Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the role of hospitalists and Maternal Fetal Medicine (MFM) subspecialists in obstetrical inpatient care.

Study design

This electronic survey study was offered to members of the American College of Obstetrics & Gynecology (ACOG; n = 1,039) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM; n = 1,813).

Results

Overall, 607 (21%) respondents completed the survey. Overall, 35% reported that hospitalists provided care in at least one of their hospitals. Compared with ACOG respondents, a higher frequency of SMFM respondents reported comfort with hospitalists providing care for all women on labor and delivery (74.4 vs. 43.5%, p = 0.005) and women with complex issues (56.4 vs. 43.5%, p = 0.004). The majority of ACOG respondents somewhat/completely agreed that hospitalists were associated with decreased adverse events (69%) and improved safety/safety culture (70%). Overall, 35% of ACOG respondents have MFM consultation available with 53% having inpatient coverage. Of these, 85% were satisfied with MFM availability.

Conclusion

Over one-third of respondents work in units staffed with hospitalists and more than half have inpatient MFM coverage. It is important to evaluate if and how hospitalists can improve maternal and perinatal outcomes, and the types of hospitals that are best served by them.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the role of hospitalists and Maternal Fetal Medicine (MFM) subspecialists in obstetrical inpatient care. STUDY DESIGN: This electronic survey study was offered to members of the American College of Obstetrics & Gynecology (ACOG; n = 1,039) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM; n = 1,813). RESULTS: Overall, 607 (21%) respondents completed the survey. Overall, 35% reported that hospitalists provided care in at least one of their hospitals. Compared with ACOG respondents, a higher frequency of SMFM respondents reported comfort with hospitalists providing care for all women on labor and delivery (74.4 vs. 43.5%, p = 0.005) and women with complex issues (56.4 vs. 43.5%, p = 0.004). The majority of ACOG respondents somewhat/completely agreed that hospitalists were associated with decreased adverse events (69%) and improved safety/safety culture (70%). Overall, 35% of ACOG respondents have MFM consultation available with 53% having inpatient coverage. Of these, 85% were satisfied with MFM availability. CONCLUSION: Over one-third of respondents work in units staffed with hospitalists and more than half have inpatient MFM coverage. It is important to evaluate if and how hospitalists can improve maternal and perinatal outcomes, and the types of hospitals that are best served by them.

Background

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and elevated glucose concentrations below the threshold for GDM diagnosis have been associated with adverse pregnancy and offspring outcomes. Dietary interventions initiated during pregnancy have demonstrated inconsistent beneficial effects. Limited data exist regarding the effects of periconceptional diet on gestational glycemia.

Objective

To evaluate independent associations between periconceptional diet quality with GDM frequency and glucose concentrations from GDM screening and diagnostic tests among nulliparous gravidas.

Design

This is a secondary analysis of N=7997 participants from the NuMoM2b multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study of first pregnancies. The Alternative Healthy Eating Index (AHEI)-2010 was computed from food frequency questionnaires completed in early pregnancy (6-13 weeks), reporting usual dietary intake over the preceding 3 months. GDM screening was performed either by non-fasting 1-hour 50g glucose load (N=6845), followed by 3-hour 100g glucose tolerance test (GTT) for those with raised glucose concentrations (N=1116; at risk for GDM), or by a single 2-hour 75g GTT (N=569; all GDM risk levels). Logistic and linear regression were used to estimate the associations between the AHEI-2010 score with odds of GDM, having raised blood glucose on the 1-hour screening test, and continuous glucose concentrations on screening and diagnostic tests. All models were adjusted for a priori covariates: maternal age, race/ethnicity, early-pregnancy body mass index, smoking habits, rate of gestational weight gain, energy intake, nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy, study site.

Results

Poorer periconceptional diet quality was observed among participants who were younger, with higher BMI, lower income levels, and of non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic ethnicity. The GDM rate was 4%. Each 1-point increase in AHEI-2010 score was associated with a 1% decrease in the odds of being diagnosed with GDM (beta=-0.015, p=0.022, OR=0.986, 95% CI 0.973 to 0.998). Diet quality was inversely associated with each post glucose load concentration on the non-fasting screening test and the 2-hour and 3-hour GTT.

