@article {7752, title = {Risk-adjusted operative delivery rates and maternal-neonatal outcomes as measures of quality assessment in obstetric care: a multicenter prospective study.}, journal = {BMC Pregnancy Childbirth}, volume = {15}, year = {2015}, month = {2015}, pages = {20}, abstract = {

BACKGROUND: Although the evaluation of caesarean delivery rates has been suggested as one of the most important indicators of quality in obstetrics, it has been criticized because of its controversial ability to capture maternal and neonatal outcomes. In an "ideal" process of labor and delivery auditing, both caesarean (CD) and assisted vaginal delivery (AVD) rates should be considered because both of them may be associated with an increased risk of complications. The aim of our study was to evaluate maternal and neonatal outcomes according to the outlier status for case-mix adjusted CD and AVD rates in the same obstetric population.

METHODS: Standardized data on 15,189 deliveries from 11 centers were prospectively collected. Multiple logistic regression was used to estimate the risk-adjusted probability of a woman in each center having an AVD or a CD. Centers were classified as "above", "below", or "within" the expected rates by considering the observed-to-expected rates and the 95\% confidence interval around the ratio. Adjusted maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared among the three groupings.

RESULTS: Centers classified as "above" or "below" the expected CD rates had, in both cases, higher adjusted incidence of composite maternal (2.97\%, 4.69\%, 3.90\% for "within", "above" and "below", respectively; p = 0.000) and neonatal complications (3.85\%, 9.66\%, 6.29\% for "within", "above" and "below", respectively; p = 0.000) than centers "within" CD expected rates. Centers with AVD rates above and below the expected showed poorer and better composite maternal (3.96\%, 4.61\%, 2.97\% for "within", "above" and "below", respectively; p = 0.000) and neonatal (6.52\%, 9.77\%, 3.52\% for "within", "above" and "below", respectively; p = 0.000) outcomes respectively than centers with "within" AVD rates.

CONCLUSIONS: Both risk-adjusted CD and AVD delivery rates should be considered to assess the level of obstetric care. In this context, both higher and lower-than-expected rates of CD and "above" AVD rates are significantly associated with increased risk of complications, whereas the "below" status for AVD showed a "protective" effect on maternal and neonatal outcomes.

}, issn = {1471-2393}, doi = {10.1186/s12884-015-0450-2}, author = {Maso, Gianpaolo and Monasta, Lorenzo and Piccoli, Monica and Ronfani, Luca and Montico, Marcella and De Seta, Francesco and Parolin, Sara and Businelli, Caterina and Travan, Laura and Alberico, Salvatore} } @article {3488, title = {The role of gestational diabetes, pre-pregnancy body mass index and gestational weight gain on the risk of newborn macrosomia: results from a prospective multicentre study.}, journal = {BMC Pregnancy Childbirth}, volume = {14}, year = {2014}, month = {2014}, pages = {23}, abstract = {

BACKGROUND: It is crucial to identify in large population samples the most important determinants of excessive fetal growth. The aim of the study was to evaluate the independent role of pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI), gestational weight gain and gestational diabetes on the risk of macrosomia.

METHODS: A prospective study collected data on mode of delivery and maternal/neonatal outcomes in eleven Hospitals in Italy. Multiple pregnancies and preterm deliveries were excluded. The sample included 14109 women with complete records. Associations between exposure variables and newborn macrosomia were analyzed using Pearson{\textquoteright}s chi squared test. Multiple logistic regression models were built to assess the independent association between potential predictors and macrosomia.

RESULTS: Maternal obesity (adjusted OR 1.7, 95\% CI 1.4-2.2), excessive gestational weight gain (adjusted OR 1.9, 95\% CI 1.6-2.2) and diabetes (adjusted OR 2.1, 95\% CI 1.5-3.0 for gestational; adjusted OR 3.0, 95\% CI 1.2-7.6 for pre-gestational) resulted to be independent predictors of macrosomia, when adjusted for other recognized risk factors. Since no significant interaction was found between pre-gestational BMI and gestational weight gain, excessive weight gain should be considered an independent risk factor for macrosomia. In the sub-group of women affected by gestational or pre-gestational diabetes, pre-gestational BMI was not significantly associated to macrosomia, while excessive pregnancy weight gain, maternal height and gestational age at delivery were significantly associated. In this sub-population, pregnancy weight gain less than recommended was not significantly associated to a reduction in macrosomia.

CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that maternal obesity, gestational weight gain excess and diabetes should be considered as independent risk factors for newborn macrosomia. To adequately evaluate the clinical evolution of pregnancy all three variables need to be carefully assessed and monitored.

}, keywords = {Adolescent, Adult, Birth Weight, Body Height, Body Mass Index, Diabetes, Gestational, Female, Fetal Macrosomia, Gestational Age, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Italy, Middle Aged, Obesity, Pregnancy, Pregnancy in Diabetics, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Weight Gain, Young Adult}, issn = {1471-2393}, doi = {10.1186/1471-2393-14-23}, author = {Alberico, Salvatore and Montico, Marcella and Barresi, Valentina and Monasta, Lorenzo and Businelli, Caterina and Soini, Valentina and Erenbourg, Anna and Ronfani, Luca and Maso, Gianpaolo} } @article {1852, title = {Rubella susceptibility profile in pregnant women with HIV.}, journal = {Clin Infect Dis}, volume = {52}, year = {2011}, month = {2011 Apr 1}, pages = {960-2}, keywords = {Female, HIV Infections, Humans, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Infectious, Rubella}, issn = {1537-6591}, doi = {10.1093/cid/cir040}, author = {Floridia, Marco and Pinnetti, Carmela and Ravizza, Marina and Tibaldi, Cecilia and Sansone, Matilde and Fiscon, Marta and Guaraldi, Giovanni and Guerra, Brunella and Alberico, Salvatore and Spinillo, Arsenio and Castelli, Paula and Dalzero, Serena and Cavaliere, Anna Franca and Tamburrini, Enrica} }