Home versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes

Background The setting in which induction of labour takes place (home or inpatient) is likely to have implications for safety, women's experiences and costs. Home induction may be started at home with the subsequent active phase of labour happening either at home or in a healthcare facility (hospital, birth centre, midwifery‐led unit). More commonly, home induction starts in a healthcare facility, then the woman goes home to await the start of labour. Inpatient induction takes place in a healthcare facility where the woman stays while awaiting the start of labour. Objectives To assess the effects on neonatal and maternal outcomes of third trimester home induction of labour compared with inpatient induction using the same method of induction. Search methods For this update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 January 2020)), and reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which home and inpatient settings for induction have been compared. We included conference abstracts but excluded quasi‐randomised trials and cross‐over studies. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed study reports for inclusion. Two review authors carried out data extraction and assessment of risk of bias independently. GRADE assessments were checked by a third review author. Main results We included seven RCTs, six of which provided data on 1610 women and their babies. Studies were undertaken between 1998 and 2015, and all were in high‐ or upper‐middle income countries. Most women were induced for post dates. Three studies reported government funding, one reported no funding and three did not report on their funding source. Most GRADE assessments gave very low‐certainty evidence, downgrading mostly for high risk of bias and serious imprecision. 1. Home compared to inpatient induction with vaginal prostaglandin E (PGE) (two RCTs, 1028 women and babies; 1022 providing data). Although women's satisfaction may be slightly better in home settings, the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐0.02 to 0.34, 1 study, 399 women), very low‐certainty evidence. There may be little or no difference between home and inpatient induction for other primary outcomes, with all evidence being very low certainty: ‐ spontaneous vaginal birth (average risk ratio (RR) [aRR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.21, 2 studies, 1022 women, random‐effects method); ‐ uterine hyperstimulation (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.50, 1 study, 821 women); ‐ caesarean birth (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.28, 2 studies, 1022 women); ‐ neonatal infection (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.82, 1 study, 821 babies); ‐ admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.90, 2 studies, 1022 babies). Studies did not report serious neonatal morbidity or mortality. 2. Home compared to inpatient induction with controlled release PGE (one RCT, 299 women and babies providing data). There was no information on whether the questionnaire on women's satisfaction with care used a validated instrument, but the findings presented showed no overall difference in scores. We found little or no difference between the groups for other primary outcomes, all also being very low‐certainty evidence: ‐ spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.14, 1 study, 299 women); ‐ uterine hyperstimulation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.98, 1 study, 299 women); ‐ caesarean births (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.42, 1 study, 299 women); ‐ admission to NICU (RR 1.38, 0.57 to 3.34, 1 study, 299 babies). The study did not report on neonatal infection nor serious neonatal morbidity or mortality. 3. Home compared to inpatient induction with balloon or Foley catheter (four RCTs; three studies, 289 women and babies providing data). It was again unclear whether questionnaires reporting women's experiences/satisfaction with care were validated instruments, with one study (48 women, 69% response rate) finding women were similarly satisfied. Home inductions may reduce the number of caesarean births, but the data are also compatible with a slight increase and are of very low‐certainty (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.01, 2 studies, 159 women). There was little or no difference between the groups for other primary outcomes with all being very low‐certainty evidence: ‐ spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.98, 1 study, 48 women): ‐ uterine hyperstimulation (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.03 to 6.79, 1 study, 48 women); ‐ admission to NICU (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.86, 2 studies, 159 babies). There were no serious neonatal infections nor serious neonatal morbidity or mortality in the one study (involving 48 babies) assessing these outcomes. Authors' conclusions Data on the effectiveness, safety and women's experiences of home versus inpatient induction of labour are limited and of very low‐certainty. Given that serious adverse events are likely to be extremely rare, the safety data are more likely to come from very large observational cohort studies rather than relatively small RCTs

Randomized Trial of Early Detection and Treatment of Postpartum Hemorrhage

Background: Delays in the detection or treatment of postpartum hemorrhage can result in complications or death. A blood-collection drape can help provide objective, accurate, and early diagnosis of postpartum hemorrhage, and delayed or inconsistent use of effective interventions may be able to be addressed by a treatment bundle.Methods: We conducted an international, cluster-randomized trial to assess a multicomponent clinical intervention for postpartum hemorrhage in patients having vaginal delivery. The intervention included a calibrated blood-collection drape for early detection of postpartum hemorrhage and a bundle of first-response treatments (uterine massage, oxytocic drugs, tranexamic acid, intravenous fluids, examination, and escalation), supported by an implementation strategy (intervention group). Hospitals in the control group provided usual care. The primary outcome was a composite of severe postpartum hemorrhage (blood loss, ≥1000 ml), laparotomy for bleeding, or maternal death from bleeding. Key secondary implementation outcomes were the detection of postpartum hemorrhage and adherence to the treatment bundle.Results: A total of 80 secondary-level hospitals across Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, and Tanzania, in which 210,132 patients underwent vaginal delivery, were randomly assigned to the intervention group or the usual-care group. Among hospitals and patients with data, a primary-outcome event occurred in 1.6% of the patients in the intervention group, as compared with 4.3% of those in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.50; P<0.001). Postpartum hemorrhage was detected in 93.1% of the patients in the intervention group and in 51.1% of those in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.41 to 1.76), and the treatment bundle was used in 91.2% and 19.4%, respectively (rate ratio, 4.94; 95% CI, 3.88 to 6.28).Conclusions: Early detection of postpartum hemorrhage and use of bundled treatment led to a lower risk of the primary outcome, a composite of severe postpartum hemorrhage, laparotomy for bleeding, or death from bleeding, than usual care among patients having vaginal delivery

