Addressing challenges related to the professional practice of abortion post-Roe

The landmark Roe vs Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973 established a constitutional right to abortion. In June 2022, the Dobbs vs Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision brought an end to the established professional practice of abortion throughout the United States. Rights-based reductionism and zealotry threaten the professional practice of abortion. Rights-based reductionism is generally the view that moral or ethical issues can be reduced exclusively to matters of rights. In relation to abortion, there are 2 opposing forms of rights-based reductionism, namely fetal rights reductionism, which emphasizes the rights for the fetus while disregarding the rights and autonomy of the pregnant patient, and pregnant patient rights reductionism, which supports unlimited abortion without regards for the fetus. The 2 positions are irreconcilable. This article provides historical examples of the destructive nature of zealotry, which is characterized by extreme devotion to one's beliefs and an intolerant stance to opposing viewpoints, and of the importance of enlightenment to limit zealotry. This article then explores the professional responsibility model as a clinically ethically sound approach to overcome the clashing forms of rights-based reductionism and zealotry and to address the professional practice of abortion. The professional responsibility model refers to the ethical and professional obligations that obstetricians and other healthcare providers have toward pregnant patients, fetuses, and the society at large. It provides a more balanced and nuanced approach to the abortion debate, avoiding the pitfalls of reductionism and zealotry, and allows both the rights of the woman and the obligations to pregnant and fetal patients to be considered alongside broader ethical, medical, and societal implications. Constructive and respectful dialogue is crucial in addressing diverse perspectives and finding common ground. Embracing the professional responsibility model enables professionals to manage abortion responsibly, thereby prioritizing patients' interests and navigating between absolutist viewpoints to find balanced ethical solutions.

Obstetric violence is a misnomer

The term "obstetric violence" has been used in the legislative language of several countries to protect mothers from abuse during pregnancy. Subsequently, it has been expanded to include a spectrum of obstetric procedures, such as induction of labor, episiotomy, and cesarean delivery, and has surfaced in the peer-reviewed literature. The term "obstetric violence" can be seen as quite strong and emotionally charged, which may lead to misunderstandings or misconceptions. It might be interpreted as implying a deliberate act of violence by healthcare providers when mistreatment can sometimes result from systemic issues, lack of training, or misunderstandings rather than intentional violence. "Obstetric mistreatment" is a more comprehensive term that can encompass a broader range of behaviors and actions. "Violence" generally refers to the intentional use of physical force to cause harm, injury, or damage to another person (eg, physical assault, domestic violence, street fights, or acts of terrorism), whereas "mistreatment" is a more general term and refers to the abuse, harm, or control exerted over another person (such as nonconsensual medical procedures, verbal abuse, disrespect, discrimination and stigmatization, or neglect, to name a few examples). There may be cases where unprofessional personnel may commit mistreatment and violence against pregnant patients, but as obstetrics is dedicated to the health and well-being of pregnant and fetal patients, mistreatment of obstetric patients should never be an intended component of professional obstetric care. It is necessary to move beyond the term "obstetric violence" in discourse and acknowledge and address the structural dimensions of abusive reproductive practices. Similarly, we do not use the term "psychiatric violence" for appropriately used professional procedures in psychiatry, such as electroshock therapy, or use the term "neurosurgical violence" when drilling a burr hole. There is an ongoing need to raise awareness about the potential mistreatment of obstetric patients within the context of abuse against women in general. Using the term "mistreatment in healthcare" instead of the more limited term "obstetric violence" is more appropriate and applies to all specialties when there is unprofessional abuse and mistreatment, such as biased care, neglect, emotional abuse (verbal), or physical abuse, including performing procedures that are unnecessary, unindicated, or without informed patient consent. Healthcare providers must promote unbiased, respectful, and patient-centered professional care; provide an ethical framework for all healthcare personnel; and work toward systemic change to prevent any mistreatment or abuse in our specialty.

