-
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Mar 2024This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated whether the use of azithromycin during labour or caesarean section reduces the incidence of sepsis and infection... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Can the use of azithromycin during labour reduce the incidence of infection among puerperae and newborns? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated whether the use of azithromycin during labour or caesarean section reduces the incidence of sepsis and infection among mothers and newborns.
DATA SOURCES
We independently searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases for relevant studies published before February, 2024.
METHODS
We included RCTs that evaluated the effect of prenatal oral or intravenous azithromycin or placebo on intrapartum or postpartum infection incidence. We included studies evaluating women who had vaginal births as well as caesarean sections. Studies reporting maternal and neonatal infections were included in the current analysis. Review Manager 5.4 was used to analyse 6 randomized clinical trials involving 44,448 mothers and 44,820 newborns. The risk of bias of each included study was assessed using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.Primary outcomes included the incidence of maternal sepsis and all-cause mortality and neonatal sepsis and all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes included maternal (endometritis, wound and surgical site infections, chorioamnionitis, and urinary tract infections) and neonatal outcomes (infections of the eyes, ears and skin). A random-effects model was used to test for overall effects and heterogeneity.
RESULTS
The pooled odds ratios (ORs) were as follows: 0.65 for maternal sepsis (95% CI, 0.55-0.77; I, 0%; P < .00001); 0.62 for endometritis (95% CI, 0.52-0.74; I, 2%; P < .00001); and 0.43 for maternal wound or surgical site infection (95% CI, 0.24-0.78; P < .005); however, there was great heterogeneity among the studies (I, 75%). The pooled OR for pyelonephritis and urinary tract infections was 0.3 (95% CI, 0.17-0.52; I, 0%; P < .0001), and that for neonatal skin infections was 0.48 (95% CI, 0.35-0.65; I, 0%, P < .00001). There was no significant difference in maternal all-cause mortality or incidence of chorioamnionitis between the two groups. No significant differences were observed in the incidence of neonatal sepsis or suspected sepsis, all-cause mortality, or infections of the eyes or ears.
CONCLUSION
In this meta-analysis, azithromycin use during labour reduced the incidence of maternal sepsis, endometritis, incisional infections and urinary tract infections but did not reduce the incidence of neonatal-associated infections, except for neonatal skin infections. These findings indicate that azithromycin may be potentially beneficial for maternal postpartum infections, but its effect on neonatal prognosis remains unclear. Azithromycin should be used antenatally only if the clinical indication is clear and the potential benefits outweigh the harms.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Azithromycin; Neonatal Sepsis; Cesarean Section; Chorioamnionitis; Endometritis; Incidence; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sepsis; Puerperal Infection; Surgical Wound Infection; Urinary Tract Infections
PubMed: 38486177
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-024-06390-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Vacuum and forceps assisted vaginal deliveries are reported to increase the incidence of postpartum infections and maternal readmission to hospital compared to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Vacuum and forceps assisted vaginal deliveries are reported to increase the incidence of postpartum infections and maternal readmission to hospital compared to spontaneous vaginal delivery. Prophylactic antibiotics may be prescribed to prevent these infections. However, the benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal deliveries is still unclear. This is an update of a review last published in 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing infectious puerperal morbidities in women undergoing operative vaginal deliveries including vacuum or forceps delivery, or both.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (5 July 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials comparing any prophylactic antibiotic regimens with placebo or no treatment in women undergoing vacuum or forceps deliveries were eligible. Participants were all pregnant women without evidence of infections or other indications for antibiotics of any gestational age. Interventions were any antibiotic prophylaxis (any dosage regimen, any route of administration or at any time during delivery or the puerperium).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias. Two review authors extracted the data independently using prepared data extraction forms. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion and a consensus reached through discussion with all review authors. We assessed methodological quality of the two included studies using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Two studies, involving 3813 women undergoing either vacuum or forceps deliveries, were included. One study involving 393 women compared the antibiotic intravenous cefotetan after cord clamping compared with no treatment. The other study involving 3420 women compared a single dose of intravenous amoxicillin and clavulanic acid with placebo using 20 mL of intravenous sterile 0.9% saline. The evidence suggests that prophylactic antibiotics reduce superficial perineal wound infection (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.69; women = 3420; 1 study; high-certainty evidence), deep perineal wound infection (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.69; women = 3420; 1 study; high-certainty evidence) and probably reduce wound breakdown (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.63; women = 2593; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). We are unclear about the effect on organ or space perineal wound infection (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.05; women = 3420; 1 study) and endometritis (average RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.64; 15/1907 versus 30/1906; women = 3813; 2 studies) based on low-certainty evidence with wide CIs that include no effect. Prophylactic antibiotics probably lower serious infectious complications (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.89; women = 3420; 1 study; high-certainty evidence). They also have an important effect on reduction of confirmed or