-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2019Multiple-micronutrient (MMN) deficiencies often coexist among women of reproductive age in low- and middle-income countries. They are exacerbated in pregnancy due to the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Multiple-micronutrient (MMN) deficiencies often coexist among women of reproductive age in low- and middle-income countries. They are exacerbated in pregnancy due to the increased demands of the developing fetus, leading to potentially adverse effects on the mother and baby. A consensus is yet to be reached regarding the replacement of iron and folic acid supplementation with MMNs. Since the last update of this Cochrane Review in 2017, evidence from several trials has become available. The findings of this review will be critical to inform policy on micronutrient supplementation in pregnancy.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits of oral multiple-micronutrient supplementation during pregnancy on maternal, fetal and infant health outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
For this 2018 update, on 23 February 2018 we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies. We also contacted experts in the field for additional and ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All prospective randomised controlled trials evaluating MMN supplementation with iron and folic acid during pregnancy and its effects on pregnancy outcomes were eligible, irrespective of language or the publication status of the trials. We included cluster-randomised trials, but excluded quasi-randomised trials. Trial reports that were published as abstracts were eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 21 trials (involving 142,496 women) as eligible for inclusion in this review, but only 20 trials (involving 141,849 women) contributed data. Of these 20 trials, 19 were conducted in low- and middle-income countries and compared MMN supplements with iron and folic acid to iron, with or without folic acid. One trial conducted in the UK compared MMN supplementation with placebo. In total, eight trials were cluster-randomised.MMN with iron and folic acid versus iron, with or without folic acid (19 trials)MMN supplementation probably led to a slight reduction in preterm births (average risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.01; 18 trials, 91,425 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and babies considered small-for-gestational age (SGA) (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97; 17 trials; 57,348 participants; moderate-quality evidence), though the CI for the pooled effect for preterm births just crossed the line of no effect. MMN reduced the number of newborn infants identified as low birthweight (LBW) (average RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.91; 18 trials, 68,801 participants; high-quality evidence). We did not observe any differences between groups for perinatal mortality (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.11; 15 trials, 63,922 participants; high-quality evidence). MMN supplementation led to slightly fewer stillbirths (average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.04; 17 trials, 97,927 participants; high-quality evidence) but, again, the CI for the pooled effect just crossed the line of no effect. MMN supplementation did not have an important effect on neonatal mortality (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.12; 14 trials, 80,964 participants; high-quality evidence). We observed little or no difference between groups for the other maternal and pregnancy outcomes: maternal anaemia in the third trimester (average RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.15; 9 trials, 5912 participants), maternal mortality (average RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.54; 6 trials, 106,275 participants), miscarriage (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.04; 12 trials, 100,565 participants), delivery via a caesarean section (average RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.29; 5 trials, 12,836 participants), and congenital anomalies (average RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.25 to 7.12; 2 trials, 1958 participants). However, MMN supplementation probably led to a reduction in very preterm births (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.93; 4 trials, 37,701 participants). We were unable to assess a number of prespecified, clinically important outcomes due to insufficient or non-available data.When we assessed primary outcomes according to GRADE criteria, the quality of evidence for the review overall was moderate to high. We graded the following outcomes as high quality: LBW, perinatal mortality, stillbirth, and neonatal mortality. The outcomes of preterm birth and SGA we graded as moderate quality; both were downgraded for funnel plot asymmetry, indicating possible publication bias.We carried out sensitivity analyses excluding trials with high levels of sample attrition (> 20%). We found that results were consistent with the main analyses for all outcomes. We explored heterogeneity through subgroup analyses by maternal height, maternal body mass index (BMI), timing of supplementation, dose of iron, and MMN supplement formulation (UNIMMAP versus non-UNIMMAP). There was a greater reduction in preterm births for women with low BMI and among those who took non-UNIMMAP supplements. We also observed subgroup differences for maternal BMI and maternal height for SGA, indicating greater impact among women with greater BMI and height. Though we found that MMN supplementation made little or no difference to perinatal mortality, the analysis demonstrated substantial statistical heterogeneity. We explored this heterogeneity using subgroup analysis and found differences for timing of supplementation, whereby higher impact was observed with later initiation of supplementation. For all other subgroup analyses, the findings were inconclusive.MMN versus placebo (1 trial)A single trial in the UK found little or no important effect of MMN supplementation on preterm births, SGA, or LBW but did find a reduction in maternal anaemia in the third trimester (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.85), when compared to placebo. This trial did not measure our other outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest a positive impact of MMN supplementation with iron and folic acid on several birth outcomes. MMN supplementation in pregnancy led to a reduction in babies considered LBW, and probably led to a reduction in babies considered SGA. In addition, MMN probably reduced preterm births. No important benefits or harms of MMN supplementation were found for mortality outcomes (stillbirths, perinatal and neonatal mortality). These findings may provide some basis to guide the replacement of iron and folic acid supplements with MMN supplements for pregnant women residing in low- and middle-income countries.