Randomized Trial of Early Detection and Treatment of Postpartum Hemorrhage

Background: Delays in the detection or treatment of postpartum hemorrhage can result in complications or death. A blood-collection drape can help provide objective, accurate, and early diagnosis of postpartum hemorrhage, and delayed or inconsistent use of effective interventions may be able to be addressed by a treatment bundle.Methods: We conducted an international, cluster-randomized trial to assess a multicomponent clinical intervention for postpartum hemorrhage in patients having vaginal delivery. The intervention included a calibrated blood-collection drape for early detection of postpartum hemorrhage and a bundle of first-response treatments (uterine massage, oxytocic drugs, tranexamic acid, intravenous fluids, examination, and escalation), supported by an implementation strategy (intervention group). Hospitals in the control group provided usual care. The primary outcome was a composite of severe postpartum hemorrhage (blood loss, ≥1000 ml), laparotomy for bleeding, or maternal death from bleeding. Key secondary implementation outcomes were the detection of postpartum hemorrhage and adherence to the treatment bundle.Results: A total of 80 secondary-level hospitals across Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, and Tanzania, in which 210,132 patients underwent vaginal delivery, were randomly assigned to the intervention group or the usual-care group. Among hospitals and patients with data, a primary-outcome event occurred in 1.6% of the patients in the intervention group, as compared with 4.3% of those in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.50; P<0.001). Postpartum hemorrhage was detected in 93.1% of the patients in the intervention group and in 51.1% of those in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.41 to 1.76), and the treatment bundle was used in 91.2% and 19.4%, respectively (rate ratio, 4.94; 95% CI, 3.88 to 6.28).Conclusions: Early detection of postpartum hemorrhage and use of bundled treatment led to a lower risk of the primary outcome, a composite of severe postpartum hemorrhage, laparotomy for bleeding, or death from bleeding, than usual care among patients having vaginal delivery

Case report: Disseminated peritoneal leiomyomatosis post laparascopic myomectomy

Uterine fibroids affect women during the middle and later reproductive years. Recently. with advancement in laparoscopic techniques including the use of power morcellation, there has been an increase reported cases of extra uterine myomas. Disseminated peritoneal leiomyomatosis (DPL) or leiomyomatosis peritonealis disseminata is a rare condition, which is characterized by benign smooth muscle cells proliferation in the peritoneal cavity. This is a case of incidental intra operative DPL with synchronous recurrent uterine leiomyomas 6 years post uncontained laparoscopic myomectomy and morcellation. Histological of both uterine and extra uterine masses were consistent with benign leiomyomas

Effect of diagnosis and treatment of inoperable cervical cancer on quality of life among women receiving radiotherapy at Kenyatta National Hospital

No Abstract. The East African Medical Journal Vol. 84 (1) 2007: pp 24-3

Pooled testing conserves SARS-CoV-2 laboratory resources and improves test turn-around time: Experience on the Kenyan Coast

Background: International recommendations for the control of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic emphasize the central role of laboratory testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the etiological agent, at scale. The availability of testing reagents, laboratory equipment and qualified staff are important bottlenecks to achieving this. Elsewhere, pooled testing (i.e. combining multiple samples in the same reaction) has been suggested to increase testing capacities in the pandemic period. Methods: We discuss our experience with SARS-CoV-2 pooled testing using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on the Kenyan Coast. Results: In mid-May, 2020, our RT-PCR testing capacity for SARS-CoV-2 was improved by ~100% as a result of adoption of a six-sample pooled testing strategy. This was accompanied with a concomitant saving of ~50% of SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test kits at both the RNA extraction and RT-PCR stages. However, pooled testing came with a slight decline of test sensitivity. The RT-PCR cycle threshold value (ΔCt) was ~1.59 higher for samples tested in pools compared to samples tested singly. Conclusions: Pooled testing is a useful strategy to increase SARS-CoV-2 laboratory testing capacity especially in low-income settings.</p