Objective This study was aimed to compare maternal and pregnancy outcomes of symptomatic and asymptomatic pregnant women with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Study Design This is a retrospective cohort study of pregnant women with COVID-19. Pregnant women were divided into two groups based on status at admission, symptomatic or asymptomatic. All testing was done by nasopharyngeal swab using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Initially, nasopharyngeal testing was performed only on women with a positive screen (symptoms or exposure) but subsequently, testing was universally performed on all women admitted to labor and delivery. Chi-square and Wilcoxon's rank-sum tests were used to compare outcomes between groups. Results Eighty-one patients were tested because of a positive screen (symptoms [n = 60] or exposure only [n = 21]) and 75 patients were universally tested (all asymptomatic). In total, there were 46 symptomatic women and 22 asymptomatic women (tested based on exposure only [n = 12] or as part of universal screening [n = 10]) with confirmed COVID-19. Of symptomatic women (n = 46), 27.3% had preterm delivery and 26.1% needed respiratory support while none of the asymptomatic women (n = 22) had preterm delivery or need of respiratory support (p = 0.007 and 0.01, respectively). Conclusion Pregnant women who presented with COVID19-related symptoms and subsequently tested positive for COVID-19 have a higher rate of preterm delivery and need for respiratory support than asymptomatic pregnant women. It is important to be particularly rigorous in caring for COVID-19 infected pregnant women who present with symptoms. Key Points

Background It is speculated that opioid-free anesthesia may provide adequate pain control while reducing postoperative opioid consumption. However, there is currently no evidence to support the speculation. The authors hypothesized that opioid-free balanced anesthetic with dexmedetomidine reduces postoperative opioid-related adverse events compared with balanced anesthetic with remifentanil. Methods Patients were randomized to receive a standard balanced anesthetic with either intraoperative remifentanil plus morphine (remifentanil group) or dexmedetomidine (opioid-free group). All patients received intraoperative propofol, desflurane, dexamethasone, lidocaine infusion, ketamine infusion, neuromuscular blockade, and postoperative lidocaine infusion, paracetamol, nefopam, and patient-controlled morphine. The primary outcome was a composite of postoperative opioid-related adverse events (hypoxemia, ileus, or cognitive dysfunction) within the first 48 h after extubation. The main secondary outcomes were episodes of postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Results The study was stopped prematurely because of five cases of severe bradycardia in the dexmedetomidine group. The primary composite outcome occurred in 122 of 156 (78%) dexmedetomidine group patients compared with 105 of 156 (67%) in the remifentanil group (relative risk, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.33; P = 0.031). Hypoxemia occurred 110 of 152 (72%) of dexmedetomidine group and 94 of 155 (61%) of remifentanil group patients (relative risk, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.40; P = 0.030). There were no differences in ileus or cognitive dysfunction. Cumulative 0 to 48 h postoperative morphine consumption (11 mg [5 to 21] versus 6 mg [0 to 17]) and postoperative nausea and vomiting (58 of 157 [37%] versus 37 of 157 [24%]; relative risk, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.90) were both less in the dexmedetomidine group, whereas measures of analgesia were similar in both groups. Dexmedetomidine patients had more delayed extubation and prolonged postanesthesia care unit stay. Conclusions This trial refuted the hypothesis that balanced opioid-free anesthesia with dexmedetomidine, compared with remifentanil, would result in fewer postoperative opioid-related adverse events. Conversely, it did result in a greater incidence of serious adverse events, especially hypoxemia and bradycardia. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

No abstract

Introduction Assertiveness is essential for communication and/or speaking up. We performed a randomized trial to assess the effectiveness of assertiveness/advocacy/CUS/two-challenge rule (AACT) simulation-based education for labor and delivery, as well as postpartum nurses. We aimed to determine whether this training would improve labor and delivery and postpartum nurses speaking up in the clinical setting. Methods We conducted a randomized controlled trial among nurses on labor and delivery and postpartum units. During the intervention, participants were trained on abnormal vital signs, underwent a baseline assertiveness self-assessment, and were block-randomized (by work location: labor and delivery or postpartum) to either simulation-based AACT (intervention) or I-PASS [Illness Severity, Patient Summary, Action List, Situational Awareness and Contingency Planning, Synthesis by Receiver hand-off tool education] (control) simulation-based education. The outcome part of the study consisted of an in situ simulated clinical encounter during which each individual learner’s assertive behaviors were assessed as they found out about a patient’s abnormal vital signs. Two raters, different from those that participated in the intervention part of the experiment, and who were blinded to whether the learner was in the control or intervention arm, scored participants. The learner (Registered Nurse) was not aware that this was an in situ simulation and perceived this as a real clinical encounter. The degree to which the learners spoke up was measured using a validated scale (Pian-Smith). Results Seventy nurses completed the study. There were 34 learners in the intervention and 36 in the control groups. Among those in the intervention group, there were 18 labor and delivery (LDI) nurses and 16 postpartum (PPI) nurses. Among the control group, there were 14 labor and delivery (LDC) nurses and 22 postpartum (PPC) nurses. Using a five-point Pian-Smith scale, we demonstrated that there was no difference in the likelihood of speaking up between the overall intervention and control groups (2.00 ± 1.00 and 1.65 ± 0.82, P = 0.10). Among controls, the likelihood of speaking up was higher for labor and delivery nurses than for postpartum nurses (P < 0.006). There was a significant interaction (P = 0.02) between treatment group and work location. Although the control and intervention groups from labor and delivery showed similar higher levels of speaking up (2.29 ± 0.89 and 2.06 ± 0.95, respectively, P = 0.49), postpartum nurses in the intervention arm were more likely to speak up than were postpartum nurses in the control arm (1.97 ± 1.07 vs. 1.25 ± 0.43, P = 0.007). Conclusions Although there was no difference in speaking up scores between intervention and control groups overall, simulation-based AACT training among postpartum nurses was associated with a statistically significant increase in the likelihood of speaking up during a challenging simulated clinical encounter. The degree of change makes the clinical significance uncertain. There was no statistically significant difference in the likelihood of speaking up among labor and delivery nurses.

Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic with most American cases in New York. As an institution residing in a high-prevalence zip code, with over 8,000 births annually, we have cared for over 80 COVID-19-infected pregnant women, and have encountered many challenges in applying new national standards for care. In this article, we review how to change outpatient and inpatient practices, develop, and disseminate new hospital protocols, and we highlight the psychosocial challenges for pregnant patients and their providers.