Critical care in pregnancy is a field that remains unevenly researched. Although there is a body of evidence to guide many recommendations in critical care, limited research specifically addresses obstetric critical care. The purpose of this document is to review the available evidence, propose strategies for care, and highlight the need for additional research. Much of the review will, of necessity, focus on general principles of critical care, extrapolating where possible to obstetric critical care.

/pdf/acog-practice-bulletin-2e7yp8vork.pdf

Acog practice bulletin

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(14)60792-3.pdf

Can available interventions end preventable deaths in mothers, newborn babies, and stillbirths, and at what cost?

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(14)60789-3.pdf

Midwifery and quality care: findings from a new evidence-informed framework for maternal and newborn care

European Association of Urology Guidelines on Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer (TaT1 and Carcinoma In Situ) - 2019 Update.

ACOG practice bulletin: Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists

Publication status and date: New search for studies and content updated (no change to conclusions), published in Issue 5, 2018.

/pdf/induction-of-labour-for-improving-birth-outcomes-for-women-4sjsq4ccpe.pdf

Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term

BACKGROUND Higher intakes of foods containing omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA), such as fish, during pregnancy have been associated with longer gestations and improved perinatal outcomes. This is an update of a review that was first published in 2006. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of omega-3 LCPUFA, as supplements or as dietary additions, during pregnancy on maternal, perinatal, and neonatal outcomes and longer-term outcomes for mother and child. SEARCH METHODS For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (16 August 2018), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing omega-3 fatty acids (as supplements or as foods, stand-alone interventions, or with a co-intervention) during pregnancy with placebo or no omega-3, and studies or study arms directly comparing omega-3 LCPUFA doses or types. Trials published in abstract form were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias in trials and assessed quality of evidence for prespecified birth/infant, maternal, child/adult and health service outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS In this update, we included 70 RCTs (involving 19,927 women at low, mixed or high risk of poor pregnancy outcomes) which compared omega-3 LCPUFA interventions (supplements and food) compared with placebo or no omega-3. Overall study-level risk of bias was mixed, with selection and performance bias mostly at low risk, but there was high risk of attrition bias in some trials. Most trials were conducted in upper-middle or high-income countries; and nearly half the trials included women at increased/high risk for factors which might increase the risk of adverse maternal and birth outcomes.Preterm birth 42 weeks was probably increased from 1.6% to 2.6% in women who received omega-3 LCPUFA compared with no omega-3 (RR 1.61 95% CI 1.11 to 2.33; 5141 participants; 6 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence).For infants, there was a possibly reduced risk of perinatal death (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.03; 10 RCTs, 7416 participants; moderate-quality evidence: 62/3715 versus 83/3701 infants) and possibly fewer neonatal care admissions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.03; 9 RCTs, 6920 participants; moderate-quality evidence - 483/3475 infants versus 519/3445 infants). There was a reduced risk of low birthweight (LBW) babies (15.6% versus 14%; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.99; 15 trials, 8449 participants; high-quality evidence); but a possible small increase in large-for-gestational age (LGA) babies (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.36; 6 RCTs, 3722 participants; moderate-quality evidence, for omega-3 LCPUFA compared with no omega-3. Little or no difference in small-for-gestational age or intrauterine growth restriction (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.13; 8 RCTs, 6907 participants; moderate-quality evidence) was seen.For the maternal outcomes, there is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of omega-3 on induction post-term (average RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.98; 3 trials, 2900 participants; low-quality evidence), maternal serious adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.72; 2 trials, 2690 participants; low-quality evidence), maternal admission to intensive care (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.63; 2 trials, 2458 participants; low-quality evidence), or postnatal depression (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.77; 2 trials, 2431 participants; low-quality evidence). Mean gestational length was greater in women who received omega-3 LCPUFA (mean difference (MD) 1.67 days, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.39; 41 trials, 12,517 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and pre-eclampsia may possibly be reduced with omega-3 LCPUFA (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.01; 20 trials, 8306 participants; low-quality evidence).For the child/adult outcomes, very few differences between antenatal omega-3 LCPUFA supplementation and no omega-3 were observed in cognition, IQ, vision, other neurodevelopment and growth outcomes, language and behaviour (mostly low-quality to very low-quality evidence). The effect of omega-3 LCPUFA on body mass index at 19 years (MD 0, 95% CI -0.83 to 0.83; 1 trial, 243 participants; very low-quality evidence) was uncertain. No data were reported for development of diabetes in the children of study participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In the overall analysis, preterm birth < 37 weeks and early preterm birth < 34 weeks were reduced in women receiving omega-3 LCPUFA compared with no omega-3. There was a possibly reduced risk of perinatal death and of neonatal care admission, a reduced risk of LBW babies; and possibly a small increased risk of LGA babies with omega-3 LCPUFA.For our GRADE quality assessments, we assessed most of the important perinatal outcomes as high-quality (e.g. preterm birth) or moderate-quality evidence (e.g. perinatal death). For the other outcome domains (maternal, child/adult and health service outcomes) GRADE ratings ranged from moderate to very low, with over half rated as low. Reasons for downgrading across the domain were mostly due to design limitations and imprecision.Omega-3 LCPUFA supplementation during pregnancy is an effective strategy for reducing the incidence of preterm birth, although it probably increases the incidence of post-term pregnancies. More studies comparing omega-3 LCPUFA and placebo (to establish causality in relation to preterm birth) are not needed at this stage. A further 23 ongoing trials are still to report on over 5000 women, so no more RCTs are needed that compare omega-3 LCPUFA against placebo or no intervention. However, further follow-up of completed trials is needed to assess longer-term outcomes for mother and child, to improve understanding of metabolic, growth and neurodevelopment pathways in particular, and to establish if, and how, outcomes vary by different types of omega-3 LCPUFA, timing and doses; or by characteristics of women.

