暂无摘要。

An arbitrary gestational age limit of viability cannot be set, and in clinical practice the focus should be on a periviability interval-the so-called \"gray zone\" of prognostic uncertainty. For cases within this interval, the most appropriate decision-making process remains debatable and periviability has emerged as one of the greatest challenges in bioethics. Universally recognized ethical principles may be interpreted differently due to socioeconomic, cultural, and religious aspects. In the case of periviability, there is considerable uncertainty over whether interventions result in a greater balance of clinical good over harm. Furthermore, the fetus or neonate is unable to exercise autonomy and the physicians and parents will act as patient surrogates. When parents and physicians disagree about the infant\'s best interest, a dialogue without paternalistic attitudes is essential, whereby physicians should only offer, but not recommend, perinatal interventions. Parental choice, based on thorough information, should be respected within the limits of what is medically feasible and appropriate. When disagreements between parents and physicians occur, how is consensus to be achieved? Professional guidelines can be helpful as a framework and starting point for discussion. In reality, however, guidelines only rarely draw categorical lines and in many cases remain vague and ambiguously worded. Local ethics committees can provide counseling and function as moderators during discussions, but ethics committees do not have decision precedence. Counseling assumes the most significant role in periviability discussions, taking into consideration the particular fetal and maternal characteristics, as well as parental values. Several caveats should be observed relative to counseling: message fragmentation or inconsistence should be minimized, prognosis should preferably be presented in a positive framing, and overreliance on statistics should be avoided. It is recommended that decisions regarding neonatal resuscitation in the periviability interval be made before birth and not conditional on the newborn\'s appearance at birth. Regardless of decision, it is important to assure pre- and postnatal coherence. The present article describes how individual physicians, centers, and countries differ in the approach to the decision to initiate or forgo intensive care in the periviability interval. It is impossible to provide a global consensus view and there can be no unifying ethical, moral, or practical strategy. Nevertheless, ethically justified, quality care comprises early involvement of the obstetric and neonatal team to enable a coherent, comprehensible, nonpaternalistic, and balanced plan of care. Ultimately, physicians will need to adjust the expectations to the local standards, local outcome data, and local neonatal support availability.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to gain knowledge and ascertain challenges about periviability counseling among obstetricians to inform curricular development.
METHODS: Focus groups were utilized. A series of open-ended questions was posed to each group of obstetricians; responses were audio recorded and transcribed. Transcriptions were analyzed by two coders using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Four focus groups were convened. Prominent themes included: (1) Obstetrician knowledge about neonatal outcomes is limited, (2) Periviability counseling is both time intensive and time-challenged, (3) Patient processing of information relies on the content, delivery and patient readiness, and (4) Obstetrician bias is toward advocating for maternal safety, which may run counter to parental instinct to \"do everything.\" The last theme was specifically focused on the role of cesarean delivery.
CONCLUSIONS: Curricula focused on improving obstetrician periviability counseling should focus on neonatal outcomes, the role of cesarean delivery, and utilization of shared decision-making.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: The recent American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Practice Bulletin offers no guidance on the management of preeclampsia with severe features at <24 weeks of gestation. Historically, immediate delivery was recommended because of poor perinatal outcomes and high maternal morbidity. Recently, advances in neonatal resuscitation have led to increased survival at periviable gestational ages.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to report perinatal and maternal outcomes after expectant management of preeclampsia with severe features at <24 weeks of gestation.
METHODS: This was a retrospective case series of preeclampsia with severe features at <24 weeks of gestation at a level 4 center between 2017 and 2023. Individuals requiring delivery within 24 hours of diagnosis were excluded. Perinatal and maternal outcomes were analyzed. Categorical variables from our database were compared with previously published data using chi-square tests.
