Management of obstetrics and gynaecological patients with COVID-19

The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on obstetrics and gynecology hospitalization rate and on reasons for seeking emergency care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

During the lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic, utilization of emergency care units has been reported to be reduced for obstetrical and gynaecological reasons. The aim of this systematic review is to assess if this phenomenon reduced the rate of hospitalizations for any reason and to evaluate the main reasons for seeking care in this subset of the population.

METHODS

The search was conducted using the main electronic databases from January 2020 to May 2021. The studies were identified with the use of a combination of: "emergency department" OR "A&E" OR "emergency service" OR "emergency unit" OR "maternity service" AND "COVID-19" OR "COVID-19 pandemic" OR "SARS-COV-2" and "admission" OR "hospitalization". All the studies that evaluated women going to obstetrics & gynecology emergency department (ED) during the COVID-19 pandemic for any reason were included.

RESULTS

The pooled proportion (PP) of hospitalizations increased from 22.7 to 30.6% during the lockdown periods, in particular from 48.0 to 53.9% for delivery. The PP of pregnant women suffering from hypertensive disorders increased (2.6 vs 1.2%), as well as women having contractions (52 vs 43%) and rupture of membranes (12.0 vs 9.1%). Oppositely, the PP of women having pelvic pain (12.4 vs 14.4%), suspected ectopic pregnancy (1.8 vs 2.0), reduced fetal movements (3.0 vs 3.3%), vaginal bleeding both for obstetrical (11.7 vs 12.8%) and gynecological issues (7.4 vs 9.2%) slightly reduced.

CONCLUSION

During the lockdown, an increase in the proportion of hospitalizations for obstetrical and gynecological reasons has been registered, especially for labor symptoms and hypertensive disorders.

COVID-19 and Pregnancy: Have We Gotten through the Darkest Hour?

On December 2019, a new Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) was isolated and identified in Wuhan (China) [...].

Risk perception and affective state on work exhaustion in obstetrics during the COVID-19 pandemic

A multicenter cross-sectional survey study involving four Italian University Hospitals was performed to test the hypothesis that negative affect and positive affect (affective dimensions) mediate the association between risk perception (perceived risk of infection and death; cognitive dimensions) and the feeling of work exhaustion (WE) among obstetrics healthcare providers (HCPs) during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Totally, 570 obstetrics HCPs were invited to complete the 104-item IPSICO survey in May 2020. A theoretical model built on the tested hypothesis was investigated by structural equation modelling. The model explained 32.2% of the WE variance. Only negative affect mediated the association between cognitive dimensions and WE and also the association between WE and psychological well-being before the pandemic, experiences of stressful events, female gender, and dysfunctional coping. Non-mediated associations with WE were observed for work perceived as a duty, experience of stressful events, support received by colleagues, and the shift strategy. Only previous psychological well-being, support by colleagues, and shift strategies were inversely associated with WE. Based on study results, monitoring negative than positive affect appears superior in predicting WE, with practical implications for planning psychological interventions in HCPs at the individual, interpersonal, and organizational levels.

Clinical Manifestation and Obstetric Outcomes in Pregnant Women with SARS-CoV-2 Infection at Delivery: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

This retrospective cohort study aimed to analyze the clinical manifestations, complications, and maternal-fetal outcomes in patients affected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during delivery. The cohort included 61 pregnant women positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection at the time of delivery. Patients were divided into two groups: symptomatic and asymptomatic. We found a significantly higher rate of leukocytosis (p < 0.00078) and lymphopenia (p < 0.0024) in symptomatic women compared with asymptomatic ones. Other laboratory parameters, such as CRP (p = 0.002), AST (p = 0.007), LDH (p = 0.0142), ferritin (p = 0.0036), and D-dimer (p = 0.00124), were also significantly more often increased in the group of symptomatic pregnant women. Overall, symptomatic pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection at the delivery show more often altered laboratory parameters compared with asymptomatic ones; nevertheless, they have a slightly higher but non-significant rate of preterm delivery, cesarean section, as well as lower neonatal birth weight and Apgar score, compared with asymptomatic women.

