Effect of Policies Aiming to Restrict Ultrasound Use [ID: 1375832]

Anna Hemminger, J. Louis, Corley Rachelle Price
{"title":"Effect of Policies Aiming to Restrict Ultrasound Use [ID: 1375832]","authors":"Anna Hemminger, J. Louis, Corley Rachelle Price","doi":"10.1097/01.AOG.0000929700.03453.26","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION: During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, policies were implemented that sought to reduce in-person prenatal visits and ultrasounds. We sought to evaluate the effect of those policies on the rate of diagnosed fetal growth restriction and infant low birth weight. METHODS: We performed a cohort study of patients delivered at an academic center. Participants who received prenatal care during the time period of restricted visits were matched in a 1:1 ratio to patients receiving care during an equivalent time period when there were no such restrictions (group I: July 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019; and group II: March 23, 2020, to September 23, 2020). Medical records were reviewed for clinical and demographic characteristics. Neonatal morbidity was defined as any of the following: stillbirth, neonatal death, preterm birth, neonatal intensive care unit admission, low birth weight. Data were analyzed using chi-square and Mann-Whitney U test where appropriate. P<.05 was significant. RESULTS: Our cohort included 580 patients. Overall, the group had a 13% preterm birth rate, 8.2% were diagnosed with fetal growth restriction, and 26% had the composite neonatal morbidity. All patients in the cohort had at least one ultrasound. Compared to group I, group II had more individuals who had only one ultrasound during the pregnancy (3.1 versus 0%, P=.004), but overall the group had more total ultrasounds performed (1.5 [1–3] versus 1 [1–2], P=.02) and had more patients who required fetal surveillance for maternal and fetal conditions (56 versus 44, P=.014). Group II was more likely to have a neonatal demise (1.4 versus 0.3%, P<.01), but there was no difference in the rate of prenatal diagnosis of fetal growth restriction or low birth weight. CONCLUSION: Policies to reduce prenatal ultrasounds were not effective in reducing ultrasounds performed, and there was no difference in the diagnosis of fetal growth restriction despite an increase in comorbidity.","PeriodicalId":19405,"journal":{"name":"Obstetrics & Gynecology","volume":"57 1","pages":"1S - 2S"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obstetrics & Gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000929700.03453.26","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, policies were implemented that sought to reduce in-person prenatal visits and ultrasounds. We sought to evaluate the effect of those policies on the rate of diagnosed fetal growth restriction and infant low birth weight. METHODS: We performed a cohort study of patients delivered at an academic center. Participants who received prenatal care during the time period of restricted visits were matched in a 1:1 ratio to patients receiving care during an equivalent time period when there were no such restrictions (group I: July 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019; and group II: March 23, 2020, to September 23, 2020). Medical records were reviewed for clinical and demographic characteristics. Neonatal morbidity was defined as any of the following: stillbirth, neonatal death, preterm birth, neonatal intensive care unit admission, low birth weight. Data were analyzed using chi-square and Mann-Whitney U test where appropriate. P<.05 was significant. RESULTS: Our cohort included 580 patients. Overall, the group had a 13% preterm birth rate, 8.2% were diagnosed with fetal growth restriction, and 26% had the composite neonatal morbidity. All patients in the cohort had at least one ultrasound. Compared to group I, group II had more individuals who had only one ultrasound during the pregnancy (3.1 versus 0%, P=.004), but overall the group had more total ultrasounds performed (1.5 [1–3] versus 1 [1–2], P=.02) and had more patients who required fetal surveillance for maternal and fetal conditions (56 versus 44, P=.014). Group II was more likely to have a neonatal demise (1.4 versus 0.3%, P<.01), but there was no difference in the rate of prenatal diagnosis of fetal growth restriction or low birth weight. CONCLUSION: Policies to reduce prenatal ultrasounds were not effective in reducing ultrasounds performed, and there was no difference in the diagnosis of fetal growth restriction despite an increase in comorbidity.
限制超声波使用的政策效果[ID: 1375832]
导语:在COVID-19大流行的最初几个月,实施了旨在减少亲自产前检查和超声波检查的政策。我们试图评估这些政策对诊断出胎儿生长受限和婴儿低出生体重率的影响。方法:我们对在某学术中心分娩的患者进行了一项队列研究。在限制访问期间接受产前护理的参与者与在没有此类限制的等效时间段接受护理的患者按1:1的比例进行匹配(第一组:2019年7月1日至2019年12月31日;第二组:2020年3月23日至2020年9月23日)。审查了医疗记录的临床和人口特征。新生儿发病率定义为以下任何一种:死产、新生儿死亡、早产、新生儿重症监护病房入院、低出生体重。数据分析采用卡方检验和Mann-Whitney U检验。P <。0.05显著。结果:我们的队列包括580例患者。总体而言,该组有13%的早产率,8.2%被诊断为胎儿生长受限,26%有新生儿综合发病率。队列中的所有患者都至少做过一次超声波检查。与I组相比,II组在怀孕期间只进行一次超声检查的个体较多(3.1%对0%,P= 0.004),但总体而言,II组进行了更多的超声波检查(1.5次[1 - 3]对1次[1 - 2],P= 0.02),并且有更多的患者需要对母胎和胎儿状况进行监测(56次对44次,P= 0.014)。II组新生儿死亡的可能性更高(1.4% vs 0.3%, P< 0.01),但产前诊断胎儿生长受限或低出生体重的比例没有差异。结论:减少产前超声检查的政策在减少超声检查方面没有效果,尽管合并症增加,但胎儿生长受限的诊断没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书