Omega‐3 fatty acid addition during pregnancy

Background
Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with a wide range of adverse health consequences for women and their infants in the short and long term. With an increasing prevalence of GDM worldwide, there is an urgent need to assess strategies for GDM prevention, such as combined diet and exercise interventions. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2015.

Objectives
To assess the effects of diet interventions in combination with exercise interventions for pregnant women for preventing GDM, and associated adverse health consequences for the mother and her infant/child.

Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (27 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

Selection criteria
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs, comparing combined diet and exercise interventions with no intervention (i.e. standard care), that reported on GDM diagnosis as an outcome. Quasi-RCTs were excluded. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion. We planned to include RCTs comparing two or more different diet/exercise interventions, however none were identified.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of the included trials and assessed quality of evidence for selected maternal and infant/child outcomes using the GRADE approach. We checked data for accuracy.

Main results
In this update, we included 23 RCTs (involving 8918 women and 8709 infants) that compared combined diet and exercise interventions with no intervention (standard care). The studies varied in the diet and exercise programs evaluated and health outcomes reported. None reported receiving funding from a drug manufacturer or agency with interests in the results. Overall risk of bias was judged to be unclear due to the lack of methodological detail reported. Most studies were undertaken in high-income countries.

For our primary review outcomes, there was a possible reduced risk of GDM in the diet and exercise intervention group compared with the standard care group (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.01; 6633 women; 19 RCTs; Tau² = 0.05; I² = 42%; P = 0.07; moderate-quality evidence). There was also a possible reduced risk of caesarean section (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.02; 6089 women; 14 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence). No clear differences were seen between groups for pre-eclampsia (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.22; 5366 participants; 8 RCTs; low-quality evidence), pregnancy-induced hypertension and/or hypertension (average RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.27; 3073 participants; 6 RCTs; Tau² = 0.19; I² = 62%; very low-quality evidence), perinatal mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.63; 3757 participants; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) or large-for-gestational age (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; 5353 participants; 11 RCTs; low-quality evidence). No data were reported for infant mortality or morbidity composite.

Subgroup analyses (based on trial design, maternal body mass index (BMI) and ethnicity) revealed no clear differential treatment effects. We were unable to assess the impact of maternal age, parity and specific features of the diet and exercise interventions. Findings from sensitivity analyses (based on RCT quality) generally supported those observed in the main analyses. We were not able to perform subgroup analyses based on maternal age, parity or nature of the exercise/dietary interventions due to the paucity of information/data on these characteristics and the inability to meaningfully group intervention characteristics.