suspected maternal infection. The two included studies did not report on fever or urinary tract infection. It is unclear, based on low-certainty evidence, whether prophylactic antibiotics have any impact on maternal adverse reactions (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.18 to 22.05; women = 2593; 1 study) and maternal length of stay (MD 0.09 days, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.41; women = 393; 1 study) as the CIs were wide and included no effect. Prophylactic antibiotics slightly improve perineal pain and health consequences of perineal pain and probably reduce costs. Prophylactic antibiotics did not have an important effect on dyspareunia (difficult or painful sexual intercourse) or breastfeeding at six weeks. Antibiotic prophylaxis may slightly improve maternal hospital re-admission and maternal health-related quality of life. Neonatal adverse reactions were not reported in any included trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Prophylactic intravenous antibiotics are effective in reducing infectious puerperal morbidities in terms of superficial and deep perineal wound infection or serious infectious complications in women undergoing operative vaginal deliveries without clinical indications for antibiotic administration after delivery. Prophylactic antibiotics slightly improve perineal pain and health consequences of perineal pain, probably reduce the costs, and may slightly reduce the maternal hospital re-admission and health-related quality of life. However, the effect on reduction of endometritis, organ or space perineal wound infection, maternal adverse reactions and maternal length of stay is unclear due to low-certainty evidence. As the evidence was mainly derived from a single multi-centre study conducted in a high-income setting, future well-designed randomised trials in other settings, particularly in low- and middle-income settings, are required to confirm the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery.
Topics: Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate Combination; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Cefotetan; Endometritis; Episiotomy; Extraction, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Obstetrical Forceps; Perineum; Pregnancy; Puerperal Infection; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection; Vacuum Extraction, Obstetrical; Vaginal Diseases
PubMed: 32215906
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004455.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Retained placenta is a potentially life-threatening condition because of its association with postpartum hemorrhage. Manual removal of placenta increases the likelihood... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Retained placenta is a potentially life-threatening condition because of its association with postpartum hemorrhage. Manual removal of placenta increases the likelihood of bacterial contamination in the uterine cavity.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness and side-effects of routine antibiotic use for manual removal of placenta in vaginal birth in women who received antibiotic prophylaxis and those who did not and to identify the appropriate regimen of antibiotic prophylaxis for this procedure.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 July 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomized controlled trials comparing antibiotic prophylaxis and placebo or non antibiotic use to prevent endometritis after manual removal of placenta in vaginal birth.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
There are no included trials. In future updates, if we identify eligible trials, two review authors will independently assess trial quality and extract data
MAIN RESULTS
No studies that met the inclusion criteria were identified.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There are no randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent endometritis after manual removal of placenta in vaginal birth.
Topics: Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Female; Humans; Placenta, Retained; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Pregnancy; Puerperal Infection
PubMed: 25327508
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004904.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2017Bacterial infections occurring during labour, childbirth, and the puerperium may be associated with considerable maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bacterial infections occurring during labour, childbirth, and the puerperium may be associated with considerable maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. Antibiotic prophylaxis might reduce wound infection incidence after an episiotomy, particularly in situations associated with a higher risk of postpartum perineal infection, such as midline episiotomy, extension of the incision, or in settings where the baseline risk of infection after vaginal birth is high. However, available evidence is unclear concerning the role of prophylactic antibiotics in preventing infections after an episiotomy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether routine antibiotic prophylaxis before or immediately after incision or repair of episiotomy for women with an uncomplicated vaginal birth, compared with either placebo or no antibiotic prophylaxis, prevents maternal infectious morbidities and improves outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 24 July 2017, and screened reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised trials, and cluster-randomised trials that compared the use of routine antibiotic prophylaxis for incision or repair of an episiotomy for women with otherwise normal vaginal births, compared with either placebo or no antibiotic prophylaxis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data, and checked them for accuracy. We only found one quasi-randomised trial that met the inclusion criteria and was included in the analysis, therefore, we did not perform a meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included one quasi-RCT (with data from 73 women) in the review. The trial, which was conducted in a public hospital in Brazil, compared oral chloramphenicol 500 mg four times daily for 72 hours after episiotomy repair (N = 34) and no treatment (N = 39). We assessed most of the domains at high risk of bias because women were randomised according to even and odd numbers, allocation concealment was based on protocol number, there was no treatment or placebo administered in the control group, we were unclear about the blinding of outcome assessments, and outcomes were incompletely reported. We considered the other domains to be at low risk of bias. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for very serious design limitations (related to lack of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding) and imprecision of effect estimates (small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals (CI) of effect estimates).We found very low-quality evidence, from one trial of 73 women, that there was no clear indication that prophylactic antibiotics reduced the incidence of episiotomy wound dehiscence with infection (risk ratio (RR) 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.28), or without infection (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.34). No cases of other puerperal infections (e.g. endometritis) were reported in either the antibiotic or control group.The trial did not report on any of the secondary outcomes of interest for this review, including severe maternal infectious morbidity, discomfort or pain at the episiotomy wound site, sexual function postpartum, adverse effects of antibiotics, costs of care, women's satisfaction with care, and individual antimicrobial resistance.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was insufficient evidence to assess the clinical benefits or harms of routine antibiotic prophylaxis for episiotomy repair after normal birth. The only trial included in this review had several methodological limitations, with very serious limitations in design, and imprecision of effect estimates. In addition, the trial tested an antibiotic with limited application in current clinical practice. There is a need for a careful and rigorous assessment of the comparative benefits and harms of prophylactic antibiotics on infection morbidity after episiotomy, in well-designed randomised controlled trials, using common antibiotics and regimens in current obstetric practice.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Chloramphenicol; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Parturition; Pregnancy; Surgical Wound Dehiscence; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 29096053
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012136.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Medical abortion is usually offered in a clinic or hospital, but could potentially be offered in other settings such as pharmacies. In many countries, pharmacies are a... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
Medical abortion is usually offered in a clinic or hospital, but could potentially be offered in other settings such as pharmacies. In many countries, pharmacies are a common first point of access for women seeking reproductive health information and services. Offering medical abortion through pharmacies is a potential strategy to improve access to abortion.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness and safety of medical abortion offered in pharmacy settings with clinic-based medical abortion.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, two trials registries and grey literature websites in November 2020. We also handsearched key references and contacted authors to locate unpublished studies or studies not identified in the database searches.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We identified studies that compared women receiving the same regimen of medical abortion or post-abortion care in either a clinic or pharmacy setting. Studies published in any language employing the following designs were included: randomized trials and non-randomized studies including a comparative group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed both retrieved abstracts and full-text publications. A third author was consulted in case of disagreement. We intended to use the Cochrane risk of bias tool, RoB 2, for randomized studies and used the ROBINS-I tool (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions) to assess risk of bias in non-randomized studies. GRADE methodology was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcomes were completion of abortion without additional intervention, need for blood transfusion, and presence of uterine or systemic infection within 30 days of medical abortion.
MAIN RESULTS
Our search yielded 2030 records. We assessed a total of 89 full-text articles for eligibility. One prospective cohort study met our inclusion criteria. The included study collected data on outcomes from 605 women who obtained a medical abortion in Nepal from either a clinic or pharmacy setting. Both sites of care were staffed by the same auxiliary nurse midwives. Over all domains, the risk of bias was judged to be low for our primary outcome. During the pre-intervention period, the study's investigators identified a priori appropriate confounders, which were clearly measured and adjusted for in the final analysis. For women who received medical abortion in a pharmacy setting, compared to a clinic setting, there may be little or no difference in complete abortion rates (adjusted risk difference (RD)) 1.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.8 to 3.8; 1 study, 600 participants; low certainty evidence). The study reported no cases of blood transfusion, and a composite outcome, comprised mainly of infection complications, showed there may be little or no difference between settings (adjusted RD 0.8, 95% CI -1.0 to 2.8; 1 study, 600 participants; very low certainty evidence). The study reported no events for hospital admission for an abortion-related event or need for surgical intervention, and there may be no difference in women reporting being highly satisfied with the facility where they were seen (38% pharmacy versus 34% clinic, P = 0.87; 1 study, 600 participants; low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of pharmacy provision of medical abortion are limited by the lack of comparative studies. One study, judged to provide low certainty evidence, suggests that the effectiveness of medical abortion may not be different between the pharmacy and clinic settings. However, evidence for safety is insufficient to draw any conclusions, and more research on factors contributing to potential differences in quality of care is needed. It is important to note that this study included a care model where a clinician provided services in a pharmacy, not direct provision of care by pharmacists or pharmacy staff. Three ongoing studies are potentially eligible for inclusion in review updates. More research is needed because pharmacy provision could expand timely access to medical abortion, especially in settings where clinic services may be more difficult to obtain. Evidence is particularly limited on the patient experience and how the care process and quality of services may differ across different types of settings.