Topics: Dietary Supplements; Drug Interactions; Female; Folic Acid; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Small for Gestational Age; Iron, Dietary; Micronutrients; Perinatal Mortality; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30873598
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004905.pub6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2023Observational studies of increasingly better quality and in different settings suggest that planned hospital birth in many places does not reduce mortality and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Observational studies of increasingly better quality and in different settings suggest that planned hospital birth in many places does not reduce mortality and morbidity but increases the frequency of interventions and complications. Euro-Peristat (part of the European Union's Health Monitoring Programme) has raised concerns about iatrogenic effects of obstetric interventions, and the World Health Organization (WHO) has raised concern that the increasing medicalisation of childbirth tends to undermine women's own capability to give birth and negatively impacts their childbirth experience. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1998, and previously updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of planned hospital birth with planned home birth attended by a midwife or others with midwifery skills and backed up by a modern hospital system in case a transfer to hospital should turn out to be necessary. The primary focus is on women with an uncomplicated pregnancy and low risk of medical intervention during birth. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (which includes trials from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, WHO ICTRP, and conference proceedings), ClinicalTrials.gov (16 July 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing planned hospital birth with planned home birth in low-risk women as described in the objectives. Cluster-randomised trials, quasi-randomised trials, and trials published only as an abstract were also eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data, and checked the data for accuracy. We contacted study authors for additional information. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included one trial involving 11 participants. This was a small feasibility study to show that well-informed women - contrary to common beliefs - were prepared to be randomised. This update did not identify any additional studies for inclusion, but excluded one study that had been awaiting assessment. The included study was at high risk of bias for three out of seven risk of bias domains. The trial did not report on five of the seven primary outcomes, and reported zero events for one primary outcome (caesarean section), and non-zero events for the remaining primary outcome (baby not breastfed). Maternal mortality, perinatal mortality (non-malformed), Apgar < 7 at 5 minutes, transfer to neonatal intensive care unit, and maternal satisfaction were not reported. The overall certainty of the evidence for the two reported primary outcomes was very low according to our GRADE assessment (downgraded two levels for high overall risk of bias (due to high risk of bias arising from lack of blinding, high risk of selective reporting and lack of ability to check for publication bias) and two levels for very serious imprecision (single study with few events)). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that for selected, low-risk pregnant women, the evidence from randomised trials to support that planned hospital birth reduces maternal or perinatal mortality, morbidity, or any other critical outcome is uncertain. As the quality of evidence in favour of home birth from observational studies seems to be steadily increasing, it might be just as important to prepare a regularly updated systematic review including observational studies as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions as to attempt to set up new RCTs. As women and healthcare practitioners may be aware of evidence from observational studies, and as the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics and the International Confederation of Midwives collaboratively conclude that there is strong evidence that out-of-hospital birth supported by a registered midwife is safe, equipoise may no longer exist, and randomised trials may now thus be considered unethical or hardly feasible.
Topics: Pregnancy; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Pregnant Women; Home Childbirth; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Parturition; Perinatal Death; Hospitals
PubMed: 36884026
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000352.pub3 -
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology :... Dec 2023Pregnant women are one of the endangered groups who need special attention in the COVID-19 epidemic. We conducted a systematic review and summarised the studies that... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Pregnant women are one of the endangered groups who need special attention in the COVID-19 epidemic. We conducted a systematic review and summarised the studies that reported adverse pregnancy outcomes in pregnant women with COVID-19 infection. A literature search was performed in PubMed and Scopus up to 1 September 2022, for retrieving original articles published in the English language assessing the association between COVID-19 infection and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Finally, in this review study, of 1790 articles obtained in the initial search, 141 eligible studies including 1,843,278 pregnant women were reviewed. We also performed a meta-analysis of a total of 74 cohort and case-control studies. In this meta-analysis, both fixed and random effect models were used. Publication bias was also assessed by Egger's test and the trim and fill method was conducted in case of a significant result, to adjust the bias. The result of the meta-analysis showed that the pooled prevalence of preterm delivery, maternal mortality, NICU admission and neonatal death in the group with COVID-19 infection was significantly more than those without COVID-19 infection (<.01). A meta-regression was conducted using the income level of countries. COVID-19 infection during pregnancy may cause adverse pregnancy outcomes including of preterm delivery, maternal mortality, NICU admission and neonatal death. Pregnancy loss and SARS-CoV2 positive neonates in Lower middle income are higher than in High income. Vertical transmission from mother to foetus may occur, but its immediate and long-term effects on the newborn are unclear.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; COVID-19; Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical; Perinatal Death; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth; SARS-CoV-2; Maternal Mortality; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; Patient Admission
PubMed: 36651606
DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2022.2162867 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021Infants born at term by elective caesarean section are more likely to develop respiratory morbidity than infants born vaginally. Prophylactic corticosteroids in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Infants born at term by elective caesarean section are more likely to develop respiratory morbidity than infants born vaginally. Prophylactic corticosteroids in singleton preterm pregnancies accelerate lung maturation and reduce the incidence of respiratory complications. It is unclear whether administration at term gestations, prior to caesarean section, improves the respiratory outcomes for these babies without causing any unnecessary morbidity to the mother or the infant.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the effect of prophylactic corticosteroid administration before elective caesarean section at term, as compared to usual care (which could be placebo or no treatment), on fetal, neonatal and maternal morbidity. We also assessed the impact of the treatment on the child in later life.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov (20 January 2021) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing prophylactic antenatal corticosteroid administration (betamethasone or dexamethasone) with placebo or with no treatment, given before elective caesarean section at term (at or after 37 weeks of gestation). Quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised controlled trials were also eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth methods for data collection and analysis. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, evaluated trustworthiness (based on predefined criteria developed by Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth), extracted data and checked them for accuracy and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our primary outcomes were respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), transient tachypnoea of the neonate (TTN), admission to neonatal special care for respiratory morbidity and need for mechanical ventilation. We planned to perform subgroup analyses for the primary outcomes according to gestational age at randomisation and type of corticosteroid (betamethasone or dexamethasone). We also planned to perform sensitivity analysis, including only studies at low risk of bias.
MAIN RESULTS
We included one trial in which participants were randomised to receive either betamethasone or usual care. The trial included 942 women and 942 neonates recruited from 10 UK hospitals between 1995 and 2002. This review includes only trials that met predefined criteria for trustworthiness. We removed three trials from the analysis that were included in the previous version of this review. The risk of bias was low for random sequence generation, allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data. The risk of bias for selective outcome reporting was unclear because there was no published trial protocol, and therefore it is unclear whether all the planned outcomes were reported in full. Due to a lack of blinding we judged there to be high risk of performance bias and detection bias. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of concerns about risk of bias and because of imprecision due to low event rates and wide 95% confidence intervals (CIs), which are consistent with possible benefit and possible harm Compared with usual care, it is uncertain if antenatal corticosteroids reduce the risk of RDS (relative risk (RR) 0.34 95% CI 0.07 to 1.65; 1 study; 942 infants) or TTN (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.11; 1 study; 938 infants) because the certainty of evidence is low and the 95% CIs are consistent with possible benefit and possible harm. Antenatal corticosteroids probably reduce the risk of admission to neonatal special care for respiratory complications, compared with usual care (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.90; 1 study; 942 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). The proportion of infants admitted to neonatal special care for respiratory morbidity after treatment with antenatal corticosteroids was 2.3% compared with 5.1% in the usual care group. It is uncertain if antenatal steroids have any effect on the risk of needing mechanical ventilation, compared with usual care (RR 4.07, 95% CI 0.46 to 36.27; 1 study; 942 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The effect of antenatal corticosteroids on the maternal development of postpartum infection/pyrexia in the first 72 hours is unclear due to the very low certainty of the evidence; one study (942 women) reported zero cases. The included studies did not report any data for neonatal hypoglycaemia or maternal mortality/severe mortality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence from one randomised controlled trial suggests that prophylactic corticosteroids before elective caesarean section at term probably reduces admission to the neonatal intensive care unit for respiratory morbidity. It is uncertain if administration of antenatal corticosteroids reduces the rates of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) or transient tachypnoea of the neonate (TTN). The overall certainty of the evidence for the primary outcomes was found to be low or very low, apart from the outcome of admission to neonatal special care (all levels) for respiratory morbidity, for which the evidence was of moderate certainty. Therefore, there is currently insufficient data to draw any firm conclusions. More evidence is needed to investigate the effect of prophylactic antenatal corticosteroids on the incidence of recognised respiratory morbidity such as RDS. Any future trials should assess the balance between respiratory benefit and potential immediate adverse effects (e.g. hypoglycaemia) and long-term adverse effects (e.g. academic performance) for the infant. There is very limited information on maternal health outcomes to provide any assurances that corticosteroids do not pose any increased risk of harm to the mother. Further research should consider investigating the effectiveness of antenatal steroids at different gestational ages prior to caesarean section. There are nine potentially eligible studies that are currently ongoing and could be included in future updates of this review.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Betamethasone; Cesarean Section; Child; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn
PubMed: 34935127
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006614.pub4 -
Timing of maternal mortality and severe morbidity during the postpartum period: a systematic review.JBI Evidence Synthesis Sep 2022The objective of this review was to determine the timing of overall and cause-specific maternal mortality and severe morbidity during the postpartum period.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this review was to determine the timing of overall and cause-specific maternal mortality and severe morbidity during the postpartum period.
