Publications by authors named "Silvio Tartaglia"

2 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

Maternal cardiovascular function in the prediction of fetal distress in labor: a prospective cohort study.

J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2021 Aug 3:1-7. Epub 2021 Aug 3.

Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, Università di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy.

Objective: To explore the strength of association and the diagnostic accuracy of maternal hemodynamic parameters detected noninvasively in predicting an adverse perinatal outcome in labor.

Methods: Prospective cohort study of singleton women undergoing antepartum care at 37-39 weeks of gestation. A noninvasive ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM®) was used for cardiovascular assessment. The study outcome was a composite score of adverse perinatal outcome, which included at least one of the following variables: Cesarean or instrumental delivery for abnormal fetal heart monitoring, umbilical artery pH <7.10 or admission to neonatal special care unit. Attending clinicians were blinded to maternal cardiovascular indices. Multivariate logistic regression and area under the curve (AUC) analyses were used to test the diagnostic accuracy of different maternal and ultrasound characteristics in predicting adverse perinatal outcome.

Results: A total of 133 women were recruited. The rate of adverse perinatal outcome was 25.6% (34/133). Women who delivered without abnormal perinatal outcome (controls) were more likely to be parous, compared to those who had an adverse perinatal outcome (44.4 vs. 73.5%;  = .005). Control women had significantly lower systemic vascular resistance (SVR) (median, 1166 vs. 1352 dynes × s/cm,  = .023) and SVR index (SVRI) (median, 2168 vs. 2627 dynes × s/cm/m,  = .039) compared to women who had an adverse perinatal outcome. In this latter group the prevalence of SV <50 ml was significantly higher than in the control group (38.2% (13/34) vs. 11.1%, (11/99)  = .0012). At multivariable logistic regression analysis, SVR (aOR 1.307; 95% CI 1.112-2.23), SV <50 ml (aOR 4.70; 95% CI 1.336-12.006) and parity (3.90: 95% CI 1.545-10.334) were the only variables independently associated with adverse perinatal outcome. A model considering only SVR showed an AUC of 0.631. Integration of SVR with SV <50 ml and parity significantly improves the diagnostic performance of SVR alone to predict adverse outcome (AUC 0.732;  = .016).

Conclusion: Pre-labor modifications of maternal cardiovascular variables are associated with adverse perinatal outcome. However, their predictive accuracy for perinatal compromise is low, and thus their use as standalone screening test for adverse perinatal outcome in singleton pregnancies at term is not supported.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2021.1945028DOI Listing
August 2021

Ultrasound versus routine care before instrumental vaginal delivery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2021 Jul 27. Epub 2021 Jul 27.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Chieti, Chieti, Italy.

Introduction: The objective was to report the role of intrapartum ultrasound examination in affecting maternal and perinatal outcome in women undergoing instrumental vaginal delivery.

Material And Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrial.gov databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials comparing ultrasound assessment of fetal head position vs routine standard care (digital examination) before instrumental vaginal delivery (either vacuum or forceps). The primary outcome was failed instrumental delivery extraction followed by cesarean section. Secondary outcomes were postpartum hemorrhage, 3rd or 4th degree perineal lacerations, episiotomy, prolonged hospital stay, Apgar score<7 at 5 min, umbilical artery pH <7.0 and base excess greater than -12 mEq, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), shoulder dystocia, birth trauma, a composite score of adverse maternal and neonatal outcome and incorrect diagnosis of fetal head position. Risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2). The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Head-to-head meta-analyses using a random-effect model were used to analyze the data and results are reported as relative risk with their 95% confidence intervals.

Results: Five studies were included (1463 women). There was no difference in the maternal, pregnancy or labor characteristics between the two groups. An ultrasound assessment prior to instrumental vaginal delivery did not affect the cesarean section rate compared with standard care (p = 0.805). Likewise, the risk of composite adverse maternal outcome (p = 0.428), perineal lacerations (p = 0.800), postpartum hemorrhage (p = 0.303), shoulder dystocia (p = 0.862) and prolonged stay in hospital (p = 0.059) were not different between the two groups. Composite adverse neonatal outcome was not different between the women undergoing and those not undergoing ultrasound assessment prior to instrumental delivery (p = 0.400). Likewise, there was no increased risk with abnormal Apgar score (p = 0.882), umbilical artery pH < 7.2 (p = 0.713), base excess greater than -12 (p = 0.742), admission to NICU (p = 0.879) or birth trauma (p = 0.968). The risk of having an incorrect diagnosis of fetal head position was lower when ultrasound was performed before instrumental delivery, with a relative risk of 0.16 (95% confidence interval 0.1-0.3; I :77%, p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Although ultrasound examination was associated with a lower rate of incorrect diagnoses of fetal head position and station, but this did not translate to any improvement of maternal or neonatal outcomes.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14236DOI Listing
July 2021
-->