Management of Pregnancy, Delivery, and Postpartum in Italian Carriers and Women With Haemophilia A and B
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Managing pregnancy in carriers/women with haemophilia involves four key objectives: preconception and prenatal care, minimizing maternal bleeding, choosing the delivery mode to reduce foetal/neonatal bleeding, and postpartum care. The optimal factor VIII/IX level at delivery and the best delivery method to mitigate maternal and foetal complications are still debated. AIM: To share real-world clinical management in Italian haemophilia treatment centres. METHODS: In March-April 2023, members of the Italian Association of Hemophilia Centers "AICE" were invited to an online survey to collect information on the management of pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum in carriers/women with haemophilia. RESULTS: Thirty-three centres responded. Plasma FVIII/FIX levels are systematically evaluated in the third trimester, considering a threshold above 50 U/dL essential for safe delivery and neuraxial analgesia. Overall, the haematologic counselling on delivery mode generally aligns with obstetric indications in 73% of centres. In women who will give birth to a known affected male foetus, 55% rely on obstetric indication, while 24% suggest spontaneous delivery and 21% planned caesarean section. Excluding those which follow obstetric indication, natural delivery and planned caesarean section are recommended respectively by 40% and 60% when prenatal diagnosis is available or by 20% and 80% when not available. All centres agree to avoid instrumental delivery in affected male foetus or when prenatal diagnosis has not been made. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary pregnancy management is recommended. Delivery mode choice is primarily driven by ensuring the newborn's maximum protection. However, the use of caesarean section should also be weighted according to the mother's risk profile.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".