COVID-19 Archives - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
, , , , , Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2023;45(3):142-148
, , , , , , , To understand the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinical pregnancy rates and analyze factors that may have influenced their outcome.
This was a retrospective observational study conducted at a tertiary-care Brazilian fertility center. All fresh IVF and embryo warming cycles performed from March 11 to December 31, 2018–2021 were analyzed, and their data were used to calculate fertilization, embryo cleavage, cycle cancellation, embryo transfer (ET), and clinical pregnancy rates. Statistical tests were used to evaluate the alterations found. Logistic regression models were used to explore the association of the categorical variables with the observed clinical pregnancy rates. Data from 2018 and 2019 (prepandemic) and 2020 and 2021 (pandemic) were grouped.
A total of 756 cycles were analyzed (n = 360 prepandemic and n = 396 pandemic). The age group of the patients, fertilization rates, and cleavage rates did not have significant differences (p > 0.05). There was a reduction in the percentage of fresh IVF and an increase in embryo warming cycles (p = 0.005) during the pandemic. There was also an increase in fresh cycle cancellations (p < 0.001) and a reduction in ET rates (p < 0.001). The pandemic had a negative impact on clinical pregnancy rates (p < 0.001) especially due to the increase in fresh cycle cancellations (p < 0.001).
Embryo warming cycles with subsequent frozen-thawed ET were presented as a viable alternative to continue assisted reproductive treatments against pandemic restrictions on fresh cycles, ensuring clinical pregnancy, albeit at a lower rate than that of the prepandemic period.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2023;45(3):142-148
, , , , , , , To understand the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinical pregnancy rates and analyze factors that may have influenced their outcome.
This was a retrospective observational study conducted at a tertiary-care Brazilian fertility center. All fresh IVF and embryo warming cycles performed from March 11 to December 31, 2018–2021 were analyzed, and their data were used to calculate fertilization, embryo cleavage, cycle cancellation, embryo transfer (ET), and clinical pregnancy rates. Statistical tests were used to evaluate the alterations found. Logistic regression models were used to explore the association of the categorical variables with the observed clinical pregnancy rates. Data from 2018 and 2019 (prepandemic) and 2020 and 2021 (pandemic) were grouped.
A total of 756 cycles were analyzed (n = 360 prepandemic and n = 396 pandemic). The age group of the patients, fertilization rates, and cleavage rates did not have significant differences (p > 0.05). There was a reduction in the percentage of fresh IVF and an increase in embryo warming cycles (p = 0.005) during the pandemic. There was also an increase in fresh cycle cancellations (p < 0.001) and a reduction in ET rates (p < 0.001). The pandemic had a negative impact on clinical pregnancy rates (p < 0.001) especially due to the increase in fresh cycle cancellations (p < 0.001).
Embryo warming cycles with subsequent frozen-thawed ET were presented as a viable alternative to continue assisted reproductive treatments against pandemic restrictions on fresh cycles, ensuring clinical pregnancy, albeit at a lower rate than that of the prepandemic period.
, , , , , Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2023;45(3):113-120
, , , , , To evaluate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the care of patients with miscarriage and legal termination of pregnancy in a university hospital in Brazil.
A cross-sectional study of women admitted for abortion due to any cause at Hospital da Mulher Prof. Dr. J. A. Pinotti of Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Brazil, between July 2017 and September 2021. Dependent variables were abortion-related complications and legal interruption of pregnancy. Independent variables were prepandemic period (until February 2020) and pandemic period (from March 2020). The Cochran-Armitage test, Chi-squared test, Mann-Whitney test, and multiple logistic regression were used for statistical analysis.
Five-hundred sixty-one women were included, 376 during the prepandemic period and 185 in the pandemic period. Most patients during pandemic were single, without comorbidities, had unplanned pregnancy, and chose to initiate contraceptive method after hospital discharge. There was no significant tendency toward changes in the number of legal interruptions or complications. Complications were associated to failure of the contraceptive method (odds ratio [OR] 2.44; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23–4.84), gestational age (OR 1.126; 95% CI 1.039–1.219), and preparation of the uterine cervix with misoprostol (OR 1.99; 95% CI 1.01–3.96).
There were no significant differences in duration of symptoms, transportation to the hospital, or tendency of reducing the number of legal abortions and increasing complications. The patients’ profile probably reflects the impact of the pandemic on family planning.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2023;45(3):113-120
, , , , , To evaluate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the care of patients with miscarriage and legal termination of pregnancy in a university hospital in Brazil.
