February, 2012

Flu Shots During Pregnancy May Be Beneficial To Babies

Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012

According to a new study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), vaccinating pregnant women against the influenza virus appears to have a significant positive effect on birth weight in babies.

The study, part of the Mother'sGift project on the safety and effectiveness of pneumococcal and influenza vaccines in pregnant women, examined 340 healthy pregnant mothers in the third trimester in Bangladesh. The participants were divided into two groups, with 170 women receiving the influenza vaccine and the remaining 170 receiving pneumococcal vaccine as a control.

Researchers then compared the weight of babies born in two periods, one in which there was circulation of an influenza virus and one with limited circulation.

According to the researchers, when influenza viruses were circulating, vaccination of pregnant women against flu was associated with healthier babies, with women vaccinated in the third trimester less likely to have babies who were small for gestational age than those who received a pneumococcal vaccine (25.9% to 44.8% ).

Also, babies born to mothers who received the flu vaccine had a higher average birth weight (3,178 versus 2,978 grams), as well as a lower rate of respiratory illness.

"We found that immunization against influenza during pregnancy had a substantial effect on mean birth weight and the proportion of infants who were small for gestational age," writes Dr. Mark Steinhoff of Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center and co-author of the study. "Our data suggest that the prevention of infection with seasonal influenza in pregnant women by vaccination can influence fetal growth."

The researchers urge additional studies to support their findings, suggesting that adding an influenza vaccine to routine vaccination programs during pregnancy could help children have a better start in life.

"If our data ... are confirmed, the existence of effective antenatal immunization delivery systems suggests influenza vaccine may be a feasible addition to routine antenatal immunization programs."

I guess you could call that a shot worth taking.

Of course, if you have questions, please do not hesitate to discuss this with your Women's HealthFirst physician.

[image via Medical News Today]

New Study Finds C-Section Delivery Not Always Best For Small Babies

Monday, February 13th, 2012

Contrary to coventional wisdom, Cesarean sections are no safer than vaginal delivery for infants who are born early or who are small for their age, according to a new study by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. In fact, C-sections might actually lead to a greater risk of respiratory problems and other complications in these infants, causing doctors to re-think how they look at the procedure.

“You shouldn’t assume there’s no downside to the baby with a C-section,” said Dr. Erika Werner, lead author of the study and assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

The results of the study are particularly important, as Cesarean deliveries become more and more common, with C-section rates rising 33 percent from 2000 to 2007, with women under the age of 25 experiencing the greatest increase at 57 percent.

The most recent data – from 2009 – show that 45.6 percent of premature babies were delivered by Cesarean section, as compared to 35.1 percent of those born at 37-38 weeks.

Part of the explanation for the especially high rate among preemies likely lies in the assumption that vaginal births is too traumatic – and dangerous - for fragile infants who are underweight and preterm, said Dr. Diane Ashton, deputy director of the March of Dimes.

But according to the study, babies born vaginally were no more likely to have developed subdural hemorrhages, seizures, or sepsis than those delivered by C-section. Instead, the researchers found that babies born by C-section were 30 percent more likely to develop respiratory distress syndrome, which may have long term fallout for the babies.

“The breathing problems can turn into asthma later in life,” Dr. Nancy Snyderman, NBC’s chief medical editor explained. “In the last few weeks of pregnancy, that’s when the lungs and the brain are developing. So developmental problems, cerebral palsy, learning disability – all those things become compounded if a baby is taken out prematurely.”

While C-section deliveries may be necessary in certain situations, like if the baby is in distress or the heart rate is dropping, vaginal delivery is preferable in cases where there is no imminent danger to the baby or the mom.

Dr. James Ducey, director of maternal-fetal medicine at Staten Island University Hospital, agrees.

"You shouldn't have a C-section unless there is a good reason," he says. "Being small, in and of itself, is not a reason to do a C-section. It is more risky for mom and there is no benefit for baby, so why should we do it?"