INTRODUCTION
Many women continue to die or experience adverse health outcomes in the postpartum period; however, limited work has explored the timing of when women die or present complications during this period globally.
INCLUSION CRITERIA
This review considered studies that reported on women after birth up to 6 weeks postpartum and included data on mortality and/or morbidity on the first day, days 2-7, and days 8-42. Studies that reported solely on high-risk women (eg, those with antenatal or intrapartum complications) were excluded, but mixed population samples were included (eg, low-risk and high-risk women).
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched for published studies on December 20, 2019, and searches were updated on May 11, 2021. Critical appraisal was undertaken by 2 independent reviewers using standardized critical appraisal instruments from JBI. Quantitative data were extracted from included studies independently by at least 2 reviewers using a study-specific data extraction form. Quantitative data were pooled, where possible. Identified studies were used to obtain the summary estimate (proportion) for each time point. Maternal mortality was calculated as the maternal deaths during a given period over the total number of maternal deaths known during the postpartum period. For cause-specific analysis, number of deaths due to a specific cause was the numerator, while the total number of women who died due to the same cause in that period was the denominator. Random effects models were run to pool incidence proportion for relative risk of overall maternal deaths. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to country income classification and by date (ie, data collection before or after 2010). Where statistical pooling was not possible, the findings were reported narratively.
RESULTS
A total of 32 studies reported on maternal outcomes from 17 reports, all reporting on mixed populations. Most maternal deaths occurred on the first day (48.9%), with 24.5% of deaths occurring between days 2 and 7, and 24.9% occurring between days 8 and 42. Maternal mortality due to postpartum hemorrhage and embolism occurred predominantly on the first day (79.1% and 58.2%, respectively). Most deaths due to postpartum eclampsia and hypertensive disorders occurred within the first week (44.3% on day 1 and 37.1% on days 2-7). Most deaths due to infection occurred between days 8 and 42 (61.3%). Due to heterogeneity, maternal morbidity data are described narratively, with morbidity predominantly occurring within the first 2 weeks. The mean critical appraisal score across all included studies was 85.9% (standard deviation = 13.6%).
CONCLUSION
Women experience mortality throughout the entire postpartum period, with the highest mortality rate on the first day. Access to high-quality care during the postpartum period, including enhanced frequency and quality of postpartum assessments during the first 42 days after birth, is essential to improving maternal outcomes and to continue reducing maternal mortality and morbidity worldwide.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER
PROSPERO CRD42020187341.
Topics: Female; Humans; Maternal Death; Maternal Mortality; Morbidity; Parturition; Postpartum Period; Pregnancy
PubMed: 35916004
DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00578 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2019Active management of the third stage of labour involves giving a prophylactic uterotonic, early cord clamping and controlled cord traction to deliver the placenta. With... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Active management of the third stage of labour involves giving a prophylactic uterotonic, early cord clamping and controlled cord traction to deliver the placenta. With expectant management, signs of placental separation are awaited and the placenta is delivered spontaneously. Active management was introduced to try to reduce haemorrhage, a major contributor to maternal mortality in low-income countries. This is an update of a review last published in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of active versus expectant management of the third stage of labour on severe primary postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) and other maternal and infant outcomes.To compare the effects of variations in the packages of active and expectant management of the third stage of labour on severe primary PPH and other maternal and infant outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), on 22 January 2018, and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing active versus expectant management of the third stage of labour. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion, but none were identified.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, carried out data extraction and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight studies, involving analysis of data from 8892 women. The studies were all undertaken in hospitals, seven in higher-income countries and one in a lower-income country. Four studies compared active versus expectant management, and four compared active versus a mixture of managements. We used a random-effects model in the analyses because of clinical heterogeneity. Of the eight studies included, we considered three studies as having low risk of bias in the main aspects of sequence generation, allocation concealment and completeness of data collection. There was an absence of high-quality evidence according to GRADE assessments for our primary outcomes, which is reflected in the cautious language below.The evidence suggested that, for women at mixed levels of risk of bleeding, it is uncertain whether active management reduces the average risk of maternal severe primary PPH (more than 1000 mL) at time of birth (average risk ratio (RR) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.87, 3 studies, 4636 women, I = 60%; GRADE: very low quality). For incidence of maternal haemoglobin (Hb) less than 9 g/dL following birth, active management of the third stage may reduce the number of women with anaemia after birth (average RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.83, 2 studies, 1572 women; GRADE: low quality). We also found that active management of the third stage may make little or no difference to the number of babies admitted to neonatal units (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.11, 