Pregnant women were excluded from vaccination against Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) until September 2021 in South Korea. Although vaccination for pregnant women started in October 2021, vaccine acceptance in pregnant women is yet unknown. This cross-sectional study aimed to investigate COVID-19 vaccine acceptance during pregnancy and influencing factors. An anonymous survey was distributed in obstetrics departments to all pregnant or postpartum women, during the prenatal or postpartum visit. The proportion of self-reported COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy among 436 women was 26.6%. Pregnancy-related independent factors influencing maternal COVID-19 vaccination were “received vaccine information about from obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) doctors” (OR 3.41, 95% CI 2.05–5.65), “cohabitant COVID-19 vaccination” (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.06–5.59), and “second trimester” (OR 7.35, 95% CI 1.54–35.15). In women who did not want to get vaccinated, the most common reason for COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy was concern that COVID-19 vaccine might affect the fetus (91.7%, 243/266), followed by distrust in COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (42.6%, 113/266). This study showed that providing information about maternal COVID-19 vaccination, especially by OBGYN doctors, is crucial for increasing vaccination coverage in pregnant women. Providing updated evidence of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety in pregnant women may be also helpful for increasing vaccine acceptance.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the significance of fetal Doppler parameters in predicting adverse neonatal outcomes and the risk of cesarean delivery due to non-reassuring fetal status, in severe small for gestational age (SGA) fetuses of late preterm and term gestation.MethodsFetal brain and umbilical artery (UmA) Doppler parameters of cerebroplacental ratio (CPR) and UmA pulsatility index (PI) were evaluated in a cohort of 184 SGA fetuses between 34 and 41 weeks gestational age, who were less than the 5th percentile. The risks of neonatal morbidities and cesarean delivery due to non-reassuring fetal status were analyzed.ResultsUnivariate analysis revealed that abnormal CPR was significantly associated with cesarean delivery due to non-reassuring fetal status (P=0.018), but not with neonatal morbidities. However, abnormal CPR did not increase the risk of cesarean delivery due to non-reassuring fetal status in multivariate logistic regression analysis. Abnormal CPR with abnormal PI of UmA was associated with low Apgar score at 1 minute (P=0.048), mechanical ventilation (P=0.013) and cesarean delivery due to non-reassuring fetal status (P<0.001), in univariate analysis. It increased risk of cesarean delivery for non-reassuring fetal status (adjusted odds ratio, 7.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.2–41.3; P=0.033), but did not increase risk of low Apgar score or mechanical ventilation in multivariate logistic regression analysis.ConclusionAbnormal CPR with abnormal PI of UmA increases the risk of cesarean delivery for non-reassuring fetal status, in severe SGA fetuses of late preterm and term. Monitoring of CPR and PI of UmA can help guide management including maternal hospitalization and fetal monitoring.

Background To evaluate pregnancy outcomes and the risk of adverse obstetrical outcomes of cesarean myomectomy (CM) compared with cesarean section (CS) only, and to investigate the trend of surgeons in choosing CM. Methods A retrospective cohort study was performed on all patients who underwent CS complicated by leiomyoma at two university hospitals between January 2010 and May 2020. All patients were categorized into the CM (341 women) or CS-only (438 women) group. We analyzed the demographic factors, obstetric factors, surgical outcomes, and possible risk factors for adverse outcomes between the two groups. Results Women who underwent CS only were significantly more likely to have a previous myomectomy and multiple leiomyoma history than women who underwent CM. The gestational age at delivery and pregnancy complications were significantly higher in the CS-only group. The mean size of the leiomyomas was larger in the CM group than in the CS-only group (5.8 ± 3.2 cm vs. 5.2 ± 3.1 cm, P = 0.005). The operation time and history of previous CS and preterm labor were higher in the CM group. The leiomyoma types differed between the two groups. The subserosal type was the most common in the CM group (48.7%), and the intramural type was the most common in the CS-only group. Patients in the CM group had fewer than three leiomyomas than those in the CS-only group. Preterm labor and abnormal presentation were relatively higher in the CM group than in the CS-only group, concerning leiomyoma presence. There were no significant differences in the preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin levels. The size of the leiomyoma (odds ratio [OR] = 1.162; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07–1.25; P < 0.001) and operation time > 60 min (OR = 2.461; 95% CI: 1.45–4.15) were significant independent predictors of adverse outcomes after CM. Conclusions CM should be considered a reliable and safe approach to prevent the need for another surgery for remnant leiomyoma. Herein, surgeons performed CM when uterine leiomyomas were large, of the subserosal type, or few. Standardized treatment guidelines for myomectomy during CSs in pregnant women with uterine fibroids should be established.