Abstract: Trial of Labor After Cesarean is an important strategy for reducing the overall rate of cesarean delivery. Offering the option of vaginal delivery to a woman with a history of cesarean section requires the ability to manage a potential uterine rupture quickly and effectively. This requires infrastructure and organization of the maternity unit so that the decision-to-delivery interval is as short as possible when uterine rupture is suspected. We hypothesize that the organizational characteristics of maternity units in Belgium have an impact on their proposal and success rates of trial of labour after cesarean section. Methods We collected data on the organizational characteristics of Belgian maternity units using an online questionnaire. Data on the frequency of cesarean section, trial of labor and vaginal birth after cesarean section were obtained from regional perinatal registries. We analyzed the determinants of the proposal and success of trial of labor after cesarean section and report the associations as mean proportions. Results Of the 101 maternity units contacted, 97 responded to the questionnaire and data from 95 was included in the analysis. Continuous on-site presence of a gynecologist and an anesthetist was associated with a higher proportion of trial of labor after cesarean section, compared to units where staff was on-call from home (51% versus 46%, p  = 0.04). There is a non-significant trend towards more trial of labor after cesarean section in units with an operating room in or near the delivery unit and a shorter transfer time, in larger units ( 〉  1500 deliveries/year) and in units with a neonatal intensive care unit. The proposal of trial of labor after cesarean section and its success was negatively correlated to the number of cesarean section in the maternity unit (Spearman’ rho = 0.50 and 0.42, p value  〈  0.001). Conclusions Organizational differences in maternity units appear to affect the proposal of trial of labor after cesarean section. Addressing these organizational factors may not be sufficient to change practice, given that general tendency to perform a cesarean section in the maternity unit is the main contributor to the percentage of trial of labor after cesarean.

Abstract: Stillbirth has been recognized as a possible complication of a SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, probably due to destructive placental lesions (SARS-CoV-2 placentitis). The aim of this work is to analyse stillbirth and late miscarriage cases in unvaccinated pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the first two waves (wild-type period) in Belgium. Methods Stillbirths and late miscarriages in our prospective observational nationwide registry of SARS-CoV-2 infected pregnant women ( n  = 982) were classified by three authors using a modified WHO-UMC classification system for standardized case causality assessment. Results Our cohort included 982 hospitalised pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2, with 23 fetal demises (10 late miscarriages from 12 to 22 weeks of gestational age and 13 stillbirths). The stillbirth rate was 9.5‰ for singleton pregnancies and 83.3‰ for multiple pregnancies, which seems higher than for the background population (respectively 5.6‰ and 13.8‰). The agreement between assessors about the causal relationship with SARS-Cov-2 infection was fair (global weighted kappa value of 0.66). Among these demises, 17.4% (4/23) were “certainly” attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection, 13.0% (3/23) “probably” and 30.4% (7/23) “possibly”. Better agreement in the rating was noticed when pathological examination of the placenta and identification of the virus were available, underlining the importance of a thorough investigation in case of intra-uterine fetal demise. Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 causality assessment of late miscarriage and stillbirth cases in our Belgian nationwide case series has shown that half of the fetal losses could be attributable to SARS-CoV-2. We must consider in future epidemic emergencies to rigorously investigate cases of intra-uterine fetal demise and to store placental tissue and other material for future analyses.

