Dr. Chapa’s OBGYN Clinical Pearls

Podcast family, we pride ourselves on this show on being avant-garde and forward thinking on the topics we choose. For example, on February the 20th, 2026, we released an episode called “New Data: Screen Maternal Ferritin with Prenatal Care?” In that episode we reviewed a publication from the previous month (January 2026) that was released in Lancet Hematology. This study made the case for screening for early iron deficiency, even without anemia, with serum ferritin at the initiation of prenatal care. This was a multicenter, 2-arm, randomized controlled trial. Earlier identification of low serum ferritin prevented iron deficiency anemia in the third trimester. That's a win! Back then, we also stated how Australia has been leading the charge on this with the Australian HOW. That stands for Hematology in Obstetrics and Women's Health. This Australian consensus committee now recommends screening for iron deficiency, not just iron deficiency anemia, at the initiation of prenatal care, at 24 to 28 weeks, and then again at the third trimester when necessary. And now, as of August 2026, we have additional supportive data that including serum ferritin at the initial OB visit is evidence-based and best for the patient! In this episode we will review this brand-new, prospective cohort study published as a Research Letter in the AJOG August 2026.
1. Australian HOW: Iron optimisation in pregnancy: a Haematology in Obstetric and Women's Health Collaborative consensus statement; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/imj.16602
2. Konecke N, Jackson T, Angeles I. et al. The association between first trimester iron deficiency without anemia and the development of iron-deficiency anemia prior to childbirth. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2026; 235, e36-e38
3. ACOG Clinical Practice Update: An Update to Clinical Guidance for Delayed Umbilical Cord Clamping After Birth in Preterm Neonates. Obstet Gynecol. 2025 Jul 24;146(3):442-444.

If you’ve scrolled through your feeds recently, you’ve probably seen the video that’s causing a stir: a prominent infertility doctor sharing her “Hot Take” personal observations on social media, claiming that IUDs are a hidden cause of intrauterine adhesions- or severe uterine scar tissue. Now, Listen. It is completely natural to see a specialist standing in a white coat making a passionate claim and think, "Wow, should I be worried about my birth control?" But here is the reality we need to establish right out of the gate: a handful of individual cases shared online is the very definition of anecdotal evidence. It does not fulfill the criteria of rigorous scientific observation. When we pull back from the algorithm and look at the actual clinical data involving millions of IUD users worldwide, the science shows us something completely different. In fact, large-scale studies demonstrate that IUDs do not cause this scarring—and historically, certain models have actually been used to prevent the uterine walls from sticking together during post-surgical healing. So today, we are separating the scrolling panic from the actual science. We have REA data from the recent FACT (Fertility After Contraceptive Termination) study from 2021 (AJOG). We’re breaking down what the data really says, why the internet loves a medical scare, and the true, proven causes of intrauterine adhesions.
1. Abel MK, Wald K, Cedars MI, Noel M. Uterine Synechiae After Intrauterine Device Use: A Case Series. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. 2021.
2. Chung E, Wang F, Zhang J, Strug M, Aghajanova L, Lathi R. The impact of prior hormonal intrauterine device (IUD) use on endometrial lining thickness in the fertility clinic setting: a retrospective cohort study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2026 Jun 25. doi: 10.1007/s10815-026-03950-x. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 42347902.
3. Peipert JF, Zhao Q, Schreiber CA, Teal S, Turok DK, Natavio M, Cordon S, Daggy J. Intrauterine device use, sexually transmitted infections, and fertility: a prospective cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Aug;225(2):157.e1-157.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.03.011. Epub 2021 Mar 11. PMID: 33716075.