2 studies, 3207 infants; GRADE: low quality). It is uncertain whether active management of the third stage reduces the number of babies with jaundice requiring treatment (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.68, 2 studies, 3142 infants, I = 66%; GRADE: very low quality). There were no data on our other primary outcomes of very severe PPH at the time of birth (more than 2500 mL), maternal mortality, or neonatal polycythaemia needing treatment.Active management reduces mean maternal blood loss at birth and probably reduces the rate of primary blood loss greater than 500 mL, and the use of therapeutic uterotonics. Active management also probably reduces the mean birthweight of the baby, reflecting the lower blood volume from interference with placental transfusion. In addition, it may reduce the need for maternal blood transfusion. However, active management may increase maternal diastolic blood pressure, vomiting after birth, afterpains, use of analgesia from birth up to discharge from the labour ward, and more women returning to hospital with bleeding (outcome not pre-specified).In the comparison of women at low risk of excessive bleeding, there were similar findings, except it was uncertain whether there was a difference identified between groups for severe primary PPH (average RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.17; 2 studies, 2941 women, I = 71%), maternal Hb less than 9 g/dL at 24 to 72 hours (average RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.47; 1 study, 193 women) or the need for neonatal admission (average RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.88; 1 study, 1512 women). In this group, active management may make little difference to the rate of neonatal jaundice requiring phototherapy (average RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.18; 1 study, 1447 women).Hypertension and interference with placental transfusion might be avoided by using modifications to the active management package, for example, omitting ergot and deferring cord clamping, but we have no direct evidence of this here.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although the data appeared to show that active management reduced the risk of severe primary PPH greater than 1000 mL at the time of birth, we are uncertain of this finding because of the very low-quality evidence. Active management may reduce the incidence of maternal anaemia (Hb less than 9 g/dL) following birth, but harms such as postnatal hypertension, pain and return to hospital due to bleeding were identified.In women at low risk of excessive bleeding, it is uncertain whether there was a difference between active and expectant management for severe PPH or maternal Hb less than 9 g/dL (at 24 to 72 hours). Women could be given information on the benefits and harms of both methods to support informed choice. Given the concerns about early cord clamping and the potential adverse effects of some uterotonics, it is critical now to look at the individual components of third-stage management. Data are also required from low-income countries.It must be emphasised that this review includes only a small number of studies with relatively small numbers of participants, and the quality of evidence for primary outcomes is low or very low.
Topics: Birth Weight; Constriction; Delivery, Obstetric; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Jaundice, Neonatal; Labor Stage, Third; Oxytocics; Placenta; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 30754073
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007412.pub5 -
Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal =... May 2023Maternal mortality is an indication of the health status of women in the society. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Maternal mortality is an indication of the health status of women in the society.
AIMS
To investigate the maternal mortality ratio, causes of maternal mortality, and related risk factors among Iranian women.
METHODS
Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist and the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) guideline, we systematically searched electronic databases, and the grey literature, for publications in Farsi and English from 1970 to January 2022 for studies that reported the number of maternal deaths and/or maternal mortality ratio and their related factors. Data analysis was conducted using Stata 16 and 2-sided P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant, if not otherwise specified.
RESULTS
A subgroup meta-analysis of studies conducted since 2000 estimated the maternal mortality ratio as 45.03 per 100 000 births during 2000-2004, 36.05 during 2005-2009, and 23.71 after 2010. The most frequent risk factors for maternal mortality were caesarean section, poor antenatal and delivery care, unskilled birth attendance, age, low maternal education level, lower human development index, and residence in rural or remote areas.
CONCLUSION
There has been a significant decrease in maternal mortality in the Islamic Republic of Iran during the last few decades. Mothers in the country need to be monitored more carefully by trained healthcare workers during the pregnancy, delivery and postpartum periods so they can effectively handle postpartum complications, such as haemorrhage and infection, thereby further reducing maternal mortality.
Topics: Pregnancy; Humans; Female; Maternal Mortality; Iran; Cesarean Section; Checklist; Databases, Factual
PubMed: 37306175
DOI: 10.26719/emhj.23.063 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), defined as a blood loss of 500 mL or more after birth, is the leading cause of maternal death worldwide. The World Health Organization... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), defined as a blood loss of 500 mL or more after birth, is the leading cause of maternal death worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that all women giving birth should receive a prophylactic uterotonic agent. Despite the routine administration of a uterotonic agent for prevention, PPH remains a common complication causing one-quarter of all maternal deaths globally. When prevention fails and PPH occurs, further administration of uterotonic agents as 'first-line' treatment is recommended. However, there is uncertainty about which uterotonic agent is best for the 'first-line' treatment of PPH.