Abstract: Can the Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI) be estimated accurately before surgery? SUMMARY ANSWER The EFI can be estimated accurately based on mere clinical/ultrasound information, with some improvement after adding data from diagnostic laparoscopy. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The EFI is a validated clinical instrument predicting the probability of pregnancy after endometriosis surgery without the use of ART. Being an end-of-surgery-score, it implies the decision for operative laparoscopy to be made in advance—hence, its role in the pre-surgical decision-making process remains to be established. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Single-cohort prospective observational study in 82 patients undergoing complete endometriosis excision (between June and December 2016). Two methods were used to estimate the final EFI: type A based on non-surgical clinical/ultrasound findings only, and type B based on the combination of non-surgical clinical/ultrasound findings and diagnostic laparoscopy data. To calculate EFI type A, an algorithm was created to translate non-surgical clinical/imaging information into rASRM (revised American Society of Reproductive Medicine)—and EFI points. EFI type A and type B estimates were assessed for their clinical and numerical agreement with the final EFI score. Agreement was defined as clinical if EFI scores were within the same range (0–4, 5–6, 7–10), and numerical if their difference was ≤1. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS All 82 patients underwent complete laparoscopic CO2-laser excision of any rASRM stage of endometriosis in the Leuven University Fertility Centre (LUFC) of University Hospitals Leuven, a tertiary referral centre for both endometriosis and infertility. An anonymized clinical research file was created. For each patient, three different data sets were created, in order to allow the estimation of the (surgical part) EFI and of the rASRM scores, defined as follows: ‘Estimated type A’ contained only non-surgical clinical/imaging data, ‘Estimated type B’ included type A information plus the information of the diagnostic laparoscopy and ‘Final EFI’ included information of type A, type B and all intra-operative information required to calculate the final EFI. To calculate EFI type A without surgical information, a set of rules was used to translate pre-surgical clinical/imaging information into (rASRM and EFI points). Scoring was done by one person (C.T.), with a time interval of 4 weeks between sessions for each EFI type. Next to the EFI, also rASRM score and stage were calculated. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Agreement rate between estimated EFI type A and final EFI was high for both the clinical (0.915; 95% CI 0.832–0.965) and numerical definition (0.878; 95% CI 0.787–0.940). Agreement rates between estimated EFI type B and final EFI were even higher (clinical (0.988; 95% CI 0.934–1.000), numerical (0.963; 95% CI 0.897–0.992)). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Type A estimation is dependent on high-level gynaecological ultrasound expertise, which may not be available in all clinics. A small number of patients had no prior clinical, ultrasound (hard markers) or surgical confirmation of the diagnosis of endometriosis. When applying the estimated EFI type A in clinical practice, a priori assumptions of the presence or absence of endometriosis will need to be made in adjunct to the estimation of the estimated type A EFI when counselling patients on the potential benefit of an (at least diagnostic) laparoscopy. The level of agreement for type A or B should also be taken into account when counselling patients on the type of efforts undertaken to attempt to diagnose or rule out endometriosis. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS As this study reports, the EFI can be estimated accurately based on clinical/ultrasound data only without the need for any surgical data. This means that the EFI could be used as an instrument to guide joint physician–patient decision-making between surgery, ART or other fertility management options for the individualized treatment of women with endometriosis-related infertility. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) During this study period, C.T. was supported by FWO (Research Fund Flanders, Grant number 1700816N) and UZ Leuven KOF (University Hospitals Leuven, Klinisch Onderzoeksfonds). The LUFC received unrestricted research grants from Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck SA. Gedeon Richter and MSD sponsored travel to and attendance at scientific meetings. C.M. received consultancy fees from Lumenis (paid to KU Leuven, no private revenue). T.D. has been vice-president and head of global medical affairs infertility for the multinational pharmaceutical company Merck (Darmstadt, Germany) since 1 October 2015. He continues his academic appointment on a part-time basis as Professor of Reproductive Medicine at the University of Leuven (KU Leuven). T.D. has been vice-president and head of global medical affairs infertility for the multinational pharmaceutical company Merck (Darmstadt, Germany) since October 2015. He is also a Guest Professor in Reproductive Medicine and Biology at the Department of Development and Regeneration, Group Biomedical Sciences, KU Leuven (University of Leuven), Belgium, and an Adjunct Professor at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in the University of Yale, New Haven, USA. This work was initiated before he joined Merck KGaA in October 2015, and completed during the subsequent years. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER study registration number at UZ Leuven Clinical Trial Centre: S59221.