Publications by authors named "Natasha Sebastian"

4 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

Maternal and fetal outcomes of urolithiasis: A retrospective cohort study.

J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2021 May 10;50(9):102161. Epub 2021 May 10.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Community Studies, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Electronic address:

Objectives: Although urolithiasis is relatively common in the general population, there is limited information on this condition available in the pregnant population. The objectives of this study are to identify the incidence of urolithiasis in pregnancy, as well as to compare maternal and fetal outcomes associated with urolithiasis in pregnancy.

Methods: Using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from the United States, a population-based retrospective cohort study consisting of pregnant women who delivered between 1999 and 2015 was conducted. ICD-9-CM code 592.X was used to identify pregnant women with urolithiasis within the cohort, with pregnant women without urolithiasis forming the comparison group. Unconditional logistic regression models were used to estimate the associations between urolithiasis in pregnancy and maternal and neonatal outcomes, while adjusting for baseline maternal characteristics.

Results: A cohort of 13,792,544 pregnant women was identified, of which 11,528 had a urolithiasis-related admission during pregnancy, for an overall incidence of 8.3 per 10,000 pregnancies. Women with urolithiasis had a greater risk of developing preeclampsia/eclampsia, OR 1.35(95% CI 1.24-1.47), gestational diabetes, 1.29(1.20-1.30), abruptio placenta, 1.41(1.22-1.64), placenta previa, 1.55(1.27-1.90), pyelonephritis, 88.87(81.69-96.69), venous thromboembolism, 1.65(1.23-2.22), and more likely to deliver by cesarean, 1.20(1.15-1.25). As well, maternal death was more common among these women, 2.85(1.07-7.60). Congenital anomalies, 2.84(2.43-3.31) and prematurity, 1.92(1.82-2.03) were more commonly found among babies born to women with urolithiasis.

Conclusion: Although the mechanism is unclear, women with urolithiasis in pregnancy have an increased risk of adverse pregnancy and newborn outcomes.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2021.102161DOI Listing
May 2021

Clinical presentation and management of urolithiasis in the obstetric patient: a matched cohort study.

J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2021 May 9:1-6. Epub 2021 May 9.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of pregnancy on the clinical presentation, inpatient procedure rates, and length of hospital stay, on women with urolithiasis.

Materials And Methods: We carried out a matched cohort study using the United States' Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from 1999 to 2015. Pregnant women with urolithiasis were compared to age-matched non-pregnant women (1:1) with urolithiasis. Baseline clinical characteristics were compared between the two cohorts and the effect of pregnancy on select inpatient procedural and clinical outcomes was evaluated using conditional logistic regression models.

Results: There were 42,113 pregnant patients diagnosed with urolithiasis during the study period. It was observed that pregnant patients were less likely to present with classic clinical symptoms of urinary tract stones, such as flank pain, OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.56-0.70, and fever, 0.22 (0.16-0.30), but tended to have longer hospital stays. The pregnant patients were less commonly affected by infectious conditions, namely urinary tract infections, 0.56 (0.53-0.59), sepsis, 0.17 (0.14-0.20), and pyelonephritis, 0.34 (0.36-0.44). Invasive and surgical procedures were less commonly performed in pregnant women.

Conclusions: Pregnant women admitted with urolithiasis appear to be less symptomatic with fewer interventions and complications than non-pregnant women with urolithiasis.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2021.1915274DOI Listing
May 2021

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in pregnant and postpartum patients: a systematic review.

J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2020 Dec 20:1-11. Epub 2020 Dec 20.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Purpose: Information on the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in obstetric patients is scarce. The objective was to conduct a systematic review examining ECMO use in pregnant and postpartum patients in order to identify indications leading to ECMO use and to assess mortality rates.

Materials And Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and SCOPUS were searched using the terms "extracorporeal membrane oxygenation" and "pregnancy" up to 1 November 2020. Case reports and case series reporting the use of ECMO in pregnancy were eligible. Data about maternal age, gestational age, diagnosis, type of ECMO, time on ECMO, pregnancy outcomes, and maternal survival were extracted from studies.

Results: The search yielded 1696 citations, of which 125 were included. There were 213 obstetric patients treated with ECMO over a 30-year period. The frequency of reports increased considerably over the last decade. The majority of patients were treated in their third trimester (28.2%) or postpartum (32.9%). Most common etiologies included influenza-induced ARDS (27.7%), pulmonary embolism (13.6%), peripartum cardiomyopathy (11.7%), and infection (11.7%). Pregnancy outcomes ended with live births, either on ECMO (15.5%, 95% CI 10.6-20.4) or not on ECMO (58.3%, 95% CI 51.7-64.9), in fetal demise (8.9%, 95% CI 5.1-12.7), or in spontaneous or induced abortion on ECMO (4.2%, 95% CI 1.5-6.9) or not on ECMO (4.2%, 95% CI 1.5-6.9). Maternal survival was 79.3%.

Conclusion: Although women placed on ECMO had a high mortality rate, this is likely an indication of the severity of illness. Overall, ECMO appears to be a valid therapy for the temporary support of vital organs in severely ill pregnant women.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2020.1860932DOI Listing
December 2020

Use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in obstetric patients: a retrospective cohort study.

Arch Gynecol Obstet 2020 06 3;301(6):1377-1382. Epub 2020 May 3.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, 3755 Chemin de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montreal, QC, H3T 1E2, Canada.

Purpose: There is little information on the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in pregnant women. Our objectives are to estimate the use of ECMO in pregnant patients, identify clinical conditions associated with ECMO use, and assess survival rates by the associated condition.

Methods: Using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we carried out a retrospective cohort study of all delivery admissions in the United States from January 1, 1999, to October 1, 2015. Within the cohort, women who received ECMO therapy were identified using ICD-9 codes and then survival rates among these women were calculated.

Results: There were 83 women who underwent ECMO therapy in our cohort of 15,335,205 births, for an overall ECMO use rate of 0.54/100,000 pregnancies. The incidence of ECMO use increased from 0.23/100,000 in 1999 to 2.57/100,000 in 2015. Patients on ECMO were more likely to be older, have a lower income, and have pre-existing medical conditions when compared with the patients not on ECMO. The overall survival rate for the ECMO group was 62.7%. The most common reason for ECMO use was acute respiratory failure. Etiologies associated with the highest survival in those on ECMO were pneumonia and venous thromboembolism, which were found to have survival rates of 75.0% and 81.0%, respectively.

Conclusion: The incidence of ECMO use in the obstetric population increased over the last decade and a half. Although it carries a limited survival rate within this population, it has proven life-saving for many suffering from complications of pregnancy and delivery.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05530-5DOI Listing
June 2020