RESULTS: A total of 41 individuals were diagnosed with preeclampsia with severe features at <24 weeks of gestation. After the exclusion of delivery within 24 hours, 30 individuals (73%) were evaluated. The median gestational age at diagnosis was 22 weeks (interquartile range, 22-23). Moreover, 16% of individuals had assisted reproductive technology, 27% of individuals had chronic hypertension, 13% of individuals had pregestational diabetes mellitus, 30% of individuals had previous preeclampsia, and 73% of individuals had a body mass index of >30 kg/m2. The median latency periods at 22 and 23 weeks of gestation were 7 days (interquartile range, 4-23) and 8 days (interquartile range, 4-13). In preeclampsia with severe features, neonatal survival rates were 44% (95% confidence interval, 3%-85%) at 22 weeks of gestation and 29% (95% confidence interval, 1%-56%) at 23 weeks of gestation. There were 2 cases of acute kidney injury (7%) and 2 cases of pericardial or pleural effusions (7%). Overall perinatal survival at <24 weeks of gestation was 30% in our current study vs 7% in previous reports (P=.02).
CONCLUSIONS: For cases of expectant management of preeclampsia with severe features at <24 weeks of gestation, our findings showed an increased perinatal survival rate with decreased maternal morbidity compared with previously published data. This information may be used when counseling on expectant management of preeclampsia with severe features at <24 weeks of gestation.

Counseling of pregnancies complicated by pre- and periviable premature rupture of membranes to reach shared decision-making is challenging, and the current limited evidence hampers the robustness of the information provided. This study aimed to elucidate the rate of obstetrical and neonatal outcomes after expectant management for premature rupture of membranes occurring before or at the limit of viability.
Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases were searched electronically up to September 2023.
Our study included both prospective and retrospective studies of singleton pregnancies with premature rupture of membranes before and at the limit of viability (ie, occurring between 14 0/7 and 24 6/7 weeks of gestation).
Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Moreover, our study used meta-analyses of proportions to combine data and reported pooled proportions. Given the clinical heterogeneity, a random-effects model was used to compute the pooled data analyses. This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (registration number: CRD42022368029).
The pooled proportion of termination of pregnancy was 32.3%. After the exclusion of cases of termination of pregnancy, the rate of spontaneous miscarriage or fetal demise was 20.1%, whereas the rate of live birth was 65.9%. The mean gestational age at delivery among the live-born cases was 27.3 weeks, and the mean latency between premature rupture of membranes and delivery was 39.4 days. The pooled proportion of cesarean deliveries was 47.9% of the live-born cases. Oligohydramnios occurred in 47.1% of cases. Chorioamnionitis occurred in 33.4% of cases, endometritis in 7.0%, placental abruption in 9.2%, and postpartum hemorrhage in 5.3%. Hysterectomy was necessary in 1.2% of cases. Maternal sepsis occurred in 1.5% of cases, whereas no maternal death was reported in the included studies. When focusing on neonatal outcomes, the mean birthweight was 1022.8 g in live-born cases. The neonatal intensive care unit admission rate was 86.3%, respiratory distress syndrome was diagnosed in 66.5% of cases, pulmonary hypoplasia or dysplasia was diagnosed in 24.0% of cases, and persistent pulmonary hypertension was diagnosed in 40.9% of cases. Of the surviving neonates, the other neonatal complications included necrotizing enterocolitis in 11.1%, retinopathy of prematurity in 27.1%, and intraventricular hemorrhage in 17.5%. Neonatal sepsis occurred in 30.2% of cases, and the overall neonatal mortality was 23.9%. The long-term follow-up at 2 to 4 years was normal in 74.1% of the available cases.
Premature rupture of membranes before or at the limit of viability was associated with a great burden of both obstetrical and neonatal complications, with an impaired long-term follow-up at 2 to 4 years in almost 30% of cases, representing a clinical challenge for both counseling and management. Our data are useful when initially approaching such patients to offer the most comprehensive possible scenario on short- and long-term outcomes of this condition and to help parents in shared decision-making. El resumen está disponible en Español al final del artículo.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, perinatal viability has shifted from 24 to 22 weeks of gestation at many institutions after improvements in survival in neonates delivered at the limit of viability. Monitoring these fetuses is essential because antenatal interventions with resuscitation efforts are available for patients at risk of delivery at the limit of viability. However, fetal monitoring using biophysical profiles has not been extensively studied in very preterm pregnancies, particularly in the periviable period (20 weeks 0 days to 23 weeks 6 days).
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) investigate whether the completion of biophysical profiles within 30 minutes is feasible in very preterm pregnancies, and (2) determine the average observation time required to achieve a score of 8 out of 8 in very preterm pregnancies from 20 weeks 0 days to 31 weeks 6 days.
METHODS: This study prospectively evaluated biophysical scores in singleton pregnancies undergoing routine ultrasonography at or near viability from 20 weeks 0 days to 23 weeks 6 days (periviable or group I), 24 weeks 0 days to 27 weeks 6 days (group II), and 28 weeks 0 days to 31 weeks 6 days (group III). The results and duration of biophysical profiles were compared with those of a control group (32 weeks 0 days to 35 weeks 6 days) undergoing indicated fetal surveillance. Biophysical profiles were performed for all studied pregnancies until a score of 8 out of 8 was obtained. When >1 biophysical profile was obtained during pregnancy, each was analyzed individually. Pregnancies with fetal anomalies or obstetrical/medical indications for fetal well-being surveillance were excluded. Analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey tests were used for comparisons.
RESULTS: Data were collected for 123 participants, yielding 79, 75, and 72 studies for groups I, II, and III, respectively. The control group included 42 patients, yielding 140 studies. At 30 minutes, 80% (63/79) of the studies in the periviable group had a score of 8 out of 8, as opposed to 100% (140/140) in the control group (P<.001). The mean±standard deviation time in minutes to achieve a biophysical score of 8 out of 8 was 23.3±10.1 in the periviable group, as opposed to 9.4±6.5 in controls (P<.001). Extending the study to +2 standard deviations (43.6 minutes) in the periviable group resulted in 97% (77/79) of the scans scoring 8 out of 8 in the absence of adverse outcomes. In the other groups, a biophysical score of 8 out of 8 within 30 minutes was obtained in 97% (73/75) and 100% (72/72) in groups II and III, respectively; the mean±standard deviation times were 17.1±8.4 minutes (group II) and 13.1±7.3 minutes (group III). No adverse outcomes developed during the study participation in groups I to III.
CONCLUSIONS: Biophysical scores of 8 out of 8 can be successfully achieved in low-risk periviable pregnancies (20 weeks 0 days to 23 weeks 6 days) within an observation time longer than the standard 30-minute duration. The time required to reach a score of 8 out of 8 decreases as gestation progresses. We suggest adjusting the observation time for biophysical profile completion according to the gestational age.

Preterm prelabour rupture of membranes (PPROMs) before viability carries significant perinatal mortality and morbidity. Clinical management and prenatal counselling are a challenge, especially in twin pregnancies, due to scarce evidence on how previable PPROM affects this population. The aim of this study was to describe pregnancy outcomes of twin pregnancies complicated with previable PPROM and evaluate potential prognostic factors that may predict perinatal mortality. A retrospective cohort including dichorionic and monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies complicated with PPROM before 24 + 0 weeks of pregnancy was evaluated. Perinatal outcomes of pregnancies managed expectantly were described. Factors predicting perinatal mortality or reaching periviability (defined from 23 + 0 weeks onwards) were evaluated. Of the 45 patients included, 7 (15.6%) spontaneously delivered within the first 24 h after diagnosis. Two patients (5.3%) requested selective termination of the affected twin. In the 36 ongoing pregnancies that opted for expectant management, the overall survival rate was 35/72 (48.6%). There were 25/36 (69.4%) patients who delivered after 23 + 0 weeks of pregnancy. When periviability was achieved, neonatal survival increased up to 35/44 (79.5%). Gestational age at delivery was the only independent risk factor of perinatal mortality. The overall survival rate of twin pregnancies complicated with previable PPROM is poor but similar to singletons. No prognostic factors, apart from achieving periviability, were identified as individual predictors of perinatal mortality.