OBJECTIVES
To identify the most effective uterotonic agent(s) with the least side-effects for PPH treatment, and generate a meaningful ranking among all available agents according to their relative effectiveness and side-effect profile.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (5 May 2020), and the reference lists of all retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised trials comparing the effectiveness and safety of uterotonic agents with other uterotonic agents for the treatment of PPH were eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed all trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed each trial for risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were additional blood loss of 500 mL or more after recruitment to the trial until cessation of active bleeding and the composite outcome of maternal death or severe morbidity. Secondary outcomes included blood loss-related outcomes, morbidity outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes. We performed pairwise meta-analyses and indirect comparisons, where possible, but due to the limited number of included studies, we were unable to conduct the planned network meta-analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Seven trials, involving 3738 women in 10 countries, were included in this review. All trials were conducted in hospital settings. Randomised women gave birth vaginally, except in one small trial, where women gave birth either vaginally or by caesarean section. Across the seven trials (14 trial arms) the following agents were used: six trial arms used oxytocin alone; four trial arms used misoprostol plus oxytocin; three trial arms used misoprostol; one trial arm used Syntometrine® (oxytocin and ergometrine fixed-dose combination) plus oxytocin infusion. Pairwise meta-analysis of two trials (1787 participants), suggests that misoprostol, as first-line treatment uterotonic agent, probably increases the risk of blood transfusion (risk ratio (RR) 1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 2.14, moderate-certainty) compared with oxytocin. Low-certainty evidence suggests that misoprostol administration may increase the incidence of additional blood loss of 1000 mL or more (RR 2.57, 95% CI 1.00 to 6.64). The data comparing misoprostol with oxytocin is imprecise, with a wide range of treatment effects for the additional blood loss of 500 mL or more (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.69 to 4.02, low-certainty), maternal death or severe morbidity (RR 1.98, 95% CI 0.36 to 10.72, low-certainty, based on one study n = 809 participants, as the second study had zero events), and the use of additional uterotonics (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.94, low-certainty). The risk of side-effects may be increased with the use of misoprostol compared with oxytocin: vomiting (2 trials, 1787 participants, RR 2.47, 95% CI 1.37 to 4.47, high-certainty) and fever (2 trials, 1787 participants, RR 3.43, 95% CI 0.65 to 18.18, low-certainty). According to pairwise meta-analysis of four trials (1881 participants) generating high-certainty evidence, misoprostol plus oxytocin makes little or no difference to the use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.05) and to blood transfusion (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.17) compared with oxytocin. We cannot rule out an important benefit of using the misoprostol plus oxytocin combination over oxytocin alone, for additional blood loss of 500 mL or more (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.06, moderate-certainty). We also cannot rule out important benefits or harms for additional blood loss of 1000 mL or more (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.34, moderate-certainty, 3 trials, 1814 participants, one study reported zero events), and maternal mortality or severe morbidity (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.39, moderate-certainty). Misoprostol plus oxytocin increases the incidence of fever (4 trials, 1866 participants, RR 3.07, 95% CI 2.62 to 3.61, high-certainty), and vomiting (2 trials, 1482 participants, RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.95, high-certainty) compared with oxytocin alone. For all outcomes of interest, the available evidence on the misoprostol versus Syntometrine® plus oxytocin combination was of very low-certainty and these effects remain unclear. Although network meta-analysis was not performed, we were able to compare the misoprostol plus oxytocin combination with misoprostol alone through the common comparator of oxytocin. This indirect comparison suggests that the misoprostol plus oxytocin combination probably reduces the risk of blood transfusion (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.99, moderate-certainty) and may reduce the risk of additional blood loss of 1000 mL or more (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.89, low-certainty) compared with misoprostol alone. The combination makes little or no difference to vomiting (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.59, high-certainty) compared with misoprostol alone. Misoprostol plus oxytocin compared to misoprostol alone are compatible with a wide range of treatment effects for additional blood loss of 500 mL or more (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.26, low-certainty), maternal mortality or severe morbidity (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 4.24, low-certainty), use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.73, low-certainty), and fever (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.17 to 4.77, low-certainty).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence suggests that oxytocin used as first-line treatment of PPH probably is more effective than misoprostol with less side-effects. Adding misoprostol to the conventional treatment of oxytocin probably makes little or no difference to effectiveness outcomes, and is also associated with more side-effects. The evidence for most uterotonic agents used as first-line treatment of PPH is limited, with no evidence found for commonly used agents, such as injectable prostaglandins, ergometrine, and Syntometrine®.