Real-World Utilization of an Intrauterine, Vacuum-Induced, Hemorrhage-Control Device

OBJECTIVE

To assess the real-world effectiveness and safety of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared intrauterine vacuum-induced-hemorrhage control device for postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) management.

METHODS

Sixteen centers in the United States participated in this observational, postmarket registry medical record review (October 2020 through March 2022). The primary effectiveness outcome was treatment success , defined as bleeding control after insertion with no treatment escalation or bleeding recurrence. Additional outcomes included blood loss, time to device insertion, indwelling time, bleeding recurrence, and time to bleeding control. Treatment success and severe maternal morbidity measures (transfusion of 4 or more units of red blood cell, intensive care unit admission, and hysterectomy) were evaluated by blood loss before insertion. To assess safety, serious adverse events (SAEs) and adverse device effects were collected. All outcomes were summarized by mode of delivery; treatment success was summarized by bleeding cause (all causes, any atony, isolated atony, nonatony).

RESULTS

In total, 800 individuals (530 vaginal births, 270 cesarean births) were treated with the device; 94.3% had uterine atony (alone or in combination with other causes). Median total blood loss at device insertion was 1,050 mL in vaginal births and 1,600 mL in cesarean births. Across all bleeding causes, the treatment success rate was 92.5% for vaginal births and was 83.7% for cesarean births (95.8% [n=307] and 88.2% [n=220], respectively, in isolated atony). Median indwelling time was 3.1 hours and 4.6 hours, respectively. In vaginal births, 14 SAEs were reported among 13 individuals (2.5%). In cesarean births, 22 SAEs were reported among 21 individuals (7.8%). Three (0.4%) SAEs were deemed possibly related to the device or procedure. No uterine perforations or deaths were reported.

CONCLUSION

For both vaginal and cesarean births in real-world settings, rapid and effective bleeding control was achieved with an FDA-cleared intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage-control device. The safety profile was consistent with that observed in the registrational trial (NCT02883673), and SAEs or adverse device effects were of the nature and severity expected in the setting of PPH. This device is an important new tool for managing a life-threatening condition, and timely utilization may help to improve obstetric hemorrhage outcomes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04995887.

Association of Maternal Comorbidity Burden With Cesarean Birth Rate Among Nulliparous, Term, Singleton, Vertex Pregnancies

IMPORTANCE

Cesarean birth rate among nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex (NTSV) pregnancies is a standard quality measure in obstetrical care. There are limited data on how the number and type of preexisting conditions affect mode of delivery among primigravidae, and it is also uncertain how maternal comorbidity burden differs across racial and ethnic groups and whether this helps to explain disparities in the NTSV cesarean birth rate.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association between obstetric comorbidity index (OB-CMI) score and cesarean delivery among NTSV pregnancies and to evaluate whether disparities in mode of delivery exist based on race and ethnicity group after adjusting for covariate factors.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study of deliveries between January 2019 and December 2021 took place across 7 hospitals within a large academic health system in New York and included all NTSV pregnancies identified in the electronic medical record system. Exclusion criteria were fetal demise and contraindication to labor.

EXPOSURE

The OB-CMI score. Covariate factors assessed included race and ethnicity group (American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, other or multiracial, and declined or unknown), public health insurance, and preferred language.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

Cesarean delivery.