Protecting Breastfeeding during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review of Perinatal Care Recommendations in the Context of Maternal and Child Well-Being

The objective of this scoping review is to determine to what extent the recommendations on perinatal care protect breastfeeding during the COVID-19 pandemic. The review follows the PRISMA ScR Extension guidelines. The research was conducted in Scopus, Medline via Pubmed, and Web of Science databases from 1 March 2020 to 31 May 2021, using 392 combinations of keywords. We searched for reviews and original papers published in English providing recommendations on delivery mode, companion during labor, the possibility of skin-to-skin contact (SSC), breastfeeding, and visitors policy. After screening, 86 out of 8416 publications qualified for data extraction. The majority of them indicated that COVID-19 infection is not a sufficient reason for a cesarean section; however, on a national level, cesarean births in severely ill patients were overrepresented. A significant number of recommendations deprived mothers of the necessary support during their labor and stay in the maternity ward. A shared decision-making model was hardly visible. Only the earliest COVID-19 recommendations suspended direct breastfeeding; in later publications, decisions were related to the mother's health, but other options of natural feeding were rarely discussed.

The negative impact of most relevant infections on fertility and assisted reproduction technology

Infections may act with variable impact on the physiopathology of the reproductive organs, determining infertility or reducing the outcomes of assisted reproduction technology. The aim of this narrative review is to describe the existing evidence regarding the pathogens with a supposed or recognized role in reproductive medicine. Viral hepatitis, as well as HIV, can reduce sperm quality. Syphilis carries a risk of erectile dysfunction and increased endometrial thickness. Chlamydia is the main cause of pelvic inflammatory disease. In relation to Mycoplasma and Ureaplasma spp., only few species seem to show a correlation with infertility and poor in-vitro fertilization outcomes. There is evidence of a role for bacterial vaginosis in early pregnancy loss. HPV infection in males seems to determine infertility. Herpesviruses are more a risk for fetuses than for fertility itself. Zika virus is responsible for altered early embryo development and waiting to conceive is recommended in suspected or confirmed cases. The impact of SARS-CoV-2 is yet to be elucidated. Rubella and toxoplasmosis can provoke important congenital defects and therefore screening is mandatory before conception; a vaccine for Rubella is recommended. Further and well-designed studies are still needed to better elucidate the role of some infectious agents, to improve fertility and its treatments.

Practice changes in Italian Gynaecologic Units during the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey study

The impact of Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on Italian Gynaecological Units practice and the compliance and satisfaction with available guidelines/recommendations is unknown. Therefore, a survey was conducted among all Italian Gynaecological Units Directors in April 2020. The response rate was 90% (135/150). 77.8% of centres performed surgery only for oncologic or not deferrable pathologies, and 9.6% was closed. 68.7% of directors were at least moderately satisfied by published guidelines/recommendations, but 94.8% of respondents identified limitations, mainly (83%) the absent definition of benign non-deferrable pathology. Responders considered as non-deferrable severe endometriosis (69.6%), endometriosis with organ failure/dysfunction (74.1%), and unresponsive symptomatic fibroids (89.6%). Despite guidelines/recommendations, respondents treated ovarian (77%) and endometrial (71.6%) cancer as usual. Only a minority of respondents reduced the laparoscopic approach (11.2%) and adopted all recommended surgical precautions (9.6%). Compliance with available guidelines/recommendations appears incomplete. Reconsidering guidelines/recommendations regarding oncological cases and specify non-deferrable benign pathologies would improve guidelines/recommendations compliance.Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has profoundly influenced medical routine practice worldwide. Surgery units have been forced to reduce or even completely restrict their activity to re-allocate human resources. Many major international gynaecological societies have released statements and guidelines, providing various recommendations to guide practice changes. However, the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on Italian Gynaecological Units practice and the compliance and satisfaction with available guidelines/recommendations is unknown.What do the results of this study add? Study results provide evidence showing how the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has changed surgical activity in the Italian Gynaecological Units. Most centres reduced surgical activity, limiting surgery only for oncologic or not deferrable pathologies. Moreover, our research shows the level of compliance and satisfaction with available guidelines/recommendations and where they need to be improved. Most directors were at least moderately satisfied but identified different limitations. Guidelines/recommendations do not provide enough details, such as the absent definition of benign non-deferrable pathologies.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? The limited compliance with available guidelines/recommendations and identified limitations suggest reconsidering guidelines/recommendations focussing on identified gaps. Provide more details, such as specifying non-deferrable benign pathologies, would improve guidelines/recommendations compliance.