A cross-sectional study of women admitted for abortion due to any cause at Hospital da Mulher Prof. Dr. J. A. Pinotti of Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Brazil, between July 2017 and September 2021. Dependent variables were abortion-related complications and legal interruption of pregnancy. Independent variables were prepandemic period (until February 2020) and pandemic period (from March 2020). The Cochran-Armitage test, Chi-squared test, Mann-Whitney test, and multiple logistic regression were used for statistical analysis.
Five-hundred sixty-one women were included, 376 during the prepandemic period and 185 in the pandemic period. Most patients during pandemic were single, without comorbidities, had unplanned pregnancy, and chose to initiate contraceptive method after hospital discharge. There was no significant tendency toward changes in the number of legal interruptions or complications. Complications were associated to failure of the contraceptive method (odds ratio [OR] 2.44; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23–4.84), gestational age (OR 1.126; 95% CI 1.039–1.219), and preparation of the uterine cervix with misoprostol (OR 1.99; 95% CI 1.01–3.96).
There were no significant differences in duration of symptoms, transportation to the hospital, or tendency of reducing the number of legal abortions and increasing complications. The patients’ profile probably reflects the impact of the pandemic on family planning.
, , , , , Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2022;44(9):871-877
, , , , , This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic profile of breast cancer cases during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic compared with the previous year.
It is a retrospective study of cases diagnosed by a reference service in the public health system of Campinas, SP, Brazil. Two periods were analyzed: March to October 2019 (preCOVID period) and March to October 2020 (COVID-period). All women diagnosed during the periods were included. The Chi-Squared or Fisher exact and Mann-Whitney tests were used.
In the preCOVID and COVID periods, breast cancers were diagnosed, respectively, in 115 vs 59 women, and the mean ages at diagnosis were 55 and 57 years (p = 0.339). In the COVID period, the family history of breast cancer was more observed (9.6% vs 29.8%, p < 0.001), cases were more frequently symptomatic (50.4% vs 79.7%, p < 0.001) and had more frequently palpable masses (56.5% vs 79.7%, p = 0.003). In symptomatic women, the mean number of days from symptom to mammography were 233.6 (458.3) in 2019 and 152.1 (151.5) in 2020 (p = 0.871). Among invasive tumors, the proportion of breast cancers in stages I and II was slightly higher in the COVID period, although not significantly (76.7% vs 82.4%, p = 0.428). Also in the COVID period, the frequency of luminal A-like tumors was lower (29.2% vs 11.8%, p = 0.018), of triple-negative tumors was twice as high (10.1% vs 21.6%, p = 0.062), and of estrogen receptor-positive tumors was lower (82.2% vs 66.0%, p = 0.030).
During the COVID-19 pandemic, breast cancer diagnoses were reduced. Cases detected were suggestive of a worse prognosis: symptomatic women with palpable masses and more aggressive subtypes. Indolent tumors were those more sensitive to the interruption in screening.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2022;44(9):871-877
, , , , , This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic profile of breast cancer cases during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic compared with the previous year.
It is a retrospective study of cases diagnosed by a reference service in the public health system of Campinas, SP, Brazil. Two periods were analyzed: March to October 2019 (preCOVID period) and March to October 2020 (COVID-period). All women diagnosed during the periods were included. The Chi-Squared or Fisher exact and Mann-Whitney tests were used.
In the preCOVID and COVID periods, breast cancers were diagnosed, respectively, in 115 vs 59 women, and the mean ages at diagnosis were 55 and 57 years (p = 0.339). In the COVID period, the family history of breast cancer was more observed (9.6% vs 29.8%, p < 0.001), cases were more frequently symptomatic (50.4% vs 79.7%, p < 0.001) and had more frequently palpable masses (56.5% vs 79.7%, p = 0.003). In symptomatic women, the mean number of days from symptom to mammography were 233.6 (458.3) in 2019 and 152.1 (151.5) in 2020 (p = 0.871). Among invasive tumors, the proportion of breast cancers in stages I and II was slightly higher in the COVID period, although not significantly (76.7% vs 82.4%, p = 0.428). Also in the COVID period, the frequency of luminal A-like tumors was lower (29.2% vs 11.8%, p = 0.018), of triple-negative tumors was twice as high (10.1% vs 21.6%, p = 0.062), and of estrogen receptor-positive tumors was lower (82.2% vs 66.0%, p = 0.030).