Topics: Abortion, Induced; Ambulatory Care Facilities; Bias; Female; Health Services Accessibility; Humans; Nepal; Patient Satisfaction; Pharmaceutical Services; Postoperative Complications; Pregnancy; Prospective Studies; Puerperal Infection; Quality of Health Care; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34114643
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013566.pub2 -
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica... May 2018The number of clinical trials investigating the optimal timing of prophylactic antibiotics in cesarean section has increased rapidly over the last few years. We... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The number of clinical trials investigating the optimal timing of prophylactic antibiotics in cesarean section has increased rapidly over the last few years. We conducted a systematic review to inform up-to-date evidence-based guidelines to prevent postpartum infectious morbidity in the mother and rule out any safety issues related to antepartum antibiotic exposure in infants.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Four bibliographic databases were searched for published reports of trials. Ongoing or unpublished studies were searched in Clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization registry platform. Randomized controlled trials comparing antibiotic prophylaxis before and after cord clamping in cesarean section were eligible. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were assessed, and certainty of evidence graded.
RESULTS
In total, 18 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Those women who received antibiotics preoperatively were 28% (relative risk 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.56-0.92, nine studies, 4342 women, high quality of evidence) less likely to show infectious morbidity as compared with those who received antibiotics after cord clamping. The risk of endomyometritis and/or endometritis was reduced by 43% (relative risk 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.82, 13 studies, 6250 women, high quality of evidence) and the risk of wound infection by 38% (relative risk 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.47-0.81, 14 studies, 6450 women, high quality of evidence) in those who received antibiotics preoperatively as compared to those who received antibiotics after cord clamping. For other maternal infections no significant differences were identified. The risk for neonatal outcomes, such as deaths attributed to infection, sepsis, neonatal antibiotic treatment, intensive care unit admission or antibiotic-related adverse events, was not found to be different, either clinically or statistically, when antibiotics were given before or after cord clamping (moderate to low quality of evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence in favor of prophylactic antibiotic administration before, in comparison with after, cord clamping for major maternal infections was of high quality, meaning that further research would be unlikely to change the confidence in these findings. However, we recommend additional research reflecting the precision of the effect estimates for neonatal outcomes.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Cesarean Section; Constriction; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Humans; Perinatal Care; Pregnancy; Preoperative Care; Puerperal Infection; Surgical Wound Infection; Umbilical Cord
PubMed: 29215155
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13276 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Nov 2015Manual removal of the placenta is an invasive obstetric procedure commonly used for the management of retained placenta. However, it is unclear whether antibiotic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Manual removal of the placenta is an invasive obstetric procedure commonly used for the management of retained placenta. However, it is unclear whether antibiotic prophylaxis is beneficial in preventing infectious morbidity. We conducted a systematic review to determine the efficacy and safety of routine use of antibiotics for preventing adverse maternal outcomes related to manual placenta removal following vaginal birth.
METHODS
A detailed search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library and the CINAHL databases was conducted for non-randomized studies involving women undergoing manual placenta delivery after vaginal births and where antibiotic prophylaxis use was compared with no treatment or placebo to prevent maternal infection. Search terms including 'delivery, obstetric', 'placenta, retained', 'anti-infective agents', and 'chemoprevention' were used.
RESULTS
Of the 407 citations that resulted after elimination of duplicates, 81 full texts were potentially eligible after independent assessment of the title and abstracts. Independent review of the full texts identified three eligible cohort studies which were retrospective in design. These studies contained data on two of the pre-specified outcomes, endometritis and puerperal fever. Other secondary outcomes such as perineal infection and/or any infection, hospital stay duration, sepsis, hemorrhage >1000 ml or hospital readmissions were not reported on excluding puerperal fever. A meta-analysis showed no significant reduction in the incidence of endometritis (odds ratio [OR] 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38 to 1.85, three studies, 567 women) and puerperal fever (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.27, one study, 302 women).
