Objectives: This study aims to investigate whether a significant difference exists in maternal and fetal outcomes between planned cesarean delivery (PCD) compared to emergency cesarean delivery (ECD) in placenta previa (PP) patients without placenta accreata spectrum (PAS) in a tertiary referral hospital. Material and methods:This retrospective cohort study included 237 singleton pregnant women who were diagnosed with PP without PAS at the time of delivery. PP patients who were delivered at the scheduled time were included in the PCD group. Patients with PP delivered in an emergency setting before the scheduled date were assigned to the ECD group. We recorded demographic and clinical characteristics, maternal and neonatal outcomes. Results:Of the 237 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 157 patients (66.8%) underwent PCD, and 80 patients required ECD (33.2%). Patients' hospitalization and pre-discharge hemoglobin levels were significantly lower in the ECD group (11.25 ± 1.97 g/dL and 9.74 ± 2.09 g/dL, respectively) than in the PCD group (10.77 ± 2.67 g/dL and 9.27 ± 2.70, p = 0.002 and p = 0.004, respectively). While six patients (7.5%) were required intensive care unit (ICU) admission in the ECD group, no patient was required to follow up in ICU in the PCD group (p < 0.001). The hospital length of stay (LOS) was tended to be significantly longer in the ECD group (2.8 ± 0.7 days) than in the PCD group (2.4 ± 0.6 days, p < 0.001). Neonatal outcomes of birth weight, Apgar scores, NICU admission, and neonatal death were significantly better in the PCD group than in the ECD group. Conclusions:The PCD group has better maternal outcomes, including preoperative and discharge hemoglobin levels, ICU admission and hospital LOS, and better neonatal outcomes than the ECD group. Clinicians should pay regard to that scheduling the delivery to advanced pregnancy weeks has a failure possibility, and patients could not reach the scheduled day due to the emergency states.

Objectives:The current study aimed to describe the incidence of abnormal liver function tests (LFTs) in pregnant COV-ID-19 patients, explore the association between LFTs with current medication, and provide a reference for medical therapy of pregnant patients with COVID-19. Material and methods:This retrospective single tertiary center cohort study included 122 pregnant patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted and treated from April 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020. We defined abnormal LFTs as the elevation of the following liver enzymes in serum per our hospital's laboratory reference range standards: AST > 35 U/L, ALT > 35 U/L, and TBIL > 1.2 mg/dL. We evaluated patients for demographic and clinical features, laboratory parameters, medications, and hospital length of stay (LOS).Results: Patients in this cohort had clinical presentations of fever (84.4%), dry cough (78.6%), and shortness of breathing (6.5%). In total, 17 (13.9%) patients had abnormal LFTs during hospitalization. Critically ill patients were three-fold higher in the abnormal LFTs group (11.8%) than in the normal LFTs group (3.8%, p = 0.16). The proportion of patients who used hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir were significantly higher in patients with abnormal LFTs (88.2% and 35.3%, respectively) than those with normal LFTs (62.9% and 15.2%, p = 0.04 and p = 0.04, respectively). The hospital length of stay (LOS) was significantly longer in the abnormal LFTs group (8.2 ± 5.8 days) than in the normal LFT group (6.0 ± 2.8 days, p = 0.02).Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 may induce liver injury and the LFT abnormality was generally mild in pregnant patients with COVID-19. Abnormal LFTs are associated with prolonged hospital LOS. Drug use was the most crucial risk factor for liver injury during hospitalization. The use of lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine were significantly higher, and the course of treatment of these drugs was significantly longer in pregnant women with abnormal LFTs than the patients with normal LFTs. Therefore, pregnant women with COVID-19 who received antiviral treatment should be closely monitored for evaluating LFTs.