RESULTS

A total of 30 253 patients (mean [SD] age, 29.8 [5.4] years; 100% female) were included. Non-Hispanic White patients constituted the largest race and ethnicity group (43.7%), followed by Hispanic patients (16.2%), Asian or Pacific Islander patients (14.6%), and non-Hispanic Black patients (12.2%). The overall NTSV cesarean birth rate was 28.5% (n = 8632); the rate increased from 22.1% among patients with an OB-CMI score of 0 to greater than 55.0% when OB-CMI scores were 7 or higher. On multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression modeling, there was a statistically significant association between OB-CMI score group and cesarean delivery; each successive OB-CMI score group had an increased risk. Patients with an OB-CMI score of 4 or higher had more than 3 times greater odds of a cesarean birth (adjusted odds ratio, 3.14; 95% CI, 2.90-3.40) than those with an OB-CMI score of 0. Compared with non-Hispanic White patients, nearly all other race and ethnicity groups were at increased risk for cesarean delivery, and non-Hispanic Black patients were at highest risk (adjusted odds ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.31-1.55).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study of patients with NTSV pregnancies, OB-CMI score was positively associated with cesarean birth. Racial and ethnic disparities in this metric were observed. Although differences in the prevalence of preexisting conditions were seen across groups, this did not fully explain variation in cesarean delivery rates, suggesting that unmeasured clinical or nonclinical factors may have influenced the outcome.

Hidden in plain sight in the delivery room - The Apgar score is biased

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare the maximum 5-min Apgar score of 10 among different U.S. races and Hispanic ethnicity.

METHODS

Retrospective population-based cohort study from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), and Division of Vital Statistics natality online database. We included only deliveries where the race and Hispanic ethnicity of the father and mother were listed as either Black, White, Chinese, or Asian Indian and as Hispanic or Latino origin or other. Proportions of 5-Minute Apgar scores of 10 were compared among different races and Hispanic ethnicity for six groups each for mother and father: Non-Hispanic or Latino White, Hispanic or Latino White, Non-Hispanic or Latino Black, Hispanic or Latino Black, Chinese, and Asian Indian.

RESULTS

The study population consists of 9,710,066 mothers and 8,138,475 fathers from the US natality birth data 2016-2019. Black newborns had a less than 50% chance of having a 5-min Apgar score of 10 when compared to white newborns (OR 0.47 for Black mother and Black father; p<0.001). White babies (non-Hispanic and Hispanic) had the highest proportion of Apgar scores of 10 across all races and ethnicities.

CONCLUSIONS

The Apgar score introduces a bias by systematically lowering the score in people of color. Embedding skin color scoring into basic data and decisions of health care propagates race-based medicine. By removing the skin color portion of the Apgar score and with it's racial and ethnic bias, we will provide more accuracy and equity when evaluating newborn babies worldwide.

The Risk of Readmission after Early Postpartum Discharge during the COVID-19 Pandemic

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether early postpartum discharge during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was associated with a change in the odds of maternal postpartum readmissions.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective analysis of uncomplicated postpartum low-risk women in seven obstetrical units within a large New York health system. We compared the rate of postpartum readmissions within 6 weeks of delivery between two groups: low-risk women who had early postpartum discharge as part of our protocol during the COVID-19 pandemic (April 1-June 15, 2020) and similar low-risk patients with routine postpartum discharge from the same study centers 1 year prior. Statistical analysis included the use of Wilcoxon's rank-sum and chi-squared tests, Nelson-Aalen cumulative hazard curves, and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of the 8,206 patients included, 4,038 (49.2%) were patients who had early postpartum discharge during the COVID-19 pandemic and 4,168 (50.8%) were patients with routine postpartum discharge prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. The rates of postpartum readmissions after vaginal delivery (1.0 vs. 0.9%; adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39-1.45) and cesarean delivery (1.5 vs. 1.9%; adjusted OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.29-1.45) were similar between the two groups. Demographic risk factors for postpartum readmission included Medicaid insurance and obesity.

CONCLUSION

Early postpartum discharge during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with no change in the odds of maternal postpartum readmissions after low-risk vaginal or cesarean deliveries. Early postpartum discharge for low-risk patients to shorten hospital length of stay should be considered in the face of public health crises.

KEY POINTS

· Early postpartum discharge was not associated with an increase in odds of hospital readmissions after vaginal delivery.. · Early postpartum discharge was not associated with an increase in odds of hospital readmissions after cesarean delivery.. · Early postpartum discharge for low-risk patients should be considered during a public health crisis..