CONCLUSIONS
There is currently no evidence to suggest beneficial effects for routine antibiotic use in women undergoing manual placental removal following vaginal birth. In appropriate settings, further research is required to determine whether a policy of routine antibiotic prophylaxis for the procedure should be maintained or discouraged.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Delivery, Obstetric; Endometritis; Female; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Placenta, Retained; Pregnancy; Puerperal Infection; Retrospective Studies; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 26610697
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-015-0752-4 -
Journal of Dairy Science Nov 2014Acute puerperal metritis (APM) is an acute systemic illness with fever ≥ 39.5 °C and signs of toxemia due to an infection of the uterus occurring within 21 d after... (Review)
Review
Acute puerperal metritis (APM) is an acute systemic illness with fever ≥ 39.5 °C and signs of toxemia due to an infection of the uterus occurring within 21 d after parturition. Because of the infectious nature of APM, antibiotics are considered beneficial for its treatment. Each use of an antimicrobial drug, however, is associated with selective pressure for the emergence of resistant bacteria. Hence, there is a significant need to encourage prudent use of antibiotics and alternative therapies to antibiotics. Therefore, the objective of this study was to systematically review the current literature on treatment of APM. A comprehensive and systematic literature search was conducted utilizing the PubMed and CAB Abstracts databases to identify literature focusing on the antibiotic therapy of puerperal metritis in the cow. After application of specific exclusion criteria, 21 publications comprising 23 trials remained for final evaluation. Data extraction revealed that the majority of the studies (n = 19) were attributable to the highest evidence level. Of 21 studies controlled, 11 had an untreated group and 3 a positive control group. The majority of the studies (n = 17) applied ceftiofur for the treatment of APM. Concerning the efficacy of ceftiofur, 7 studies observed clinical improvement, whereas none found improved reproductive performance. Fewer than half of the studies (n = 10) performed a bacteriological examination and only 4 implemented an antibiotic susceptibility test. Also, 3 studies (13.0%) described a self-cure rate per se. Little attention was given to the issue of bacterial resistance (n = 3), the need for reducing the application of antibiotics (n = 2), or guidelines for prudent use of antibiotics (n = 1). Our findings demonstrate that implementation of bacteriological examinations, sensitivity testing, and determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations, as well as reporting and discussion of critical issues (e.g., self-cure rates, resistance, prudent drug use), were suboptimal. On the other hand, the quality of studies on the treatment of APM was good, as indicated by evidence level 1. Nevertheless, more high-quality research considering self-cure rates is necessary to address critical issues related to APM and crucial to the dairy industry, such as resistance, prudent use of antibiotics, animal welfare, and cost-benefit ratios.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cattle; Cattle Diseases; Cephalosporins; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Endometritis; Female; Fever; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Postpartum Period; Puerperal Disorders; Reproduction
PubMed: 25218751
DOI: 10.3168/jds.2014-8462 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2017Infectious morbidities contribute to considerable maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, including women at no apparent increased risk of infection. To reduce... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Infectious morbidities contribute to considerable maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, including women at no apparent increased risk of infection. To reduce the incidence of infections, antibiotics are often administered to women after uncomplicated childbirth, particularly in settings where women are at higher risk of puerperal infectious morbidities.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether routine administration of prophylactic antibiotics to women after normal (uncomplicated) vaginal birth, compared with placebo or no antibiotic prophylaxis, reduces postpartum maternal infectious morbidities and improves outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 August 2017), LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (22 August 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to include randomised or quasi-randomised trials evaluating the use of prophylactic antibiotics versus placebo or no antibiotic prophylaxis. Trials using a cluster-randomised design would have been eligible for inclusion, but we found none.In future updates of this review, we will include studies published in abstract form only, provided sufficient information is available to assess risks of bias. We will consider excluded abstracts for inclusion once the full publication is available, or the authors provide more information.Trials using a cross-over design are not eligible for inclusion in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors conducted independent assessment of trials for inclusion and risks of bias. They independently extracted data and checked them for accuracy, resolving differences in assessments by discussion. They evaluated methodological quality using standard Cochrane criteria and the GRADE approach.We present the summaries as risk ratios (RRs) and mean difference (MDs) using fixed- or random-effect models. For one primary outcome we found considerable heterogeneity and interaction. We explored further using subgroup analysis to investigate the effects of the randomisation unit. All review authors discussed and interpreted the results.