Topics: Bias; Blood Transfusion; Confidence Intervals; Drug Therapy, Combination; Ergonovine; Female; Humans; Misoprostol; Network Meta-Analysis; Oxytocics; Oxytocin; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33232518
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012754.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2019Active management of the third stage of labour reduces the risk of postpartum blood loss (postpartum haemorrhage (PPH)), and is defined as administration of a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Active management of the third stage of labour reduces the risk of postpartum blood loss (postpartum haemorrhage (PPH)), and is defined as administration of a prophylactic uterotonic, early umbilical cord clamping and controlled cord traction to facilitate placental delivery. The choice of uterotonic varies across the globe and may have an impact on maternal outcomes. This is an update of a review first published in 2001 and last updated in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of prophylactic oxytocin to prevent PPH and other adverse maternal outcomes in the third stage of labour.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (6 March 2019) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, quasi- or cluster-randomised trials including women undergoing vaginal delivery who received prophylactic oxytocin during management of the third stage of labour. Primary outcomes were blood loss 500 mL or more after delivery, need for additional uterotonics, and maternal all-cause mortality.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed trial quality. Data were checked for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
This review includes 24 trials, with 23 trials involving 10,018 women contributing data. Due to many trials assessed at high risk of bias, evidence grade ranged from very low to moderate quality.Prophylactic oxytocin versus no uterotonics or placebo (nine trials)Prophylactic oxytocin compared with no uterotonics or placebo may reduce the risk of blood loss of 500 mL after delivery (average risk ratio (RR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (C) 0.37 to 0.72; 4162 women; 6 studies; Tau² = 0.10, I² = 75%; low-quality evidence), and blood loss 1000 mL after delivery (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83; 4123 women; 5 studies; low-quality evidence). Prophylactic oxytocin probably reduces the need for additional uterotonics (average RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.80; 3135 women; 4 studies; Tau² = 0.07, I² = 44%; moderate-quality evidence). There may be no difference in the risk of needing a blood transfusion in women receiving oxytocin compared to no uterotonics or placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.78; 3081 women; 3 studies; low-quality evidence). Oxytocin may be associated with an increased risk of a third stage greater than 30 minutes (RR 2.55, 95% CI 0.88 to 7.44; 1947 women; 1 study; moderate-quality evidence), however the confidence interval is wide and includes 1.0, indicating that there may be little or no difference.Prophylactic oxytocin versus ergot alkaloids (15 trials)It is uncertain whether oxytocin reduces the likelihood of blood loss 500 mL (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.25; 3082 women; 10 studies; Tau² = 0.14, I² = 49%; very low-quality evidence) or the need for additional uterotonics compared to ergot alkaloids (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.81; 2178 women; 8 studies; Tau² = 0.76, I² = 79%; very low-quality evidence), because the quality of this evidence is very low. The quality of evidence was very low for blood loss of 1000 mL (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.01; 1577 women; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence), and need for blood transfusion (average RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.34 to 5.51; 1578 women; 7 studies; Tau² = 1.34, I² = 45%; very low-quality evidence), making benefit of oxytocin over ergot alkaloids uncertain. Oxytocin probably increases the risk of a prolonged third stage greater than 30 minutes (RR 4.69, 95% CI 1.63 to 13.45; 450 women; 2 studies; moderate-quality evidence), although it is uncertain if this translates into increased risk of manual placental removal (average RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.10; 3127 women; 8 studies; Tau² = 1.07, I² = 76%; very low-quality evidence). Oxytocin may make little or no difference to risk of diastolic blood pressure > 100 mm Hg (average RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.05; 960 women; 3 studies; Tau² = 1.23, I² = 50%; low-quality evidence), and is probably associated with a lower risk of vomiting (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.14; 1991 women; 7 studies; moderate-quality evidence), although the impact of oxytocin on headaches is uncertain (average RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.02; 1543 women; 5 studies; Tau² = 2.54, I² = 72%; very low-quality evidence).Prophylactic oxytocin-ergometrine versus ergot alkaloids (four trials)Oxytocin-ergometrine may slightly reduce the risk of blood loss greater than 500 mL after delivery compared to ergot alkaloids (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.94; 1168 women; 3 studies; low-quality evidence), based on outcomes from quasi-randomised trials with a high risk of bias. There were no maternal deaths reported in either treatment group in the one trial that reported this outcome (RR not estimable; 1 trial, 807 women; moderate-quality evidence). Need for additional uterotonics was not reported.No subgroup differences were observed between active or expectant management, or different routes or doses of oxytocin for any of our comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Prophylactic oxytocin compared with no uterotonics may reduce blood loss and the need for additional uterotonics. The effect of oxytocin compared to ergot alkaloids is uncertain with regards to blood loss, need for additional uterotonics, and blood transfusion. Oxytocin may increase the risk of a prolonged third stage compared to ergot alkaloids, although whether this translates into increased risk of manual placental removal is uncertain. This potential risk must be weighed against the possible increased risk of side effects associated with ergot alkaloids. Oxytocin-ergometrine may reduce blood loss compared to ergot alkaloids, however the certainty of this conclusion is low. More high-quality trials are needed to assess optimal dosing and route of oxytocin administration, with inclusion of important outcomes such as maternal mortality, shock, and transfer to a higher level of care. A network meta-analysis of uterotonics for PPH prevention plans to address issues around optimal dosing and routes of oxytocin and other uterotonics.