Conclusion

Poor periconceptional diet quality is independently associated with an increased risk of GDM and with minor elevations in serum glucose concentrations on GDM screening and diagnostic tests, in a diverse cohort of nulliparas. Periconception intervention studies targeting diet quality are warranted.

BACKGROUND: The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-Be was established to investigate the underlying causes and pathophysiological pathways associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes in nulliparous gravidas. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to study placental physiology and identify novel biomarkers concerning adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth (medically indicated and spontaneous), preeclampsia, small-for-gestational-age neonates, and stillbirth. We measured levels of placental proteins in the maternal circulation in the first 2 trimesters of pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: Maternal serum samples were collected at 2 study visits (6-13 weeks and 16-21 weeks), and levels of 9 analytes were measured. The analytes we measured were vascular endothelial growth factor, placental growth factor, endoglin, soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1, A disintegrin and metalloproteinase domain-containing protein 12, pregnancy-associated plasma protein A, free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin, inhibin A, and alpha-fetoprotein. The primary outcome was preterm birth between 20 0/7 and 36 6/7 weeks of gestation. The secondary outcomes were spontaneous preterm births, medically indicated preterm births, preeclampsia, small-for-gestational-age neonates, and stillbirth. RESULTS: A total of 10,038 eligible gravidas were enrolled in the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-Be cohort, from which a nested case-control study was performed comparing 800 cases with preterm birth (466 spontaneous preterm births, 330 medically indicated preterm births, and 4 unclassified preterm births), 568 with preeclampsia, 406 with small-for-gestational-age birth, and 49 with stillbirth with 911 controls who delivered at term without complications. Although levels of each analyte generally differed between cases and controls at 1 or 2 visits, the odds ratios revealed a <2-fold difference between cases and controls in all comparisons. Receiver operating characteristic curves, generated to determine the relationship between analyte levels and preterm birth and the other adverse pregnancy outcomes, resulted in areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves that were relatively low (range, 0.50-0.64) for each analyte. Logistic regression modeling demonstrated that areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for predicting adverse pregnancy outcomes were greater using baseline clinical characteristics and combinations of analytes than baseline characteristics alone, but areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves remained relatively low for each outcome (range, 0.65-0.78). CONCLUSION: We have found significant associations between maternal serum levels of analytes evaluated early in pregnancy and subsequent adverse pregnancy outcomes in nulliparous gravidas. However, the test characteristics for these analytes do not support their use as clinical biomarkers to predict adverse pregnancy outcomes, either alone or in combination with maternal clinical characteristics.

Objective

To examine maternal, psychosocial, and pregnancy factors associated with breastfeeding for at least 6 months in those giving birth for the first time.

Methods

We performed a planned secondary analysis of an observational cohort study of 5249 women giving birth for the first time. Women were contacted at least 6 months after delivery and provided information regarding breastfeeding initiation, duration, and exclusivity. Maternal demographics, psychosocial measures, and delivery methods were compared by breastfeeding groups.

Results

4712 (89.8%) of the women breastfed at some point, with 2739 (58.2%) breastfeeding for at least 6 months. Of those who breastfed, 1161 (24.7% of the entire cohort), breastfed exclusively for at least 6 months. In the multivariable model among those who ever breastfed, not smoking in the month prior to delivery (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.04, 95%CI 1.19-3.45), having a Master's degree of higher (aOR 1.89, 95%CI 1.51-2.36), having a planned pregnancy (aOR 1.48, 95%CI 1.27-1.73), older age (aOR 1.02, 95% CI, 1.01-1.04), lower BMI (aOR 0.96 95% CI 0.95-0.97), and having less anxiety measured during pregnancy (aOR 0.990, 95%CI 0.983-0.998) were associated with breastfeeding for at least 6 months. Compared to non-Hispanic White women, Hispanic women, while being more likely to breastfeed initially (aOR 1.40, 95%CI 1.02-1.92), were less likely to breastfeed for 6 months (aOR 0.72, 95%CI 0.59-0.88). While non-Hispanic Black women were less likely than non-Hispanic White women to initiate breastfeeding (aOR 0.68, 95%CI 0.51-0.90), the odds of non-Hispanic Black women of continuing to breastfeed for at least 6 months was similar to non-Hispanic White women (aOR 0.92, 95%CI 0.71-1.19).