During the COVID-19 pandemic, breast cancer diagnoses were reduced. Cases detected were suggestive of a worse prognosis: symptomatic women with palpable masses and more aggressive subtypes. Indolent tumors were those more sensitive to the interruption in screening.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2022;44(8):740-745
To assess the possible impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on maternal mortality among admissions for childbirth in 2020 in relation of the last 10 years.
An ecological study with pregnant women who underwent hospital births at the Brazilian unified public health service (SUS, in the Portuguese acronym) in Brazil from 2010 to 2020. The mortality among admissions for childbirth was obtained based on the number of admissions for childbirth with reported death as outcome divided by the total number of admissions. The underlying gestational risk and route of delivery were considered based on the national surveillance system. The average mortality for the period between 2010 and 2019 (baseline) was compared with the rate of deaths in 2020 (1st pandemic year); the rate ratio was interpreted as the risk of death in 2020 in relation to the average of the previous period (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
In 2020, the 1st year of the COVID-19 pandemic, 1,821,775 pregnant women were hospitalized for childbirth and 651 deaths were reported, which represents 8.7% of the total hospitalizations and 11.3% of maternal deaths between 2010 and 2020. There was an increase in maternal mortality after births in 2020 compared with the average for the period between 2010 and 2019, specially in low-risk pregnancies, both in vaginal (RR = 1.60; 95%CI:1.39–1.85) and cesarean births (RR = 1.18; 95%CI:1.04–1.34).
Maternal mortality among admissions for childbirth according to SUS data increased in 2020 compared with the average between 2010 and 2019, with an increment of 40% in low-risk pregnancies. The increase was of 18% after cesarean section and of 60% after vaginal delivery.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2022;44(8):740-745
To assess the possible impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on maternal mortality among admissions for childbirth in 2020 in relation of the last 10 years.
An ecological study with pregnant women who underwent hospital births at the Brazilian unified public health service (SUS, in the Portuguese acronym) in Brazil from 2010 to 2020. The mortality among admissions for childbirth was obtained based on the number of admissions for childbirth with reported death as outcome divided by the total number of admissions. The underlying gestational risk and route of delivery were considered based on the national surveillance system. The average mortality for the period between 2010 and 2019 (baseline) was compared with the rate of deaths in 2020 (1st pandemic year); the rate ratio was interpreted as the risk of death in 2020 in relation to the average of the previous period (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
In 2020, the 1st year of the COVID-19 pandemic, 1,821,775 pregnant women were hospitalized for childbirth and 651 deaths were reported, which represents 8.7% of the total hospitalizations and 11.3% of maternal deaths between 2010 and 2020. There was an increase in maternal mortality after births in 2020 compared with the average for the period between 2010 and 2019, specially in low-risk pregnancies, both in vaginal (RR = 1.60; 95%CI:1.39–1.85) and cesarean births (RR = 1.18; 95%CI:1.04–1.34).
Maternal mortality among admissions for childbirth according to SUS data increased in 2020 compared with the average between 2010 and 2019, with an increment of 40% in low-risk pregnancies. The increase was of 18% after cesarean section and of 60% after vaginal delivery.
, , , , , Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2022;44(6):567-572
, , , , , To compare death rates by COVID-19 between pregnant or postpartum and nonpregnant women during the first and second waves of the Brazilian pandemic.
In the present population-based evaluation data from the Sistema de Informação da Vigilância Epidemiológica da Gripe (SIVEP-Gripe, in the Portuguese acronym), we included women with c (ARDS) by COVID-19: 47,768 in 2020 (4,853 obstetric versus 42,915 nonobstetric) and 66,689 in 2021 (5,208 obstetric versus 61,481 nonobstetric) and estimated the frequency of in-hospital death.