This study aimed to determine whether cervical cerclage for a transvaginal ultrasound-detected short cervical length after 24 weeks of gestation in singleton pregnancies reduces the risk for preterm birth.
Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched using the following terms: \"cerclage, cervical,\" \"uterine cervical incompetence,\" \"obstetrical surgical procedures,\" \"cervix uteri,\" \"randomized controlled trial,\" and \"controlled clinical trial.\"
All randomized controlled trials comparing cerclage placement with no cerclage in singleton gestations with a transvaginal ultrasound-detected short cervical length ≤25 mm between 24+0/7 and 29+6/7 weeks of gestation were eligible for inclusion.
Individual patient-level data from each trial were collected. If an eligible trial included patients with both multiple and singleton gestations with a short cervical length detected either before or after 24+0/7 weeks of gestation, only singletons who presented at or after 24+0/7 weeks were included. The primary outcome was preterm birth <37 weeks\' gestation. Secondary outcomes included preterm birth <34, <32, and <28 weeks\' gestation, gestational age at delivery, latency, preterm prelabor rupture of membranes, chorioamnionitis, and adverse neonatal outcomes. Individual patient-level data from each trial were analyzed using a 2-stage approach. Pooled relative risks or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated as appropriate.
Data from the 4 eligible randomized controlled trials were included. A total of 131 singletons presented at 24+0/7 to 26+6/7 weeks of gestation and were further analyzed; there were no data on patients with a cerclage at 27+0/7 weeks\' gestation or later. Of those included, 66 (50.4%) were in the cerclage group and 65 (49.6%) were in the no cerclage group. The rate of preterm birth <37 weeks\' gestation was similar between patients who were randomized to the cerclage group and those who were randomized to the no cerclage group (27.3% vs 38.5%; relative risk, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-1.28). Secondary outcomes including preterm birth <34, <32, and <28 weeks\' gestation, gestational age at delivery, time interval from randomization to delivery, preterm prelabor rupture of membranes, and adverse neonatal outcomes such as low birthweight, very low birthweight, and perinatal death were similar between the 2 groups. Planned subgroup analyses revealed no statistically significant differences in the rate of preterm birth <37 weeks\' gestation between the 2 groups when compared based on cervical length measurement (≤15 mm or ≤10 mm), gestational age at randomization (24+0/7 to 24+6/7 weeks or 25+0/7 to 26+6/7 weeks), or history of preterm birth.
Cervical cerclage did not reduce or increase the rate of preterm birth among singleton pregnancies with a short cervical length detected after 24 weeks of gestation. Because there was a 22% nonsignificant decrease in preterm birth associated with cerclage, which is a similar amount of risk reduction often associated with ultrasound-indicated cerclage before 24 weeks\' gestation, further randomized controlled trials in this patient population are warranted.

Legal, institutional, and payer policies regulating reproductive health care lack a shared language with medicine, resulting in great confusion and consternation. This paper critically examines the implications and ramifications of unclear language related to abortion care. Using a case-based approach, we highlight the ways in which language and terminology may affect the quality and accessibility of care. We also address repercussions for providers and patients within their team, institutional, state, and payer landscapes. In particular, we explore the stigmatization of abortion as both a word and a process, the role of caregivers as gatekeepers, the implications of viability as a limit for access, and the hierarchy of deservedness and value. Recognizing the role of language in these discussions is critical to building systems that honor the complexities of patient-centered reproductive decision-making, ensure access to comprehensive reproductive health care including abortion, and center patient autonomy. Healthcare providers are uniquely positioned to facilitate institutional, state, and national landscapes in which pregnant patients are supported in their autonomy and provided with just and equitable reproductive health care.