PDF herunterladen
Am J Perinatol 2022; 39(08): 830-835
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1740212
Original Article

Changes in the Antenatal Utilization of High-Risk Obstetric Services and Stillbirth Rate during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Megan C. Oakes
1   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University, in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Fan Zhang
1   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University, in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Lori Stevenson
2   Women & Infants Center, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Bree Porcelli
1   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University, in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Ebony B. Carter
1   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University, in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Nandini Raghuraman
1   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University, in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Jeannie C. Kelly
1   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University, in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
› Institutsangaben Funding The research reported in this publication was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number UL1 TR002345. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
› Weitere Informationen
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective The primary objective of this study was to evaluate coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic–related changes in the antenatal utilization of high-risk obstetric services. Our secondary objective was to characterize change in stillbirth rate during the pandemic.

Study Design This is a retrospective, observational study performed at a single, tertiary care center. Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM) visits, ultrasounds, and antenatal tests of fetal well-being during the pandemic epoch (2020), which spans the first 12 weeks of the year to include pandemic onset and implementation of mitigation efforts, were compared with the same epoch of the three preceding years visually and using general linear models to account for week and year effect. An analysis of stillbirth rate comparing the pandemic time period to prepandemic was also performed.

Results While there were decreased MFM visits and antenatal tests of fetal well-being during the pandemic epoch compared with prepandemic epochs, only the decrease in MFM visits by year was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The stillbirth rate during the pandemic epoch was not significantly different when compared with the prepandemic period and accounting for both week (p = 0.286) and year (p = 0.643) effect.

Conclusion The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a significant decrease in MFM visits, whereas obstetric ultrasounds and antenatal tests of fetal well-being remained unchanged. While we observed no change in the stillbirth rate compared with the prepandemic epoch, our study design and sample size preclude us from making assumptions of association. Our findings may support future work investigating how changes in prenatal care for high-risk obstetric patients influence perinatal outcomes.

Key Points

  • MFM visits significantly decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic epoch.

  • The overall stillbirth rate during the COVID-19 pandemic epoch was not significantly changed.

  • Larger studies are needed to capitalize on these changes to evaluate rare outcomes such as stillbirth.

Keywords

COVID-19 - SARS-CoV-2 - SARS - coronavirus - high-risk pregnancy - maternal-fetal medicine - antenatal - ultrasound


Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 06. Juli 2021

Angenommen: 03. Oktober 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
02. Dezember 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Abu-Rustum RS, Akolekar R, Sotiriadis A. et al. ISUOG Consensus Statement on organization of routine and specialist obstetric ultrasound services in context of COVID-19. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020; 55 (06) 863-870
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Aziz A, Fuchs K, Nhan-Chang CL, Zork N, Friedman AM, Simpson LL. Adaptation of prenatal care and ultrasound. Semin Perinatol 2020; 44 (07) 151278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Aziz A, Zork N, Aubey JJ. et al. Telehealth for high-risk pregnancies in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. Am J Perinatol 2020; 37 (08) 800-808
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Barton JR, Saade GR, Sibai BM. A proposed plan for prenatal care to minimize risks of COVID-19 to patients and providers: focus on hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Am J Perinatol 2020; 37 (08) 837-844
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Boelig RC, Saccone G, Bellussi F, Berghella V. MFM guidance for COVID-19. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2020; 2 (02) 100106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Peahl AF, Smith RD, Moniz MH. Prenatal care redesign: creating flexible maternity care models through virtual care. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 223 (03) 389.e1-389.e10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 De Curtis M, Villani L, Polo A. Increase of stillbirth and decrease of late preterm infants during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2021; 106 (04) 456
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Dell'Utri C, Manzoni E, Cipriani S. et al. Effects of SARS Cov-2 epidemic on the obstetrical and gynecological emergency service accesses. What happened and what shall we expect now?. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020; 254: 64-68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kc A, Gurung R, Kinney MV. et al. Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic response on intrapartum care, stillbirth, and neonatal mortality outcomes in Nepal: a prospective observational study. Lancet Glob Health 2020; 8 (10) e1273-e1281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Khalil A, von Dadelszen P, Draycott T, Ugwumadu A, O'Brien P, Magee L. Change in the incidence of stillbirth and preterm delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA 2020; 324 (07) 705-706
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kumari V, Mehta K, Choudhary R. COVID-19 outbreak and decreased hospitalisation of pregnant women in labour. Lancet Glob Health 2020; 8 (09) e1116-e1117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Mor M, Kugler N, Jauniaux E. et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on excess perinatal mortality and morbidity in Israel. Am J Perinatol 2021; 38 (04) 398-403
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Been JV, Burgos Ochoa L, Bertens LCM, Schoenmakers S, Steegers EAP, Reiss IKM. Impact of COVID-19 mitigation measures on the incidence of preterm birth: a national quasi-experimental study. Lancet Public Health 2020; 5 (11) e604-e611
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Berghella V, Boelig R, Roman A, Burd J, Anderson K. Decreased incidence of preterm birth during coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2020; 2 (04) 100258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Meyer R, Bart Y, Tsur A. et al. A marked decrease in preterm deliveries during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021; 224 (02) 234-237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Chmielewska B, Barratt I, Townsend R. et al. Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on maternal and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health 2021; 9 (06) e759-e772
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Khalil A, von Dadelszen P, Kalafat E. et al; PregnaCOVID3 study group. Change in obstetric attendance and activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Infect Dis 2021; 21 (05) e115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Corbett GA, Milne SJ, Hehir MP, Lindow SW, O'connell MP. Health anxiety and behavioural changes of pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020; 249: 96-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Committee Opinion No 700: methods for estimating the due date. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 129 (05) e150-e154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Spurlin EE, Han ES, Silver ER. et al. Where have all the emergencies gone? The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on obstetric and gynecologic procedures and consults at a New York City hospital. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2021; 28 (07) 1411-1419.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Dvash S, Cuckle H, Smorgick N, Vaknin Z, Padoa A, Maymon R. Increase rate of ruptured tubal ectopic pregnancy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2021; 259: 95-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Peahl AF, Powell A, Berlin H. et al. Patient and provider perspectives of a new prenatal care model introduced in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021; 224 (04) 384.e1-384.e11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Jeganathan S, Prasannan L, Blitz MJ, Vohra N, Rochelson B, Meirowitz N. Adherence and acceptability of telehealth appointments for high-risk obstetrical patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2020; 2 (04) 100233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Wang X, Wang Y, Liang L. The efficacy of reduced-visit prenatal care model during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2021; 100 (15) e25435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 World Health Organization (WHO). Stillbirths. 2021 . Accessed July 5, 2021 at: https://who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/epidemiology/stillbirth/en/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). What is a Stillbirth?. cdc.gov/ncbddd/stillbirth/facts.html. Accessed July 5, 2021
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Handley SC, Mullin AM, Elovitz MA. et al. Changes in preterm birth phenotypes and stillbirth at 2 Philadelphia hospitals during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, March-June 2020. JAMA 2021; 325 (01) 87-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Patient management and clinical recommendations during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic: Update #1. Available at: https://www.asrm.org/globalassets/asrm/asrm-content/news-and-publications/covid-19/covidtaskforceupdate1.pdf. Accessed July 5, 2021
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Bay B, Boie S, Kesmodel US. Risk of stillbirth in low-risk singleton term pregnancies following fertility treatment: a national cohort study. BJOG 2019; 126 (02) 253-260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Wisborg K, Ingerslev HJ, Henriksen TB. IVF and stillbirth: a prospective follow-up study. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 (05) 1312-1316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Kamine TH, Rembisz A, Barron RJ, Baldwin C, Kromer M. Decrease in trauma admissions with COVID-19 pandemic. West J Emerg Med 2020; 21 (04) 819-822
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Chiba H, Lewis M, Benjamin ER. et al. “Safer at home”: the effect of the COVID-19 lockdown on epidemiology, resource utilization, and outcomes at a large urban trauma center. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2021; 90 (04) 708-713
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Berg GM, Wyse RJ, Morse JL. et al. Decreased adult trauma admission volumes and changing injury patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic at 85 trauma centers in a multistate healthcare system. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open 2021; 6 (01) e000642
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Willberg E, Jarv O, Vaisanen T, Toivonen T. Escaping from cities during the COVID-19 crisis: Using mobile phone data to trace mobility in Finland. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf 2021; 10 (02) 103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar