Salameh, Mohammad

Abstract Introduction Fetal growth restriction (FGR) is associated with an increased risk of neonatal morbidity and mortality. Current diagnostic criteria for FGR do not discriminate between constitutionally small and pathologically restricted fetuses. Following FGR diagnosis, umbilical artery (UA) Doppler is utilized to monitor fetal well‐being, but its limitations have increased interest in investigating growth velocity as an adjunctive tool. The objective of this study is to compare the predictive ability of UA Doppler studies and growth velocity for adverse neonatal outcomes in growth‐restricted fetuses. Methods This is a secondary analysis of a cohort of pregnancies delivered in a single healthcare network from August 2017 to December 2022, diagnosed antenatally with FGR. The cohort was restricted to those with baseline estimated fetal weight (EFW) between the 3rd and 50th percentiles. All subjects had growth velocity measured (defined as EFW percentile change per week between baseline and subsequent ultrasound). The primary outcome was a composite of neonatal morbidity (neonatal intensive care unit [NICU] admission, low 5‐min Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity, Respiration score [<7], intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, or metabolic acidosis) and severe adverse perinatal events (stillbirth or neonatal death, hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, mechanical ventilation, or severe metabolic acidosis [pH < 7.0]). Neonatal morbidity and severe adverse perinatal events were analyzed separately as secondary outcomes. Independence between growth velocity and S/D ratio was evaluated. Univariate logistic regression models were then performed, with each outcome of interest as the dependent variable and S/D ratio and growth velocity as independent variables. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to compare the performance of both tests. Results A total of 172 patients were included in the analysis. UA Doppler data were available for 165 patients, 15.3% of whom had S/D ratio >95th percentile; none demonstrated absent or reversed end‐diastolic flow. There was no correlation observed between S/D ratio percentile and growth velocity, suggesting independence. ROC analysis demonstrated that the discriminatory ability of growth velocity was higher across outcomes with areas under the curve (AUC) ranging from 0.65 to 0.69 while AUC for S/D ratio percentiles ranged from 0.51 to 0.53, approximating the performance of chance. Higher growth velocity was significantly associated with reduced odds of the composite outcome (odds ratio [OR], 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69–0.90), and neonatal morbidity (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73–0.95). S/D ratio percentile was not associated with these outcomes. Conclusion In pregnancies complicated by growth restriction with forward UA flow, growth velocity outperformed S/D ratio percentile in predicting adverse outcomes. The two tests were independent, indicating that growth velocity may reflect a component of fetal development not captured by UA Doppler. These results suggest that growth velocity could be used in addition to UA Doppler studies for fetal risk assessment, especially in fetuses with forward arterial flow.

Background: Pregnancies complicated by fetal growth restriction are at increased risk of fetal demise and adverse neonatal outcomes. Distinguishing growth-restricted fetuses from constitutionally small ones remains challenging. Given the variability in current diagnostic criteria and the importance of identifying at-risk fetuses, fetal growth velocity has emerged as a predictor of adverse neonatal outcomes. Objective: To evaluate whether percentile-based fetal growth velocity, defined as change in estimated fetal weight percentile per week, predicts adverse neonatal outcomes in pregnancies affected by fetal growth restriction or small-for-gestational-age neonates. The primary aim was to determine the relationship between growth velocity and a composite of adverse neonatal outcomes. Study Design: This was a retrospective cohort study of pregnant patients 18 - 45 years old who delivered between August 2017 to December 2022 in a single healthcare system. Patients were excluded who had fewer than 2 ultrasounds after 16 weeks gestation, genetic or anatomic abnormalities, or a multiple gestation. Results: 300 patients met all inclusion criteria, and most patients (n=199) delivered at the tertiary care center. Three had an intrauterine fetal demise at a mean gestational age of 35w3d. 74 neonates were admitted to the NICU with a mean length of stay of 8.5 days; 29 required respiratory support. No neonatal deaths occurred. In fetuses with initial estimated fetal weight <3rd percentile (n=33), the probability of composite outcome was increased (50%, 95% CI 44.8-55.2) compared to those >50th percentile (5%, 95% CI 3.7-6.6). In the 3-10th and 10 - 50th percentile subgroups with decelerated growth, composite outcome rates were also increased (56.2% and 44.1%) compared to those with neutral or increased growth velocity. Conclusion: Percentile-based fetal growth velocity is a simple calculation that correlates with adverse neonatal outcomes regardless of initial estimated fetal weight. As fetal growth velocity decreased, our cohort saw increased rates of adverse outcomes. Change in EFW percentile normalizes for gestational age and allows ease of clinical interpretation. Decelerated growth identified fetuses at highest risk, suggesting growth velocity as a useful metric in routine surveillance.