Conclusions

In this cohort of women giving birth for the first time, duration of breastfeeding was associated with several characteristics which highlight groups at greater risk of not breastfeeding as long as currently recommended.

Trial registration

NCT01322529 (nuMoM2b) and NCT02231398 (nuMoM2b-Heart Health).

Objective

The aim of study is to compare the performance of ultrasonographic customized and population fetal growth standards for prediction adverse perinatal outcomes.

Study design

This was a secondary analysis of the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-Be, in which l data were collected at visits throughout pregnancy and after delivery. Percentiles were assigned to estimated fetal weights (EFWs) measured at 22 to 29 weeks using the Hadlock population standard and a customized standard (www.gestation.net). Areas under the curve were compared for the prediction of composite and severe composite perinatal morbidity using EFW percentile.

Results

Among 8,701 eligible study participants, the population standard diagnosed more fetuses with fetal growth restriction (FGR) than the customized standard (5.5 vs. 3.5%, p < 0.001). Neither standard performed better than chance to predict composite perinatal morbidity. Although the customized performed better than the population standard to predict severe perinatal morbidity (areas under the curve: 0.56 vs. 0.54, p = 0.003), both were poor. Fetuses considered FGR by the population standard but normal by the customized standard had morbidity rates similar to fetuses considered normally grown by both standards.The population standard diagnosed FGR among black women and Hispanic women at nearly double the rate it did among white women (p < 0.001 for both comparisons), even though morbidity was not different across racial/ethnic groups. The customized standard diagnosed FGR at similar rates across groups. Using the population standard, 77% of FGR cases were diagnosed among female fetuses even though morbidity among females was lower (p < 0.001). The customized model diagnosed FGR at similar rates in male and female fetuses.

Conclusion

At 22 to 29 weeks' gestation, EFW percentile alone poorly predicts perinatal morbidity whether using customized or population fetal growth standards. The population standard diagnoses FGR at increased rates in subgroups not at increased risk of morbidity and at lower rates in subgroups at increased risk of morbidity, whereas the customized standard does not.

Objective

Our objective was to test the association of fetal adrenal size with perinatal morbidity among fetuses with fetal growth restriction (FGR; estimated fetal weight [EFW] < 10th percentile).

Study design

This was a secondary analysis of the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-be (nuMoM2b) adrenal study, which measured fetal adrenal gland size at 22 to 30 weeks' gestation. We analyzed the transverse adrenal area (TAA) and fetal zone area (absolute measurements and corrected for fetal size) and the ratio of the fetal zone area to the total transverse area using a composite perinatal outcome of stillbirth, neonatal intensive care unit admission, respiratory distress syndrome, necrotizing enterocolitis, retinopathy of prematurity, sepsis, mechanical ventilation, seizure, or death. Among fetuses with FGR, adrenal measurements were compared between those that did and did not experience the composite perinatal outcome.

Results

There were 1,709 eligible neonates. Seven percent (n = 120) were diagnosed with FGR at the time of adrenal measurement, and 14.7% (n = 251) experienced perinatal morbidity. EFW-corrected and absolute adrenal measurements were similar among fetuses with and without FGR as well as among those who did and did not experience morbidity. The area under the curve for corrected TAA was 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.38-0.67).

Conclusion

In our cohort, adrenal size was not associated with risk of morbidity among fetuses with FGR.