Background: Preeclampsia complicates 2% to 8% of all pregnancies. Systemic inflammatory response (SIR) markers are widely used in the diagnosis of many inflammatory diseases and in the prediction of complicated pregnancies. This study examined the diagnostic value of SIR markers during the first trimester of pregnancy to predict preeclampsia development. Methods: This retrospective case-control study was conducted from January 2020 to May 2020. We included 94 patients diagnosed with mild preeclampsia, 107 patients diagnosed with severe preeclampsia, and 100 normotensive pregnant patients as controls. We obtained the first trimester (6 to 14 weeks) complete blood cell counts for all patients. We used a receiver operating characteristic curve to evaluate the cutoff, sensitivity, and specificity values. Results: First trimester mean platelet volume (MPV), neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR) values were significantly higher in patients who developed preeclampsia in later pregnancy weeks. The optimal cutoff value for MPV was 10.65 fL, with a sensitivity of 63.7% and a specificity of 65.0%. The best predictor for preeclampsia was NLR at an optimal cutoff value of 4.12, with a sensitivity of 82.1% and specificity of 62.0%. At a cutoff value of 131.8, PLR predicted preeclampsia with a sensitivity rate of 65.0% and a specificity rate of 60.2%. Conclusion:The results of this study suggest that first trimester MPV, NLR, and PLR values are clinically useful markers in the prediction of preeclampsia. The increased first trimester values of MPV, NLR, and PLR also indicate that inflammation may play a crucial role in preeclampsia pathogenesis.

Background:The optimal delivery timing for patients with placenta previa remains controversial in the literature. To reduce spontaneous vaginal bleeding rates, which occur increasingly with advancing gestational weeks, elective cesarean delivery is advocated between 36 0/7 and 37 6/7 weeks of gestation, but this clinical approach does not take into consideration numerous patient variables. Few papers identify the risk factors for emergency cesarean delivery in patients with placenta previa. An enhanced understanding of these variables could help with determining patients at high risk for emergency cesarean delivery and individualizing delivery date scheduling. This study sought to identify predictor variables associated with emergency cesarean delivery in pregnant patients with placenta previa in a tertiary referral hospital. We also investigated differences in maternal and perinatal outcomes between patients with placenta previa who underwent emergency vs planned cesarean delivery. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 208 singleton pregnancy patients who had a confirmed diagnosis of placenta previa at the time of delivery and who underwent cesarean delivery in our hospital beyond 24 weeks of gestation. To define risk factors of the outcome variable (emergency vs planned cesarean delivery), univariate and multiple logistic regression analysis and adjusted odds ratios with their confidence intervals were calculated. Results: Ninety-seven patients (46.6%) required emergency cesarean delivery, and 111 patients (53.4%) underwent planned cesarean delivery. Antepartum bleeding episode (37.1% and 20.7%, P=0.013) and first antepartum bleeding episode ࣘ28 weeks of gestation (36.1% and 14.4%, P<0.001) were significantly higher in the emergency group than the planned group. Antepartum bleeding episode (odds ratio [OR]=1.968, 95% CI 1.001-4.200, P=0.042), first antepartum bleeding episode ࣘ28 weeks of gestation (OR=2.750, 95% CI 1.315-5.748, P=0.007), and preoperative hemoglobin level (OR=0.713, 95% CI 0.595-0.854, P<0.001) were the independent predictors significantly associated with emergency cesarean delivery. Conclusion: Three factors-antepartum bleeding episode during pregnancy, first antepartum bleeding episode ࣘ28 weeks of gestation, and lower preoperative hemoglobin level-might be useful in predicting emergency cesarean delivery in pregnancies complicated with placenta previa.

Objectives We aimed to evaluate maternal serum aquaporin‐9 (AQP9) concentrations in patients with early‐onset preeclampsia and compare them with the uncomplicated control group with normal blood pressure. Methods This was a prospective case–control study including pregnant women who were diagnosed with early‐onset preeclampsia between 200/7–340/7 weeks of gestation. Demographic and clinical characteristics, complete blood count and biochemical parameters, and serum AQP9 concentrations were documented. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed to illustrate the sensitivity and specificity performance characteristics of AQP9 and a cut‐off value was estimated by using the Youden index. Results The mean serum concentrations of maternal AQP9 were significantly increased in the early‐onset preeclampsia group (722.22 ± 211.80 pg/mL) than the control group (499.97 ± 68.89 pg/mL, p < 0.001). When we analyze the area under the ROC curve (AUC), the serum AQP9 value can be considered a statistically significant parameter for diagnosing preeclampsia. According to the Youden index, a 587.70 ng/mL cut‐off value of serum AQP9 level can be used to diagnose early‐onset preeclampsia with 80.0% sensitivity and 89.7% specificity. Conclusion Maternal serum AQP9 concentrations were significantly increased in early‐onset preeclampsia patients than healthy normotensive pregnant patients. We suggest that AQP9 might be a crucial biomarker of the inflammatory process in early‐onset preeclampsia.