For most of the secondary review outcomes assessed using GRADE, there were no clear differences between groups, including for perineal trauma (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.05; 2733 participants; 2 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence), neonatal hypoglycaemia (average RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.98; 3653 participants; 2 RCTs; Tau² = 0.23; I² = 77%; low quality evidence); and childhood adiposity (BMI z score) (MD 0.05, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.40; 794 participants; 2 RCTs; Tau² = 0.04; I² = 59%; low-quality evidence). However, there was evidence of less gestational weight gain in the diet and exercise intervention group compared with the control group (mean difference (MD) -0.89 kg, 95% CI -1.39 to -0.40; 5052 women; 16 RCTs; Tau² = 0.37; I² = 43%;moderate-quality evidence). No data were reported for maternal postnatal depression or type 2 diabetes; childhood/adulthood type 2 diabetes, or neurosensory disability.

Authors' conclusions
Moderate-quality evidence suggests reduced risks of GDM and caesarean section with combined diet and exercise interventions during pregnancy as well as reductions in gestational weight gain, compared with standard care. There were no clear differences in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, perinatal mortality, large-for-gestational age, perineal trauma, neonatal hypoglycaemia, and childhood adiposity (moderate- tovery low-quality evidence).

Using GRADE methodology, the evidence was assessed as moderate to very low quality. Downgrading decisions were predominantly due to design limitations (risk of bias), and imprecision (uncertain effect estimates, and at times, small sample sizes and low event rates), however two outcomes (pregnancy-induced hypertension/hypertension and neonatal hypoglycaemia), were also downgraded for unexplained inconsistency (statistical heterogeneity).

Due to the variability of the diet and exercise components tested in the included studies, the evidence in this review has limited ability to inform practice. Future studies could describe the interventions used in more detail, if and how these influenced behaviour change and ideally be standardised between studies. Studies could also consider using existing core outcome sets to facilitate more standardised reporting.

/pdf/combined-diet-and-exercise-interventions-for-preventing-1ze0wrucr1.pdf

Combined diet and exercise interventions for preventing gestational diabetes mellitus

Background Prelabour rupture of membranes at term is managed expectantly or by elective birth, but it is not clear if waiting for birth to occur spontaneously is better than intervening.

/pdf/planned-early-birth-versus-expectant-management-waiting-for-1hsizet6ve.pdf

Planned early birth versus expectant management (waiting) for prelabour rupture of membranes at term (37 weeks or more).

Background
Dietary advice is the main strategy for managing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). It remains unclear what type of advice is best.

Objectives
To assess the effects of different types of dietary advice for women with GDM for improving health outcomes for women and babies.

Search methods
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (8 March 2016), PSANZ's Trials Registry (22 March 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

Selection criteria
Randomised controlled trials comparing the effects of different types of dietary advice for women with GDM.

Data collection and analysis
Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. Evidence quality for two comparisons was assessed using GRADE, for primary outcomes for the mother: hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; caesarean section; type 2 diabetes mellitus; and child: large-for-gestational age; perinatal mortality; neonatal mortality or morbidity composite; neurosensory disability; secondary outcomes for the mother: induction of labour; perineal trauma; postnatal depression; postnatal weight retention or return to pre-pregnancy weight; and child: hypoglycaemia; childhood/adulthood adiposity; childhood/adulthood type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Main results
In this update, we included 19 trials randomising 1398 women with GDM, at an overall unclear to moderate risk of bias (10 comparisons). For outcomes assessed using GRADE, downgrading was based on study limitations, imprecision and inconsistency. Where no findings are reported below for primary outcomes or pre-specified GRADE outcomes, no data were provided by included trials.

