In December 2019, cases of pneumonia of unknown cause first started to appear in Wuhan in China; subsequently, a new coronavirus was soon identified as the cause of the illness, now known as Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Since then, infections have been confirmed worldwide in numerous countries, with the number of cases steadily rising. The aim of the present review is to provide an overview of the new severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and, in particular, to deduce from it potential risks and complications for pregnant patients. For this purpose, the available literature on cases of infection in pregnancy during the SARS epidemic of 2002/2003, the MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) epidemic ongoing since 2012, as well as recent publications on cases infected with SARS-CoV-2 in pregnancy are reviewed and reported. Based on the literature available at the moment, it can be assumed that the clinical course of COVID-19 disease may be complicated by pregnancy which could be associated with a higher mortality rate. It may also be assumed at the moment that transmission from mother to child in utero is unlikely. Breastfeeding is possible once infection has been excluded or the disease declared cured.
Purpose Detection of SARS-CoV-2-infected pregnant women admitted to maternity units during a pandemic is crucial. In addition to the fact that pregnancy is a risk factor for severe
COVID-19 and that medical surveillance has to be adjusted in infected women and their offspring, knowledge about infection status can provide the opportunity to protect other patients and
healthcare workers against virus transmission. The aim of this prospective observational study was to determine the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among pregnant women in the hospital
setting.
Material and Methods All eligible pregnant women admitted to the nine participating hospitals in Franconia, Germany, from 2 June 2020 to 24 January 2021 were included.
COVID-19-related symptoms, secondary diseases and pregnancy abnormalities were documented. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected by RT-PCR from nasopharyngeal swabs. The prevalence of acute SARS-CoV-2
infection was estimated by correcting the positive rate using the Rogan–Gladen method. The risk of infection for healthcare workers during delivery was estimated using a risk calculator.
Results Of 2414 recruited pregnant women, six were newly diagnosed RT-PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2, which yielded a prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection of 0.26% (95% CI, 0.10 – 0.57%).
Combining active room ventilation and wearing FFP2 masks showed an estimated reduction of risk of infection for healthcare workers in the delivery room to < 1%.
Conclusions The prevalence of newly diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy in this study is low. Nevertheless, a systematic screening in maternity units during pandemic
situations is important to adjust hygienic and medical management. An adequate hygienic setting can minimise the calculated infection risk for medical healthcare workers during patientsʼ
labour.
Objective To evaluate the influence of inaccurate sonographic fetal weight estimation in macrosomia on the mode of delivery and neonatal outcome (NO).
Methods In 14 633 pregnancies between 2002 and 2016, this retrospective study evaluated the association between sonographic fetal weight estimation, true birth weight (BW), mode of delivery (primary cesarean section [pCS], secondary cesarean section, vaginal delivery, and operative vaginal delivery rates) and NO parameters (5-min Apgar < 7, pH < 7.1, neonatal intensive care unit [NICU] admission, shoulder dystocia). Singleton pregnancies > 37 + 0 weeks with ultrasound-estimated fetal weight (EFW) within 7 days before delivery were included. The study population was divided into four groups: Group 1 (false-negative): EFW < 4000 g/BW ≥ 4000 g; Group 2 (true-positive): EFW ≥ 4000 g/BW ≥ 4000 g; Group 3 (false-positive): EFW ≥ 4000 g/BW < 4000 g; and Group 4 (true-negative): EFW < 4000 g/BW < 4000 g.
Results As expected, the highest secondary cesarean section (sCS) rate was found in Group 2 (true-positive) (30.62 %), compared with only 17.68 % in Group 4 (true-negative). The sCS rate in the false-positive Group 3 was significantly higher (28.48 %) in comparison with the false-negative Group 1 (21.22 %; OR 1.48; 95 % CI, 1.16 to 1.89; P = 0.002). In comparison with the true-negative Group 4, univariate analyses showed significantly higher rates for sCS in all other groups: odds ratio (OR) 2.06 for Group 2 (95 % CI, 1.74 to 2.42; P < 0.001), 1.85 for Group 3 (95 % CI, 1.54 to 2.22, P < 0.001), and 1.25 for Group 1 (95 % CI, 1.05 to 1.49; P < 0.01). No significant differences were found for NO between Groups 1 and 3 for the parameters 5-min Apgar < 7 (P = 0.75), pH < 7.1 (P = 0.28), or NICU admission (P = 0.54). However, there was a significantly higher chance for shoulder dystocia in Group 1 compared with Group 3 (OR 4.58; 95 % CI, 1.34 to 24.30; P = 0.008).
Conclusion Sonographic EFW inaccuracies in fetal macrosomia appear to have a greater impact on the mode of delivery than birth weight itself. Underestimation of fetal weight may be associated with a higher probability of shoulder dystocia.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.