Abstract The objective of this study was to estimate the average hospitalization cost (AHC) for deliveries affected by severe maternal morbidity (SMM) and analyze trends from 2014 to 2019. The study also aimed to explore cost stratification based on patient, delivery, and hospital characteristics. Using the National Inpatient Sample dataset, all delivery hospitalizations from 2014 to 2019 were identified. Deliveries affected by SMM were determined based on the Centers for Disease Control definition. Deliveries were categorized into three groups: no SMM (nSMM), any SMM (aSMM), and SMM excluding cases with blood transfusion as the only indicator (SMMeBTo). A regression model accounting for survey design and adjusting for variables including age, race/ethnicity, primary payer, income, delivery method, hospital location/teaching status, and hospital region was used to test the trends in incidence. Hospital charges were adjusted using cost-to-charge ratios and presented in 2022 U.S. dollars ($). A regression model adjusting for the same variables was used to assess costs. From 2014 to 2019, 4,444,957 deliveries were identified, with a weighted estimate of 22,224,775. The rates of aSMM and SMMeBTo were 1.9 and 0.7%, respectively. AHC was $5,218 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: $5,200–5,235) for nSMM, $11,101 (95% CI: $11,038–11,165) for aSMM, and $11,541 (95% CI: $114,330–11,650) for SMMeBTo. Hospitalization costs across all SMM categories rose annually from 2014 to 2017, decreased in 2018, and peaked in 2019. All races had significantly higher costs than non-Hispanic Whites across all SMM categories. SMM costs were higher for cesarean deliveries. The highest cost was in deliveries involving a temporary tracheostomy. Urban teaching hospitals and those in the Northeast had the highest SMM costs. Deliveries affected by SMM incur significantly higher costs, with these costs increasing over time. Understanding disparities across patient factors, delivery methods, and hospital characteristics can inform interventions aimed at addressing inequities.

Abstract The Omicron variant was first detected in October 2021, which evolved from the original SARS‐CoV‐2 strain and was found to possess many mutations. Immune evasion was one of the notable consequences of these mutations. Despite Omicron exhibiting increased transmissibility, the rates of hospitalizations and deaths among patients infected with this variant were substantially lower when compared to other strains. However, concluding that the Omicron variant is less severe than other variants of SARS‐CoV‐2 requires consideration of multiple factors, including the vaccination status of infected patients as well as any previous infections with other variants. This review compiled data about any reported indicators of severity in Omicron‐infected patients, including studies comparing Omicron with other variants while adjusting for confounders. A comprehensive search was conducted using different databases to target any studies about Omicron. In total, 62 studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in this study. Many studies reported a significantly reduced risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, need for oxygenation/ventilation, and death in Omicron‐infected patients compared to patients infected with other variants, such as Delta. Some studies, however, reported comparable severity in Omicron infected patients as to other variants emphasizing a substantial risk for severe illness. Furthermore, the COVID‐19 vaccines were less effective against Omicron relative to previous lineages, except after receiving the booster dose. One study recommended vaccination during pregnancy, which may help prevent future cases of severe SARS‐CoV‐2 pneumonia in neonates and young infants due to the transfer of humoral response from the mother.

Few guidelines exist for COVID-19 vaccination amongst cancer patients, fostering uncertainty regarding the immunogenicity, safety, and effects of cancer therapies on vaccination, which this review aims to address. A literature review was conducted to include the latest articles covering the immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with solid and hematologic cancers receiving various treatments. Lower seropositivity following vaccination was associated with malignancy (compared to the general population), and hematologic malignancy (compared to solid cancers). Patients receiving active cancer therapy (unspecified), chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunosuppressants generally demonstrated lower seropositivity compared to healthy controls; though checkpoint inhibition, endocrine therapy, and cyclin dependent kinase inhibition did not appear to affect seropositivity. Vaccination appeared safe and well-tolerated in patients with current or past cancer and those undergoing treatment. Adverse events were comparable to the general population, but inflammatory lymphadenopathy following vaccination was commonly reported and may be mistaken for malignant etiology. Additionally, radiation recall phenomenon was sporadically reported in patients who had received radiotherapy. Overall, while seropositivity rates were decreased, cancer patients showed capacity to generate safe and effective immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination, thus vaccination should be encouraged and hesitancy should be addressed in this population.