General anaesthesia for obstetric surgery has distinct characteristics that may contribute towards a higher risk of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the incidence, experience and psychological implications of unintended conscious awareness during general anaesthesia in obstetric patients. From May 2017 to August 2018, 3115 consenting patients receiving general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery in 72 hospitals in England were recruited to the study. Patients received three repetitions of standardised questioning over 30 days, with responses indicating memories during general anaesthesia that were verified using interviews and record interrogation. A total of 12 patients had certain/ probable or possible awareness, an incidence of 1 in 256 (95%CI 149-500) for all obstetric surgery. The incidence was 1 in 212 (95%CI 122-417) for caesarean section surgery. Distressing experiences were reported by seven (58.3%) patients, paralysis by five (41.7%) and paralysis with pain by two (16.7%). Accidental awareness occurred during induction and emergence in nine (75%) of the patients who reported awareness. Factors associated with accidental awareness during general anaesthesia were: high BMI (25-30 kg.m -2 ); low BMI (<18.5 kg.m -2 ); out-of-hours surgery; and use of ketamine or thiopental for induction. Standardised psychological impact scores at 30 days were significantly higher in awareness patients (median (IQR [range]) 15 (2.7-52.0 [2-56]) than in patients without awareness 3 (1-9 [0-64]), p = 0.010. Four patients had a provisional diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. We conclude that direct postoperative questioning reveals high rates of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery, which has implications for anaesthetic practice, consent and follow-up.

BackgroundLuteal support with progesterone is necessary for successful implantation of the embryo following egg collection and embryo transfer in an in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle. Progesterone has been used for as little as 2 weeks and for as long as 12 weeks of gestation. The optimal length of treatment is unresolved at present and it remains unclear how long to treat women receiving luteal supplementation.DesignThe trial is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to investigate the effect of the duration of luteal support with progesterone in IVF cycles. Following 2 weeks standard treatment and a positive biochemical pregnancy test, this randomized control trial will allocate women to a supplementary 8 weeks treatment with vaginal progesterone or 8 weeks placebo. Further studies would be required to investigate whether additional supplementation with progesterone is beneficial in early pregnancy.DiscussionCurrently at the Hewitt Centre, approximately 32.5% of women have a positive biochemical pregnancy test 2 weeks after embryo transfer. It is this population that is eligible for trial entry and randomization. Once the patient has confirmed a positive urinary pregnancy test they will be invited to join the trial. Once the consent form has been completed by the patient a trial prescription sheet will be sent to pharmacy with a stated collection time. The patient can then be randomized and the drugs dispensed according to pharmacy protocol. A blood sample will then be drawn for measurement of baseline hormone levels (progesterone, estradiol, free beta-human chorionic gonadotrophin, pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A, Activin A, Inhibin A and Inhibin B). The primary outcome measure is the proportion of all randomized women that continue successfully to a viable pregnancy (at least one fetus with fetal heart rate >100 beats/minute) on transabdominal/transvaginal ultrasound at 10 weeks post embryo transfer/12 weeks gestation (that is at the end of 8 weeks supplementary trial treatment).Trial registrationISRCTN05696887

Luteal support is considered as an essential component of IVF treatment following ovarian stimulation and embryo transfer. Several studies have consistently demonstrated a benefit of luteal support compared with no treatment and whilst a number of preparations are available, no product has been demonstrated as superior. There is an emerging body of evidence which suggests that extension of luteal support beyond biochemical pregnancy does not confer a benefit in terms of successful pregnancy outcome. We performed two surveys separated by 5 years of practice evolution, with the latter reporting on the use of luteal support in all IVF clinics in the UK. All clinics reported utilising luteal support with the majority favouring the use of Cyclogest 400 mg twice daily. In contrast, there was no consensus on the optimal duration of luteal support. Whilst 24% of clinics withdrew luteal support at biochemical confirmation of pregnancy, 40% continued treatment until 12 weeks gestation. Several clinics even extended luteal support beyond 12 weeks gestation. We observed no difference in practice based on the size of the IVF unit or treatment funding source. Although there was some change in practice between surveys in many clinics, there was no uniformity in the direction of change.

A highly unusual case of a pregnancy complicated by diffuse placental chorioangiomatosis that resulted in a live-birth and short-term fetal survival is reported. The potential for antenatal diagnosis and intrauterine treatment to optimise fetal outcome is discussed.

Embryo transfer (ET) is one of the vital steps in the in vitro fertilisation (IVF) process, yet there is wide variation in ET technique throughout the UK, without a nationally approved standardised approach. The aim of this study was to gain contemporaneous information regarding the current clinical ET practice in the UK. Method: A 38-question electronic survey was distributed to the 79 UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) registered clinics performing ETs. Results: In total, 59% (47/79) of units responded, 83% (39/47) performing ultrasound-guided transfers, with 42% (20/47) of units using a tenaculum; 22% (10/45) would proceed with transfer regardless of fluid in the endometrial cavity. In 91% (43/47) of units, embryos were deposited in the upper/middle portion of the uterine cavity, but interpretation of this area ranged from 0.5 to >2 cm from the fundus, with 68% (32/47) allowing patients to mobilise immediately after transfer. In 60% (27/45) of clinics, success rates were based on clinical pregnancy rates (CPR). Conclusion: Within the UK there is a wide range of variability in ET techniques, with >70% of discordance in survey-responses between clinics. Whilst there are areas of good practice, some disadvantageous techniques continue to persist. This survey emphasises the importance of developing a standardised, evidence-based approach to improve ET success rates.