“When you start to look at 37 maybe 38 weeks, there’s an increased belief now that the longer a baby stays in the womb, up to 40 weeks, the better the outcome is for the baby,” Dr. Snyderman adds.

Synderman is quick to caution against the mistaken belief that Cesarean sections are an easier, less painful alternative to vaginal birth.

”They say ‘I don’t want the pain, please let me just do a C-section. You have to remember the ultimate outcome should be a healthy baby.”

Now that's something everyone can agree on.

[image via istockphoto]

Women's HealthFirst Congratulates Elizabeth Mlynarczyk, MD on Becoming Board Certified

Wednesday, February 8th, 2012

The physicians and staff at Women's HealthFirst would like to congratulate Elizabeth Mlynarczyk, MD for passing her oral boards and becoming a board certified Obstetrician-Gynecologist. Being Board Certified instills patient confidence and connotes state-of-the-art professional knowledge.  Dr. Mlynarczyk has practiced with Women’s HealthFirst for the past  2 1/2 years and has helped make it one of the most established and highly regarded Practices in the Northwest Suburban area.  Our know-how and expertise is why we feel that “Our Experience  Makes Your Experience Better.”

Women's HealthFirst Congratulates Dr. Eisenberg and Dr. Szela For Specialty Board Recertification

Wednesday, February 8th, 2012

Drs. Eisenberg and Szela have recertified with the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG) for the year 2011.  Being Board Certified instills patient confidence and connotes state-of-the-art professional knowledge.  Dr. Eisenberg's and Dr. Szela's tenures with Women's HealthFirst have  made it one of the most established and highly regarded Practices in the Northwest Suburban area.  Their know-how and expertise are why we feel that "Our Experience  Makes Your Experience Better."

Caffeine May Alter Women's Estrogen Levels, Study Says

Wednesday, February 8th, 2012

A new study of reporductive-age women by the National Institutes of Health reveals some surprising information when it comes to women and caffeine consumption.

Turns out that daily dose of caffeine may affect more than just your energy levels, depending on your race, that is.

While caffeine alters estrogen levels, it appears to have different effects in Asian and white women. In white women, for instance, coffee appears to lower estrogen, while in Asian women it has the reverse effect, raising levels of the hormone.

The study, which was published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, analyzed data on more than 250 women ages 18 to 44 who consumed about 90 milligrams of caffeine a day, equivalent to roughly one cup of coffee. According to the researchers, about 90 percent of women nationwide between the ages of 18 and 34 drink the caffeine equivalent of one to two cups of coffee every day.

After controlling for variables, like age and diet, the researchers found that among Asian women, those who had 200 milligrams or more of caffeine a day— the equivalent to approximately two cups of coffee — had higher estrogen levels compared to those who consumed less. A similar pattern was seen among black women, though it was not statistically significant. In white women, however, 200 milligrams or more of caffeine appeared to have a slight lowering effect on estrogen.

It is unclear why caffeine would impact races differently, but it is likely that genetics has some influence on caffeine metabolism. Also interesting is that the source of caffeine seemed to make a difference. When the researchers looked exclusively at caffeine from beverages other than coffee — like green tea and soda — it was linked to higher estrogen in all women, regardless of race, perhaps triggered by various levels of antioxidants and other compounds in the drinks, as well as additives like milk and sugar.

Despite these findings, experts say women of child-bearing age who enjoy a daily cup of coffee or tea have little reason for concern. The effects of caffeine on estrogen are so minimal that in healthy women, it has no impact on ovulation or overall health, at least in the short term.

“This is important physiologically because it helps us understand how caffeine is metabolized by different genetic groups,” said Dr. Enrique Schisterman, an author of the study and senior investigator at the National Institutes of Health. “But for women of reproductive age, drinking coffee will not alter their hormonal function in a clinically significant way.”

For now, looks like that early morning pick me up is safe. Now that's something to buzz about!

[image via Getty]