BACKGROUND: Individual adverse social determinants of health are associated with increased risk of diabetes in pregnancy, but the relative influence of neighborhood or community-level social determinants of health is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether living in neighborhoods with greater socioeconomic disadvantage, food deserts, or less walkability was associated with having pregestational diabetes and developing gestational diabetes. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a secondary analysis of the prospective Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-To-Be. Home addresses in the first trimester were geocoded at the census tract level. The exposures (modeled separately) were the following 3 neighborhood-level measures of adverse social determinants of health: (1) socioeconomic disadvantage, defined by the Area Deprivation Index and measured in tertiles from the lowest tertile (ie, least disadvantage [T1]) to the highest (ie, most disadvantage [T3]); (2) food desert, defined by the United States Department of Agriculture Food Access Research Atlas (yes/no by low income and low access criteria); and (3) less walkability, defined by the Environmental Protection Agency National Walkability Index (most walkable score [15.26-20.0] vs less walkable score [<15.26]). Multinomial logistic regression was used to model the odds of gestational diabetes or pregestational diabetes relative to no diabetes as the reference, adjusted for age at delivery, chronic hypertension, Medicaid insurance status, and low household income (<130% of the US poverty level). RESULTS: Among the 9155 assessed individuals, the mean Area Deprivation Index score was 39.0 (interquartile range, 19.0-71.0), 37.0% lived in a food desert, and 41.0% lived in a less walkable neighborhood. The frequency of pregestational and gestational diabetes diagnosis was 1.5% and 4.2%, respectively. Individuals living in a community in the highest tertile of socioeconomic disadvantage had increased odds of entering pregnancy with pregestational diabetes compared with those in the lowest tertile (T3 vs T1: 2.6% vs 0.8%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-4.48). Individuals living in a food desert (4.8% vs 4.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.77) and in a less walkable neighborhood (4.4% vs 3.8%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.71) had increased odds of gestational diabetes. There was no significant association between living in a food desert or a less walkable neighborhood and pregestational diabetes, or between socioeconomic disadvantage and gestational diabetes. CONCLUSION: Nulliparous individuals living in a neighborhood with higher socioeconomic disadvantage were at increased odds of entering pregnancy with pregestational diabetes, and those living in a food desert or a less walkable neighborhood were at increased odds of developing gestational diabetes, after controlling for known covariates.

BACKGROUND: A poor diet can result from adverse social determinants of health and increases the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess, using data from the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-Be prospective cohort, whether nulliparous pregnant individuals who lived in a food desert were more likely to experience poorer periconceptional diet quality compared with those who did not live in a food desert. METHODS: The exposure was living in a food desert based on a spatial overview of food access indicators by income and supermarket access per the Food Access Research Atlas. The outcome was periconceptional diet quality per the Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2010, analyzed by quartile (Q) from the highest or best (Q4, reference) to the lowest or worst dietary quality (Q1); and secondarily, nonadherence (yes or no) to 12 key aspects of dietary quality. RESULTS: Among 7,956 assessed individuals, 24.9% lived in a food desert. The mean HEI-2010 score was 61.1 of 100 (SD: 12.5). Poorer periconceptional dietary quality was more common among those who lived in a food desert compared with those who did not live in a food desert (Q4: 19.8%, Q3: 23.6%, Q2: 26.5%, and Q1: 30.0% vs. Q4: 26.8%, Q3: 25.8%, Q2: 24.5%, and Q1: 22.9%; overall P < 0.001). Individuals living in a food desert were more likely to report a diet in lower quartiles of the HEI-2010 (i.e., poorer dietary quality) (aOR: 1.34 per quartile; 95% CI: 1.21, 1.49). They were more likely to be nonadherent to recommended standards for 5 adequacy components of the HEI-2010, including fruit, total vegetables, greens and beans, seafood and plant proteins, and fatty acids, and less likely to report excess intake of empty calories. CONCLUSIONS: Nulliparous pregnant individuals living in a food desert were more likely to experience poorer periconceptional diet quality compared with those who did not live in a food desert.