Primary outcomes

Low-moderate glycaemic index (GI) versus moderate-high GI diet (four trials): no clear differences observed for: large-for-gestational age (risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 2.34; two trials, 89 infants; low-quality evidence); severe hypertension or pre-eclampsia (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.86; one trial, 95 women; very low-quality evidence); eclampsia (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.14; one trial, 83 women; very low-quality evidence) or caesarean section (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.47; one trial, 63 women; low-quality evidence).

Energy-restricted versus no energy-restricted diet (three trials): no clear differences seen for: large-for-gestational age (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.12; one trial, 123 infants; low-quality evidence); perinatal mortality (no events; two trials, 423 infants; low-quality evidence); pre-eclampsia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.97; one trial, 117 women; low-quality evidence); or caesarean section (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.56; two trials, 420 women; low-quality evidence).

DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet versus control diet (three trials): no clear differences observed for: pre-eclampsia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.26; three trials, 136 women); however there were fewer caesarean sections in the DASH diet group (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.76; two trials, 86 women).

Low-carbohydrate versus high-carbohydrate diet (two trials): no clear differences seen for: large-for-gestational age (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.95; one trial, 149 infants); perinatal mortality (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.49; one trial, 150 infants); maternal hypertension (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.22; one trial, 150 women); or caesarean section (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.99; two trials, 179 women).

High unsaturated fat versus low unsaturated fat diet (two trials): no clear differences observed for: large-for-gestational age (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.37; one trial, 27 infants); pre-eclampsia (no cases; one trial, 27 women); hypertension in pregnancy (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.06 to 5.26; one trial, 27 women); caesarean section (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.50; one trial, 27 women); diabetes at one to two weeks (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.45 to 8.94; one trial, 24 women) or four to 13 months postpartum (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.10 to 9.61; one trial, six women).

Low-GI versus high-fibre moderate-GI diet (one trial): no clear differences seen for: large-for-gestational age (RR 2.87, 95% CI 0.61 to 13.50; 92 infants); caesarean section (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.91 to 4.03; 92 women); or type 2 diabetes at three months postpartum (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.11 to 5.01; 58 women).

Diet recommendation plus diet-related behavioural advice versus diet recommendation only (one trial): no clear differences observed for: large-for-gestational age (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.14; 99 infants); or caesarean section (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.62; 99 women).

Soy protein-enriched versus no soy protein diet (one trial): no clear differences seen for: pre-eclampsia (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.03; 68 women); or caesarean section (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.77; 68 women).

High-fibre versus standard-fibre diet (one trial): no primary outcomes reported.

Ethnic-specific versus standard healthy diet (one trial): no clear differences observed for: large-for-gestational age (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.45; 20 infants); neonatal composite adverse outcome (no events; 20 infants); gestational hypertension (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.02 to 7.32; 20 women); or caesarean birth (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.67; 20 women).

Secondary outcomes

For secondary outcomes assessed using GRADE no differences were observed: between a low-moderate and moderate-high GI diet for induction of labour (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.34; one trial, 63 women; low-quality evidence); or an energy-restricted and no energy-restricted diet for induction of labour (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.53; one trial, 114 women, low-quality evidence) and neonatal hypoglycaemia (average RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.32; two trials, 408 infants; very low-quality evidence).

Few other clear differences were observed for reported outcomes. Longer-term health outcomes and health services use and costs were largely not reported.

Authors' conclusions
Evidence from 19 trials assessing different types of dietary advice for women with GDM suggests no clear differences for primary outcomes and secondary outcomes assessed using GRADE, except for a possible reduction in caesarean section for women receiving a DASH diet compared with a control diet. Few differences were observed for secondary outcomes.

Current evidence is limited by the small number of trials in each comparison, small sample sizes, and variable methodological quality. More evidence is needed to assess the effects of different types of dietary advice for women with GDM. Future trials should be adequately powered to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes.

/pdf/different-types-of-dietary-advice-for-women-with-gestational-4rza93rgwt.pdf

Emily Shepherd

Papers

Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term

Omega‐3 fatty acid addition during pregnancy

Combined diet and exercise interventions for preventing gestational diabetes mellitus

Planned early birth versus expectant management (waiting) for prelabour rupture of membranes at term (37 weeks or more).

Different types of dietary advice for women with gestational diabetes mellitus