Objective: Maternal heart disease (HD) complicates 1-4 % of pregnancies and is associated with adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. Although vaginal birth is generally recommended in the guidelines... Show moreObjective: Maternal heart disease (HD) complicates 1-4 % of pregnancies and is associated with adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. Although vaginal birth is generally recommended in the guidelines, cesarean section (CS) rates in women with HD are often high. Aim of the present study was to evaluate mode of birth and pregnancy outcomes in women with HD in a tertiary care hospital in the Netherlands.Study design: The study population consisted of 128 consecutive pregnancies in 99 women with HD, managed by a pregnancy heart team between 2012-2017 and ending in births after 24 weeks' gestation. Pregnancy risk was assessed per modified World Health Organization class. Mode of birth (planned and performed) and maternal and fetal complications (cardiovascular events, postpartum hemorrhage, prematurity, small for gestational age and death) were assessed for each pregnancy.Results: Pregnancy risk was classified as modified World Health Organization class I in 23 %, class II in 50 %, class III in 21 % and class IV in 6% of pregnancies. Planned mode of birth was vaginal in 114 pregnancies (89 %) and CS in 14 (11 %; nine for obstetric and five for cardiac indication). An unplanned CS was performed in 18 pregnancies (16 %; 16 for obstetric and two for cardiac indications). Overall mode of birth was vaginal in 75 % and CS in 25 %. Twelve cardiovascular events occurred in eight pregnancies (6 %), postpartum hemorrhage in nine (7 %) and small for gestational age in 14 (11 %). No maternal or fetal deaths occurred.Conclusions: Findings of this study indicate that - given that pregnancies are managed and mode of birth is meticulously planned by a multidisciplinary pregnancy heart team - vaginal birth is a suitable option for women with HD. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Show less
Wit, L. de; Rademaker, D.; Voormolen, D.N.; Akerboom, B.M.C.; Kiewiet-Kemper, R.M.; Soeters, M.R.; ... ; Rijn, B.B. van 2019
Introduction In women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) requiring pharmacotherapy, insulin was the established first-line treatment. More recently, oral glucose lowering drugs (OGLDs) have... Show moreIntroduction In women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) requiring pharmacotherapy, insulin was the established first-line treatment. More recently, oral glucose lowering drugs (OGLDs) have gained popularity as a patient-friendly, less expensive and safe alternative. Monotherapy with metformin or glibenclamide (glyburide) is incorporated in several international guidelines. In women who do not reach sufficient glucose control with OGLD monotherapy, usually insulin is added, either with or without continuation of OGLDs. No reliable data from clinical trials, however, are available on the effectiveness of a treatment strategy using all three agents, metformin, glibenclamide and insulin, in a stepwise approach, compared with insulin-only therapy for improving pregnancy outcomes. In this trial, we aim to assess the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and patient experience of a stepwise combined OGLD treatment protocol, compared with conventional insulin-based therapy for GDM.Methods The SUGAR-DIP trial is an open-label, multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Participants are women with GDM who do not reach target glycaemic control with modification of diet, between 16 and 34 weeks of gestation. Participants will be randomised to either treatment with OGLDs, starting with metformin and supplemented as needed with glibenclamide, or randomised to treatment with insulin. In women who do not reach target glycaemic control with combined metformin and glibenclamide, glibenclamide will be substituted with insulin, while continuing metformin. The primary outcome will be the incidence of large-for-gestational-age infants (birth weight >90th percentile). Secondary outcome measures are maternal diabetes-related endpoints, obstetric complications, neonatal complications and cost-effectiveness analysis. Outcomes will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle.Ethics and dissemination The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Utrecht University Medical Centre. Approval by the boards of management for all participating hospitals will be obtained. Trial results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number NTR6134; Pre-results. Show less
Nijman, T.A.J.; Baaren, G.J. van; Vliet, E.O.G. van; Kok, M.; Gyselaers, W.; Porath, M.M.; ... ; Oudijk, M.A. 2019
Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment with nifedipine compared with atosiban in women with threatened preterm birth. Design An economic analysis alongside a randomised clinical... Show moreObjective To assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment with nifedipine compared with atosiban in women with threatened preterm birth. Design An economic analysis alongside a randomised clinical trial (the APOSTEL III study). Setting Obstetric departments of 12 tertiary hospitals and seven secondary hospitals in the Netherlands and Belgium. Population Women with threatened preterm birth between 25 and 34 weeks of gestation, randomised for tocolysis with either nifedipine or atosiban. Methods We performed an economic analysis from a societal perspective. We estimated costs from randomisation until discharge. Analyses for singleton and multiple pregnancies were performed separately. The robustness of our findings was evaluated in sensitivity analyses. Main outcome measures Mean costs and differences were calculated per woman treated with nifedipine or atosiban. Health outcomes were expressed as the prevalence of a composite of adverse perinatal outcomes. Results Mean costs per patients were significantly lower in the nifedipine group [singleton pregnancies: euro34,897 versus euro43,376, mean difference (MD) -euro8479 [95% confidence interval (CI) -euro14,327 to -euro2016)]; multiple pregnancies: euro90,248 versus euro102,292, MD -euro12,044 (95% CI -euro21,607 to euro -1671). There was a non-significantly higher death rate in the nifedipine group. The difference in costs was mainly driven by a lower neonatal intensive care unit admission (NICU) rate in the nifedipine group. Conclusion Treatment with nifedipine in women with threatened preterm birth results in lower costs when compared with treatment with atosiban. However, the safety of nifedipine warrants further investigation. Tweetable abstract In women with threatened preterm birth, tocolysis using nifedipine results in lower costs when compared with atosiban. Show less
Teng, Y.K.O.; Bredewold, E.O.W.; Rabelink, T.J.; Huizinga, T.W.J.; Eikenboom, H.C.J.; Limper, M.; ... ; Sueters, M. 2018
