Clinical Obstetrics
Poster Session 1
Zoe O. Silsby, BS (she/her/hers)
Medical Student
Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine
Cleveland, OH, United States
Stephen Rhodes, PhD
University Hospitals
Cleveland, OH, United States
David C. Kaelber, MD, MPH, PhD
Center for Clinical Informatics Research and Education, The MetroHealth System
Cleveland, OH, United States
David Sheyn, MD
University Hospitals
Cleveland, OH, United States
Justin R. Lappen, MD
Division Director - Maternal Fetal Medicine
Associate Professor - Obstetrics/Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
Cleveland, OH, United States
Published literature has established an increased risk of some adverse pregnancy outcomes in patients with congenital uterine anomalies (CUA); however, prior studies are limited by small sample sizes. Our aim was to better characterize the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes among patients with CUA.
Study Design:
We performed a retrospective cohort study of female patients aged 10-55 with a documented pregnancy outcome in the TriNetX Analytics Research Network. Congenital uterine anomalies were identified using ICD-10 codes Q51.x and O34.0. Patients with multiple conflicting diagnosis codes were excluded from analysis. We assessed the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in patients with and without an encounter diagnosis of CUA. Outcomes of interest included pregnancy outcome (i.e. abortion, ectopic pregnancy, live birth, stillbirth) and Severe Maternal Morbidity (SMM), using ICD-10 indicator codes selected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests were used to analyze differences between groups.
Results: 2,217,222 patients met inclusion criteria, 16,413 of whom had a one or more encounter diagnoses codes for CUA. Baseline differences between groups are shown in Table 1. Compared to patients with no encounter diagnoses for CUA, patients with CUA had higher rates of spontaneous abortion (14% vs 6.8%, p< 0.001) and stillbirth (1.2% vs 0.45%, p< 0.001). SMM was also increased in patients with CUA. Specifically, these patients had statistically significantly higher rates of blood products transfusion (1% vs 0.79%) hysterectomy (0.21% vs 0.10%), and DIC (0.46% vs 0.26%, all p< 0.001) within 30 days of delivery.
Conclusion: Patients with CUA are at higher risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to patients with normal uterine anatomy, including for SMM and severe hemorrhage. Patients with CUA should be counseled about these pregnancy-associated risks, and CUA should be incorporated into risk-stratification and prevention strategies.