Topics: Blood Transfusion; Delivery, Obstetric; Female; Humans; Labor Stage, Third; Odds Ratio; Oxytocin; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Pregnancy
PubMed: 31032882
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001808.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2020The risk of maternal mortality and morbidity is higher after caesarean section than for vaginal birth. With increasing rates of caesarean section, it is important to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The risk of maternal mortality and morbidity is higher after caesarean section than for vaginal birth. With increasing rates of caesarean section, it is important to minimise risks to the mother as much as possible. This review focused on different skin preparations to prevent infection. This is an update of a review last published in 2018.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of different antiseptic agents, different methods of application, or different forms of antiseptic used for preoperative skin preparation for preventing postcaesarean infection.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (9 July 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials, evaluating any type of preoperative skin preparation (agents, methods or forms). We included studies presented only as abstracts, if there was enough information to assess risk of bias. Comparisons of interest in this review were between: different antiseptic agents (e.g. alcohol, povidone iodine), different methods of antiseptic application (e.g. scrub, paint, drape), different forms of antiseptic (e.g. powder, liquid), and also between different packages of skin preparation including a mix of agents and methods, such as a plastic incisional drape, which may or may not be impregnated with antiseptic agents. We mainly focused on the comparison between different agents, with and without the use of drapes. Only studies involving the preparation of the incision area were included. This review did not cover studies of preoperative handwashing by the surgical team or preoperative bathing.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed all potential studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, extracted the data and checked data for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 individually-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with a total of 6938 women who were undergoing caesarean section. Twelve trials (6916 women) contributed data to this review. The trial dates ranged from 1983 to 2016. Six trials were conducted in the USA, and the remainder in India, Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa, France, Denmark, and Indonesia. The included studies were broadly at low risk of bias for most domains, although high risk of detection bias raised some specific concerns in a number of studies. Length of stay was only reported in one comparison. Antiseptic agents Parachlorometaxylenol with iodine versus iodine alone We are uncertain whether parachlorometaxylenol with iodine made any difference to the incidence of surgical site infection (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 2.99; 1 trial, 50 women), or endometritis (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.38; 1 trial, 50 women) when compared with iodine alone, because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Adverse events (maternal or neonatal) were not reported. Chlorhexidine gluconate versus povidone iodine Moderate-certainty evidence suggested that chlorhexidine gluconate, when compared with povidone iodine, probably slightly reduces the incidence of surgical site infection (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.91; 8 trials, 4323 women). This effect was still present in a sensitivity analysis after removing four trials at high risk of bias for outcome assessment (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.23; 4 trials, 2037 women). Low-certainty evidence indicated that chlorhexidine gluconate, when compared with povidone iodine, may make little or no difference to the incidence of endometritis (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.86; 3 trials, 2484 women). It is uncertain whether chlorhexidine gluconate reduces maternal skin irritation or allergic skin reaction (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.46; 3 trials, 1926 women; very low certainty evidence). One small study (60 women) reported reduced bacterial growth at 18 hours after caesarean section for women who had chlorhexidine gluconate preparation compared with women who had povidone iodine preparation (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.70). Methods Drape versus no drape This comparison investigated the use of drape versus no drape, following preparation of the skin with antiseptics. Low-certainty evidence suggested that using a drape before surgery compared with no drape, may make little or no difference to the incidence of surgical site infection (RR 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.71; 3 trials, 1373 women), and probably makes little or no difference to the length of stay in the hospital (mean difference (MD) 0.10 days, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.46; 1 trial, 603 women; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial compared an alcohol scrub and iodophor drape with a five-minute iodophor scrub only, and reported no surgical site infection in either group (79 women, very-low certainty evidence). We were uncertain whether the combination of a one-minute alcohol scrub and a drape reduced the incidence of metritis when compared with a five-minute scrub, because the certainty of the evidence was very low (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 9.16; 1 trial, 79 women). The studies did not report on adverse events (maternal or neonatal).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that preparing the skin with chlorhexidine gluconate before caesarean section is probably slightly more effective at reducing the incidence of surgical site infection in comparison to povidone iodine. For other outcomes examined there was insufficient evidence available from the included RCTs. Most of the evidence in this review was deemed to be very low or low certainty. This means that for most findings, our confidence in any evidence of an intervention effect is limited, and indicates the need for more high-quality research. Therefore, it is not yet clear what sort of skin preparation may be most effective for preventing postcaesarean surgical site infection, or for reducing other undesirable outcomes for mother and baby. Well-designed RCTs, with larger sample sizes are needed. High-priority questions include comparing types of antiseptic (especially iodine versus chlorhexidine), and application methods (scrubbing, swabbing, or draping). We found two studies that are ongoing; we will incorporate the results of these studies in future updates of this review.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Bandages; Cesarean Section; Chlorhexidine; Endometritis; Ethanol; Female; Humans; Iodine; Iodophors; Length of Stay; Povidone-Iodine; Pregnancy; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Drapes; Surgical Wound Infection; Xylenes
PubMed: 32580252
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007462.pub5