8 research outputs found

    Association of peripartum management and high maternal blood loss at cesarean delivery for placenta accreta spectrum (PAS): A multinational database study

    No full text
    INTRODUCTION: Placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) carries a high burden of adverse maternal outcomes, especially significant blood loss, which can be life-threatening. Different management strategies have been proposed but the association of clinical risk factors and surgical management options during cesarean delivery with high blood loss is not clear. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this international multicenter study, 338 women with PAS undergoing cesarean delivery were included. Fourteen European and one non-European center (USA) provided cases treated retrospectively between 2008 and 2014 and prospectively from 2014 to 2019. Peripartum blood loss was estimated visually and/or by weighing and measuring of volume. Participants were grouped based on blood loss above or below the 75th percentile (>3500 ml) and the 90th percentile (>5500 ml). RESULTS: Placenta percreta was found in 58% of cases. Median blood loss was 2000 ml (range: 150-20 000 ml). Unplanned hysterectomy was associated with an increased risk of blood loss >3500 ml when compared with planned hysterectomy (adjusted OR [aOR] 3.7 [1.5-9.4], p = 0.01). Focal resection was associated with blood loss comparable to that of planned hysterectomy (crude OR 0.7 [0.2-2.1], p = 0.49). Blood loss >3500 ml was less common in patients undergoing successful conservative management (placenta left in situ, aOR 0.1 [0.0-0.6], p = 0.02) but was more common in patients who required delayed hysterectomy (aOR 6.5 [1.7-24.4], p = 0.001). Arterial occlusion methods (uterine or iliac artery ligation, embolization or intravascular balloons), application of uterotonic medication or tranexamic acid showed no significant effect on blood loss >3500 ml. Patients delivered by surgeons without experience in PAS were more likely to experience blood loss >3500 ml (aOR 3.0 [1.4-6.4], p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In pregnant women with PAS, the likelihood of blood loss >3500 ml was reduced in planned vs unplanned cesarean delivery, and when the surgery was performed by a specialist experienced in the management of PAS. This reinforces the necessity of delivery by an expert team. Conservative management was also associated with less blood loss, but only if successful. Therefore, careful patient selection is of great importance. Our study showed no consistent benefit of other adjunct measures such as arterial occlusion techniques, uterotonics or tranexamic acid

    Failed manual removal of the placenta after vaginal delivery

    No full text
    PURPOSE: A retained placenta after vaginal delivery where manual removal of placenta fails is a clinical challenge. We present six cases that illustrate the heterogeneity of the condition and discuss the etiology and terminology as well as the clinical management.METHODS: Members of the European Working group on Abnormally Invasive Placenta (EW-AIP) were invited to report all recent cases of retained placenta that were not antenatally suspected to be abnormally adherent or invasive, but could not be removed manually despite several attempts.RESULTS: The six cases from Denmark, The Netherlands and the UK provide examples of various treatment strategies such as ultrasound-guided vaginal removal, removal of the placenta through a hysterotomy and just leaving the placenta in situ. The placentas were all retained, but it was only possible to diagnose abnormal invasion in the one case, which had a histopathological diagnosis of increta. Based on these cases we present a flow chart to aid clinical management for future cases.CONCLUSION: We need properly defined stringent terminology for the different types of retained placenta, as well as improved tools to predict and diagnose both abnormally invasive and abnormally adherent placenta. Clinicians need to be aware of the options available to them when confronted by the rare case of a retained placenta that cannot be removed manually in a hemodynamically stable patient.</p

    Antibiotic prophylaxis in preterm premature rupture of membranes at 24–31 weeks’ gestation: Perinatal and 2‐year outcomes in the EPIPAGE‐2 cohort

    No full text
    International audienceObjectiveTo compare different antibiotic prophylaxis administered after preterm premature rupture of membranes to determine whether any were associated with differences in obstetric and/or neonatal outcomes and/or neurodevelopmental outcomes at 2 years of corrected age.DesignProspective, nationwide, population-based EPIPAGE-2 cohort study of preterm infants.SettingFrance, 2011.SampleWe included 492 women with a singleton pregnancy and a diagnosis of preterm premature rupture of membranes at 24–31 weeks. Exclusion criteria were contraindication to expectant management or indication for antibiotic therapy other than preterm premature rupture of membranes. Antibiotic prophylaxis was categorised as amoxicillin (n = 345), macrolide (n = 30), third-generation cephalosporin (n = 45) or any combinations covering Streptococcus agalactiae and >90% of Escherichia coli (n = 72), initiated within 24 hours after preterm premature rupture of membranes.MethodsPopulation-averaged robust Poisson models.Main Outcome MeasuresSurvival at discharge without severe neonatal morbidity, 2-year neurodevelopment.ResultsWith amoxicillin, macrolide, third-generation cephalosporin and combinations, 78.5%, 83.9%, 93.6% and 86.0% of neonates were discharged alive without severe morbidity. The administration of third-generation cephalosporin or any E. coli-targeting combinations was associated with improved survival without severe morbidity (adjusted risk ratio 1.25 [95% confidence interval 1.08–1.45] and 1.10 [95 % confidence interval 1.01–1.20], respectively) compared with amoxicillin. We evidenced no increase in neonatal sepsis related to third-generation cephalosporin-resistant pathogen.ConclusionIn preterm premature rupture of membranes at 24–31 weeks, antibiotic prophylaxis based on third-generation cephalosporin may be associated with improved survival without severe neonatal morbidity when compared with amoxicillin, with no evidence of increase in neonatal sepsis related to third-generation cephalosporin-resistant pathogen
    corecore