We identified 377 maternal deaths in 2020 (first wave) and 804 in 2021 (second wave). The death rate increased 2.0-fold for the obstetric (7.7 to 15.4%) and 1.6-fold for the nonobstetric groups (13.9 to 22.9%) from 2020 to 2021 (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47–0.58 in 2020 and OR: 0.61; 95%CI: 0.56– 0.66 in 2021; p < 0.05). In women with comorbidities, the death rate increased 1.7-fold (13.3 to 23.3%) and 1.4-fold (22.8 to 31.4%) in the obstetric and nonobstetric groups, respectively (OR: 0.52; 95%CI: 0.44–0.61 in 2020 to OR: 0.66; 95%CI: 0.59–0.73 in 2021; p <0.05). In women without comorbidities, the mortality rate was higher for nonobstetric (2.4 times; 6.6 to 15.7%) than for obstetric women (1.8 times; 5.5 to 10.1%; OR: 0.81; 95%CI: 0.69–0.95 in 2020 and OR: 0.60; 95%CI: 0.58–0.68 in 2021; p <0.05).
There was an increase in maternal deaths from COVID-19 in 2021 compared with 2020, especially in patients with comorbidities. Death rates were even higher in nonpregnant women, with or without comorbidities.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2022;44(6):567-572
, , , , , To compare death rates by COVID-19 between pregnant or postpartum and nonpregnant women during the first and second waves of the Brazilian pandemic.
In the present population-based evaluation data from the Sistema de Informação da Vigilância Epidemiológica da Gripe (SIVEP-Gripe, in the Portuguese acronym), we included women with c (ARDS) by COVID-19: 47,768 in 2020 (4,853 obstetric versus 42,915 nonobstetric) and 66,689 in 2021 (5,208 obstetric versus 61,481 nonobstetric) and estimated the frequency of in-hospital death.
We identified 377 maternal deaths in 2020 (first wave) and 804 in 2021 (second wave). The death rate increased 2.0-fold for the obstetric (7.7 to 15.4%) and 1.6-fold for the nonobstetric groups (13.9 to 22.9%) from 2020 to 2021 (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47–0.58 in 2020 and OR: 0.61; 95%CI: 0.56– 0.66 in 2021; p < 0.05). In women with comorbidities, the death rate increased 1.7-fold (13.3 to 23.3%) and 1.4-fold (22.8 to 31.4%) in the obstetric and nonobstetric groups, respectively (OR: 0.52; 95%CI: 0.44–0.61 in 2020 to OR: 0.66; 95%CI: 0.59–0.73 in 2021; p <0.05). In women without comorbidities, the mortality rate was higher for nonobstetric (2.4 times; 6.6 to 15.7%) than for obstetric women (1.8 times; 5.5 to 10.1%; OR: 0.81; 95%CI: 0.69–0.95 in 2020 and OR: 0.60; 95%CI: 0.58–0.68 in 2021; p <0.05).
There was an increase in maternal deaths from COVID-19 in 2021 compared with 2020, especially in patients with comorbidities. Death rates were even higher in nonpregnant women, with or without comorbidities.
, , , , Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2022;44(6):602-608
, , , , The aim of the present study is to list the published clinical trials on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, to describe the mechanism of action of the identified vaccines, and to identify protocols regarding safety, status, and prioritization of cancer patients for vaccination.
This is a systematic review with a limited literature search conducted by an information specialist; key resources such as PubMed and websites of major cancer organizations were searched. The main search terms were COVID-19, vaccination, cancer, and breast and gynecological cancers.
Cancer patients infected with the new coronavirus are at high risk of complications and death, but we still know little about the risks and benefits of vaccination for COVID-19 in these patients. In an ideal scenario, all cancer patients should have their immunization status updated before beginning treatment, but this is not always possible.
Patients with breast or gynecological cancers who are receiving treatment or are in the 5-year posttreatment period should be included in the priority group for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2022;44(6):602-608
, , , , The aim of the present study is to list the published clinical trials on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, to describe the mechanism of action of the identified vaccines, and to identify protocols regarding safety, status, and prioritization of cancer patients for vaccination.
This is a systematic review with a limited literature search conducted by an information specialist; key resources such as PubMed and websites of major cancer organizations were searched. The main search terms were COVID-19, vaccination, cancer, and breast and gynecological cancers.
Cancer patients infected with the new coronavirus are at high risk of complications and death, but we still know little about the risks and benefits of vaccination for COVID-19 in these patients. In an ideal scenario, all cancer patients should have their immunization status updated before beginning treatment, but this is not always possible.
Patients with breast or gynecological cancers who are receiving treatment or are in the 5-year posttreatment period should be included in the priority group for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination.
, , , Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2022;44(5):532-539
, , , The present article seeks to consolidate existing knowledge on breastfeeding during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
Articles from 2020 and 2021 collected from the PubMed, CAPES, Virtual Health Library, Google Scholar, SciELO, and UpToDate databases were analyzed. Books and government documents published in the last decade (2010-2020) were also consulted.
Sixteen works were used in the present study. The date of publication and discussion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission through breastmilk were the inclusion criteria. Thus, articles containing repeated information or with no relevance to add to the production were excluded. Data collection comprised critical reading and synthesis of the main information obtained on the subject, which were performed for the preparation of the present study. The research took place in the period from March 27 to April 2, 2021.
Breast milk has diverse benefits for both the nursing mother and the infant. The presence of viral RNA by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RTPCR) in milk from disease-positive mothers has been detected in a few cases, and infant infections in these conditions suggest oral transmission of maternal or third-party origin. The virulence of the novel coronavirus in human milk is not confirmed, while significant amounts of exclusive antibodies are.
Lactation in the context of COVID-19 has shown greater benefits than risks of vertical transmission. Therefore, it should be encouraged when possible.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2022;44(5):532-539
, , , The present article seeks to consolidate existing knowledge on breastfeeding during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
Articles from 2020 and 2021 collected from the PubMed, CAPES, Virtual Health Library, Google Scholar, SciELO, and UpToDate databases were analyzed. Books and government documents published in the last decade (2010-2020) were also consulted.
Sixteen works were used in the present study. The date of publication and discussion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission through breastmilk were the inclusion criteria. Thus, articles containing repeated information or with no relevance to add to the production were excluded. Data collection comprised critical reading and synthesis of the main information obtained on the subject, which were performed for the preparation of the present study. The research took place in the period from March 27 to April 2, 2021.
Breast milk has diverse benefits for both the nursing mother and the infant. The presence of viral RNA by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RTPCR) in milk from disease-positive mothers has been detected in a few cases, and infant infections in these conditions suggest oral transmission of maternal or third-party origin. The virulence of the novel coronavirus in human milk is not confirmed, while significant amounts of exclusive antibodies are.
Lactation in the context of COVID-19 has shown greater benefits than risks of vertical transmission. Therefore, it should be encouraged when possible.
, , , , Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2022;44(4):391-397
, , , , To determine knowledge, attitude, and preventive (KAP) practices towards the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic among women in reproductive age seeking to use copper or hormonal intrauterine devices (IUD/LNG-IUS).
We conducted a cross-sectional study in which we applied a questionnaire on 400 women about KAP practices on COVID-19 at the University of Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil, from May to August 2020.
The mean (±SD) age of the women was 30.8±7.9 years, and 72.8% of them reported being pregnant at least once. Most women (95%) had heard or read about COVID-19, and their main sources of information were television (91%) and government websites (53%). However, 53% of the women had doubts about the veracity of the information accessed.
Women without a partner and with>12 years of schooling had more information about COVID-19 and on its impact on new pregnancy, and those from high socioeconomic status had a higher chance of maintaining physical distance. Safety, effectiveness, comfort, and absence of hormone in the contraceptive method (in the case of TCu380A IUD) were the main reasons for the participants to seek the service during the pandemic, and the possibility to stop menstrual bleeding was the main reason to choose the LNG-IUS.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2022;44(4):391-397
, , , , To determine knowledge, attitude, and preventive (KAP) practices towards the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic among women in reproductive age seeking to use copper or hormonal intrauterine devices (IUD/LNG-IUS).
We conducted a cross-sectional study in which we applied a questionnaire on 400 women about KAP practices on COVID-19 at the University of Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil, from May to August 2020.
The mean (±SD) age of the women was 30.8±7.9 years, and 72.8% of them reported being pregnant at least once. Most women (95%) had heard or read about COVID-19, and their main sources of information were television (91%) and government websites (53%). However, 53% of the women had doubts about the veracity of the information accessed.
Women without a partner and with>12 years of schooling had more information about COVID-19 and on its impact on new pregnancy, and those from high socioeconomic status had a higher chance of maintaining physical distance. Safety, effectiveness, comfort, and absence of hormone in the contraceptive method (in the case of TCu380A IUD) were the main reasons for the participants to seek the service during the pandemic, and the possibility to stop menstrual bleeding was the main reason to choose the LNG-IUS.