or cough assessed in the clinic and the support of the uterine cervix with traction in the operating room often differs. The objectives of this study were to test the null hypothesis that the difference between preoperative and intraoperative values of pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) point C is not related to prolapse size and to determine if other factors exist that predict this difference. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of women who had a vaginal hysterectomy in the Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery division between 2005 and 2011 and had preoperative and intraoperative POP-Q point C recorded. A difference of 5 cm was established by a panel of urogynecologists as clinically significant. Student t tests and χ analyses were used and a logistic regression performed. RESULTS: There were 206 subjects included. The mean difference in point C between the 2 clinical settings was 3.5 cm. A difference of 5 cm or greater was present in 33%. The mean difference in point C was larger for women with lesser stages of prolapse (stage 1, 5.8 cm; stage 2, 3.0 cm; stage 3/4, 1.4 cm; P<0.001). A difference of 5 cm or greater in point C was more often present in women with lesser stages of prolapse: 70.3% of women with stage 1 prolapse, 9.3% of women with stage 2 prolapse, and 8.5% of women with stage 3 prolapse (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We reject our null hypothesis. A difference of 5 cm or greater between POP-Q point C in the clinic and the POP-Q point C in the operating room occurred more frequently in women with lesser stages of prolapse.