Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37727968›Full record

ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2023

Critical care, maternal and neonatal outcomes of pregnant women with COVID-19 admitted to eight intensive care units during the wildtype, alpha and delta waves of the pandemic across the North West of England-a retrospective review.

Kailash Bhatia, Malachy Columb, Bhaskar Narayan, Anthony Wilson, Group of Obstetric Anesthetists of Lancashire; Greater Manchester and Mersey (GOAL-GM) Study Collaborators

Erratum issuedOpen access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kailash BhatiaDepartment of Anesthesia and Peri-operative Medicine, Saint Mary's Hospital, Manchester University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8108-1196
Malachy ColumbDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Bhaskar NarayanManchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Anthony WilsonUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Group of Obstetric Anesthetists of Lancashire; Greater Manchester and Mersey (GOAL-GM) Study Collaborators
Manchester Royal Infirmary · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFew studies have described obstetric and critical care outcomes in pregnant women with COVID-19 needing intensive care unit (ICU) admission. MATERIAL AND

methodsObstetric and critical care outcomes of COVID-19 women admitted to eight ICUs from April 1, 2020 to September 15, 2021, in the North West of England were retrospectively analyzed. Women admitted to ICU were assigned to three groups: antepartum women discharged from ICU prior to delivery (antepartum ICU-discharged group), antepartum women who had expedited delivery (antepartum ICU-delivered group) and a postpartum group. Our aims were to describe maternal characteristics and assess how delivery influenced the obstetric and critical care outcomes in these women.

resultsDuring the study period, 615 women tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), of whom 62 (10.1%) needed ICU admission due to symptomatic COVID-19. Pregnancy loss (3.2%) was recorded in two women. Detailed obstetric and critical outcomes from 60 women are reported. Nine antepartum women (15%) admitted to ICU were discharged and continued their pregnancy, 13 antepartum women (21.7%) had expedited delivery by cesarean birth after ICU admission and 38 (63.3%) women were admitted to ICU during the postpartum period. Antepartum ICU-discharged women contracted the SARS-CoV-2 at an earlier median gestational age (23 weeks; p = 0.0003) and needed ICU admission at an earlier median gestational age (28 weeks, p = 0.03) compared with antepartum ICU-delivered (28 and 32 weeks) and postpartum women (35.5 and 36 weeks). Antepartum ICU-discharged women had the lowest rate of mechanical ventilation receipt (11.1%) compared with antepartum ICU-delivered women (52.3%) and postpartum women (44.3%) but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.13). No significant differences were observed in the frequency and severity of critical care complications in the antepartum ICU-discharged, antepartum-ICU delivered and postpartum women.

conclusionsOf the women admitted to ICU antepartum, 40% were discharged while remaining pregnant and 60% had expedited delivery. Antepartum women who were discharged from ICU without giving birth may receive lower rates of mechanical ventilation than those who delivered in ICU or admitted postpartum; however, further studies are needed to confirm or refute this association.

Indexed as

Abortion, SpontaneousCOVID-19Pregnancy Complications, InfectiousCritical CareFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornIntensive Care UnitsPandemicsPregnancyPregnancy OutcomePregnant PeopleRetrospective StudiesSARS-CoV-2cesareanCOVID-19critical careinvasive ventilationnon-invasive ventilationpregnancy

Identifiers

PMID37727968
PMCPMC10619604
OpenAlexW4386878025

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.