Antenatal corticosteroids are a MAJOR win in the management of preterm labor. An initial course of antenatal corticosteroids has been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes. For patients who remain undelivered after the initial course of antenatal corticosteroids, it is uncertain whether a booster course of antenatal corticosteroids reduces neonatal morbidity or increases the infection risk. The ACOG, in its current guidance, has concluded that the current evidence is insufficient to make a recommendation. Corticosteroids, especially at the doses given, are also powerful immunosuppressants. When you administer that first course, you accept a minor, calculated risk for a massive, proven benefit. But when you introduce a second course of steroids into a uterine environment that has already been ruptured and exposed to vaginal flora for weeks, you are pouring fuel on the fire. PLUS, the environment for the fetus with prolonged preterm prelabor rupture of membranes is unique. PPPROM, the chronic exposure to ruptured membranes and the resultant oligohydramnios is theorized to trigger a kind of stress response in the fetus- so the baby may make their own endogenous corticosteroid flare. So, rescue steroids after an initial course of steroids in PPROM cases has remained controversial but we have updated data that has provided new insights. In this episode, we will highlight an RCT from 2023 and a more recent systematic review and meta-analysis from May 2026 on this very subject. Listen in for details.
1. Garite TJ, Kurtzman J, Maurel K, Clark R; Obstetrix Collaborative Research Network. Impact of a 'rescue course' of antenatal corticosteroids: a multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Mar;200(3):248.e1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.01.021. Erratum in: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Oct;201(4):428. PMID: 19254583.
2. Tenbrink E, Quain A, Rone V, Harris K, Hadley E, Haas D, Shanks A. Risk of Neonatal Sepsis With Rescue Steroids in Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes. Cureus. 2023 Apr 6;15(4):e37207. doi: 10.7759/cureus.37207. PMID: 37159785; PMCID: PMC10163895.
3. Melamed N, Murphy KE, Pylypjuk C, et al. Timingof Antenatal Corticosteroid Administration and Neonatal Outcomes. JAMA Netw Open. 2025;8(5):e2511315.
4. Porreco R, Garite TJ, Combs CA, Maurel K, Huls CK, Baker S, Fortner KB, Longo SA, Nageotte M, Lewis D, Tran L; Obstetrix Collaborative Research Network. Booster course of antenatal corticosteroids after preterm prelabor rupture of membranes: a double-blind randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2023 May;5(5):100896. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.100896. Epub 2023 Feb 14. PMID: 36796641.
5. Da Costa Y, Ramanathan V, Oliveira JA, Brito J, Yousif A. Repeat versus Single Course of Antenatal Corticosteroid in Management of Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Am J Perinatol. 2026 May;43(7):925-932. doi: 10.1055/a-2708-5314. Epub 2025 Oct 9. PMID: 41067234

The Bakri Postpartum Balloon was described and first used clinically in 1999 by Dr. Younes N. Bakri (Georgia, USA). It is intended to treat postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). In the United States, it received its first major FDA clearance (via 510(k) for commercial marketing) on April 17, 2002. Manufacturer guidelines for the Bakri (Cook Medical) state that the balloon may be left indwelling for a maximum of 24 hours, but the determination of removal time is left to the clinician once “bleeding is controlled and the patient is stable.” However, the optimal duration of intrauterine balloon tamponade placement remains unclear. One retrospective cohort study from AJOG (Einerson et al) of 274 women found no significant difference in PPH outcomes when intrauterine balloon tamponade was left in place for 2–12 hours, compared with more than 12 hours. However, only 30 women had the intrauterine balloon tamponade placement for 10 hours or less. And remember, this was not a prospective trial looking at a minimum of 2 hours, 2 hours was just the lower margin of the “short duration” group. Now, a new RCT (with authors from Denver and Vermont) published in the July 2026 Green Journal provides new data. In this first of its kind pragmatic, randomized trial of noninferiority, a 6-hour duration of intrauterine balloon tamponade usage for postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) control was compared with an 18-hour duration. Listen in for details.

1. Durfee, J., Adkins, K., Heyborne, K., Larrea, N., & Schultz, C. (2026). Intrauterine Balloon Tamponade Duration for Postpartum Hemorrhage: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 148(1), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000006295
2. Garabedian C, Prats C, Seco A, Deneux-Tharaux C, Rozenberg P, Berveiller P. Duration of Intrauterine Balloon Tamponade in Post-Partum Haemorrhage Management After Vaginal Delivery: A Secondary Cohort Analysis From the French TUB Trial. BJOG. 2026 Jan;133(1):123-131. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.18345. Epub 2025 Sep 1. PMID: 40888007; PMCID: PMC12676195.
3. Einerson BD, Son M, Schneider P, Fields I, Miller ES. The association between intrauterine balloon tamponade duration and postpartum hemorrhage outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216:300.e1–5.

Gonadal hormones have a complicated influence on appetite. Estradiol generally suppresses appetite, whereas progesterone opposes estradiol's action such that their combined presence represents a high-risk hormonal milieu for Binge Eating (BE). Testosterone is thought to be associated with increased BE in females but appears protective in males. In some reports, combination oral contraceptive (COC) use has been linked to greater BE-related appetitive processes (e.g., food intake). Now, we have 2 recent, back-to-back publications (June 2026 in JAMA Network Open, and July 2026 in Appetite) that have examined the relationship of hormonal contraception on binge eating behavior. These found seemingly opposing conclusions. Listen in for details.
1. Klump KL, Di Dio AM, Anaya C, et al. Combined Oral Contraceptive Use and Binge Eating. JAMA Netw Open. 2026;9(6):e2619047. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.19047
2. Katz JM, Yan R, Beltz AM, Gearhardt AN. Associations between reproductive hormonal milieus and binge eating: The roles of sex and hormonal contraceptive use. Appetite. 2026 Jul 1;222:108547. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2026.108547. Epub 2026 Mar 20. PMID: 41866083.
3. Bass L, Prostináková T, Silang KG, Griffiths-Gray A, McQuilliam S, Mahon E, Whitehead A, Johnson KO. Does it hold weight? The perceived effects of contraceptive use on weight status in females: A mixed-methods study. PLoS One. 2025 Dec 29;20(12):e0339323. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0339323. PMID: 41460817; PMCID: PMC12747328.