Obstetric A&E unit admission and hospitalization for obstetrical management during COVID-19 pandemic in a third-level hospital of southern Italy

Background

The COronaVIrus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread in Italy since February 2020, inducing the government to call for lockdown of any activity, apart primary needs, during the months March–May 2020. During the lockdown, a reduction of admissions and hospitalizations for ischemic diseases was noticed. Purpose of this study was to observe if there has been the same reduction trend in Accident & Emergency (A&E) unit admissions also for obstetric-gynecological conditions.

Methods

Medical records and electronic clinical databases were searched for all patients who were admitted to the obstetric A&E department or hospitalized at the Gynecology and Obstetrics Unit of University hospital of Naples Federico II, during the quarter March–May in the years 2019 and 2020. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) of monthly admission to the obstetric A&E department and hospitalization of the year 2020 was compared with that of the year 2019, using the unpaired T test with α error set to 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

Results

Admissions were 1483 in the year 2020 and 1786 in 2019. Of total, 1225 (37.5%) women were hospitalized: 583 in the year 2020, 642 in 2019. Mean ± SD of patients monthly admitted to our obstetric A&E department was 494 ± 33.7 in the year 2020, and 595.3 ± 30.9 in 2019, with a mean difference of − 101.3 (95% CI − 103.5 to − 99.1; p < 0.0001). Mean ± SD of patients monthly hospitalized to our department was 194 ± 19.1 in the year 2020, 213.7 ± 4.7 in 2019, with a mean difference of − 19.7 (95% CI − 23.8 to − 15.6; p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

A significant decrease in the mean of monthly admissions and hospitalizations during the COVID-19 pandemic when compared to the previous year was found also for obstetric–gynecological conditions. Further studies are necessary to assess COVID-19 impact and to take the most appropriate countermeasures.

The Psychological Impact of COVID-19 on Healthcare Providers in Obstetrics: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study

Objective: To assess the psychological distress of healthcare providers (HCPs) working in the field of obstetrics during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to identify factors associated with psychological distress at the individual, interpersonal, and organizational level.

Design: Cross-sectional survey study.

Setting: Four University hospitals in Italy.

Participants: HCPs working in obstetrics, including gynecologists, residents in gynecology and obstetrics, and midwives.

Methods: The 104-item survey Impatto PSIcologico COVID-19 in Ostetricia (IPSICO) was created by a multidisciplinary expert panel and administered to HCPs in obstetrics in May 2020 via a web-based platform.

Main Outcome Measures: Psychological distress assessed by the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) included in the IPSICO survey.

Results: The response rate to the IPSICO survey was 88.2% (503/570), and that for GHQ-12 was 84.4% (481/570). Just over half (51.1%; 246/481) of the GHQ-12 respondents reported a clinically significant level of psychological distress (GHQ-12 ≥3). Psychological distress was associated with either individual (i.e., female gender, stressful experience related to COVID-19, exhaustion, and the use of dysfunctional coping strategies), interpersonal (i.e., lower family support, limitations in interactions with colleagues), and organizational (i.e., reduced perception of protection by personal protective equipment, perceived delays on updates and gaps in information on the pandemic) factors in dealing with the pandemic.

Conclusions: Results confirm the need for monitoring and assessing the psychological distress for HCPs in obstetrics. Interventions at the individual, interpersonal, and organizational level may relieve the psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic and foster resilience skills in facing emotional distress.