MAIN RESULTS
One randomised controlled trial (RCT) and two quasi-RCTs contributed data on 1779 women who had uncomplicated vaginal births, comparing different antibiotic regimens with placebo or no treatment. The included trials took place in the 1960s (one trial) and 1990s (two trials). The trials were conducted in France, the USA and Brazil. Antibiotics administered included: oral sulphamethoxypyridazine or chloramphenicol for three to five days, and intravenous amoxicillin and clavulanic acid in a single dose one hour after birth. We rated most of the domains for risk of bias as high risk, with the exception of reporting bias and other potential bias.The quality of evidence ranged from low to very low, based on the GRADE quality assessment, given very serious design limitations of the included studies, few events and wide confidence intervals (CIs) of effect estimates.We found a decrease in the risk of endometritis (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.83, two trials, 1364 women,very low quality). However, one trial reported zero events for this outcome and we rate the evidence as very low quality. There was little or no difference between groups for the risk of urinary tract infection (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.19, two trials, 1706 women,low quality), wound infection after episiotomy (reported as wound dehiscence in the included trials) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.96, two trials, 1364 women, very low quality) and length of maternal hospital stay in days (MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.01, one trial, 1291 women, very low quality). Cost of care in US dollar equivalent was 2½ times higher in the control group compared to the group receiving antibiotics prophylaxis (USD 3600: USD 9000, one trial, 1291 women). There were few or no differences between treated and control groups for adverse effects of antibiotics (skin rash) reported in one woman in each of the two trials (RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.32 to 28.95, two trials, 1706 women, very low quality). The incidence of severe maternal infectious morbidity, antimicrobial resistance or women's satisfaction with care were not addressed by any of the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Routine administration of antibiotics may reduce the risk of endometritis after uncomplicated vaginal birth. The small number and nature of the trials limit the interpretation of the evidence for application in practice, particularly in settings where women may be at higher risk of developing endometritis. The use of antibiotics did not reduce the incidence of urinary tract infections, wound infection or the length of maternal hospital stay. Antibiotics are not a substitute for infection prevention and control measures around the time of childbirth and the postpartum period. The decision to routinely administer prophylactic antibiotics after normal vaginal births needs to be balanced by patient features, childbirth setting and provider experience, including considerations of the contribution of indiscriminate use of antibiotics to raising antimicrobial resistance. Well-designed and high-powered randomised controlled trials would help to evaluate the added value of routine antibiotic administration as a measure to prevent maternal infections after normal vaginal delivery.
Topics: Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Chloramphenicol; Clavulanic Acid; Delivery, Obstetric; Endometritis; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pregnancy; Puerperal Infection; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfamethoxypyridazine; Surgical Wound Infection; Urinary Tract Infections
PubMed: 29190037
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012137.pub2 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology Mar 2009To review the current status of antibiotic prophylaxis for cesarean delivery, emerging strategies to enhance the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To review the current status of antibiotic prophylaxis for cesarean delivery, emerging strategies to enhance the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing postcesarean infection, and the implications of the emerging practices.
DATA SOURCES
We conducted a full PubMed (January 1966 to July 2008) search using the key words "cesarean" and "antibiotic prophylaxis." A total of 277 articles were identified and supplemented by a bibliographic search.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
We selected a total of 15 studies, which included all published clinical trials, meta-analyses of clinical trials, and observational studies evaluating either the timing of antibiotics or the use of extended-spectrum prophylaxis. We also reviewed nine reports involving national recommendations or technical reviews supporting current standards for antibiotic prophylaxis.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
We conducted an analytic review and tabulation of selected studies without further meta-analysis. Although current guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis recommend the administration of narrow-spectrum antibiotics (cefazolin) after clamping of the umbilical cord, the data suggest that antibiotic administration before surgical incision or the use of extended-spectrum regimens (involving azithromycin or metronidazole) after cord clamp may reduce postcesarean maternal infection by up to 50%. However, these two strategies have not been compared with each other. In addition, their effect on neonatal infection or infection with resistant organisms warrants further study.
CONCLUSION
The use of either cefazolin alone before surgical incision or an extended-spectrum regimen after cord clamp seems to be associated with a reduction in postcesarean maternal infection. Confirmatory studies focusing additionally on neonatal outcomes and the effect on resistant organisms, as well as studies comparing both strategies, are needed.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Azithromycin; Cefazolin; Cesarean Section; Endometritis; Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Metronidazole; Pregnancy; Puerperal Infection; Surgical Wound Infection; United States
PubMed: 19300334
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318197c3b6