Antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery

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

Menopausal symptoms assessment among middle age women in Kushtia, Bangladesh

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There are few menopausal study data available in South East Asia especially in Bangladesh. This study was conducted in a well populated town named Kushtia, which is located in the western part of Bangladesh.</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>This study was aimed to document the menopausal-related symptoms among middle age women of Kushtia region of Bangladesh.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>By using modified MRS (Menopause Rating Scale) questionnaire, 509 women aged 40-70 years were interviewed to document symptoms commonly associated with menopause.</p> <p>Findings</p> <p>The mean age of menopause was 51.14 years. The most prevalent symptoms reported include, feeling tired (92.90%); headache (88.80%); joint and muscular discomfort (76.20%); physical and mental exhaustion (60.90%) and sleeplessness (54.40%) which are followed by depressive mood (37.30%); irritability (36%); dryness of vagina (36%); hot flushes and sweating (35.80%); anxiety (34.20%). However, noted less frequent symptoms were sexual problem (31.20%); cardiac discomfort (19.10%) and bladder problem (12.80%).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The prevalence of menopausal symptoms found in this study correspond to other studies on Asian women however the prevalence of classical menopausal symptoms of hot flushes and sweating were lower compared to studies on Caucasian women.</p

Advances in hormone replacement therapy: making the menopause manageable

The importance of the results of some large, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) has modified the risk/benefit perception of HRT. Recent literature review supports a different management

Frequency of symptoms, determinants of severe symptoms, validity of and cut-off score for Menopause Rating Scale (MRS) as a screening tool: A cross-sectional survey among midlife Nepalese women

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Majority of Nepalese women live in remote rural areas, where health services are not easily accessible. We determined the validity of Menopause Rating Scale (MRS) as a screening tool for identification of women with severe menopausal symptoms and cut-off MRS score for referral.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A cross-sectional survey was carried out between February and August, 2008. Trained health workers administered MRS and a questionnaire to 729 women (40 to 65 years) attending health screening camps in Kaski district of Western Development Region of Nepal. Information about demographics, menopausal status, and use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT), chronic disease, self-perceived general health and reproductive history was also collected. Menopausal status was classified according to the Staging of Reproductive Ageing Workshop (STRAW). We calculated rates of menopausal symptoms, sensitivity, and specificity and likelihood ratios of MRS scores for referral to a gynaecologist. We also carried out multivariate analyses to identify the predictors for referral to a gynaecologist for severe symptoms.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total 729 women were interviewed. Mean age at menopause was 49.9 years (SD 5.6). Most frequently reported symptoms were, sleeping problems (574, 78.7%), physical and mental exhaustion (73.5%), hot flushes (508, 69.7%), joint and muscular discomfort (500, 68.6%) and dryness of vagina (449, 61.6%). Postmenopausal women (247, 33.9%) and perimenopausal (215, 29.5%) women together experienced significantly higher prevalence of all symptoms than the premenopausal (267, 36.6%) women. MRS score of ≥16 had highest ratio for (sensitivity + specificity)/2. Women who reported urogenital symptoms [OR 5.29, 95% CI 2.59, 10.78], and self perceived general health as poor [OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.11, 1.53] were more likely to be referred to a gynaecologist for severe menopausal symptoms. While women reporting somatic [OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63, 0.82] and psychological [OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74, 0.99] symptoms were less likely to be referred.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>MRS may be used as a screening tool at a cut-off score of ≥16 with least misclassification rate. However, its utility may be limited by woman's general health status and occurrence of urogenital symptoms.</p

Antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery

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. 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 deliveries, or both. Search methods We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (12 July 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (12 July 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria All randomised 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 undergoing vacuum or forceps delivery for any indications. Interventions were any antibiotic prophylaxis (any dosage regimen, any route of administration or at any time during delivery or the puerperium) compared with either placebo or no treatment. Data collection and analysis Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and methodological quality. 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 one included trial using the GRADE approach. Main results One trial, involving 393 women undergoing either vacuum or forceps deliveries, was included. The trial compared the antibiotic intravenous cefotetan after cord clamping compared with no treatment. This trial reported only two out of the nine outcomes specified in this review. Seven women in the group given no antibiotics had endomyometritis and none in prophylactic antibiotic group, the risk reduction was 93% (risk ratio (RR) 0.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 1.21; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in the length of hospital stay between the two groups (mean difference (MD) 0.09 days; 95% CI -0.23 to 0.41; low-quality evidence). Overall, the risk of bias was judged to be unclear. The quality of the evidence using GRADE was low for both endometritis and maternal length of stay. Authors' conclusions One small trial was identified reporting only two outcomes. Evidence from this single trial suggests that antibiotic prophylaxis may lead to little or no difference in endometritis or maternal length of stay. There were no data on any other outcomes to evaluate the impact of antibiotic prophylaxis after operative vaginal delivery. Future research on antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery is needed to conclude whether it is useful for reducing postpartum morbidity

Prophylactic use of ergot alkaloids in the third stage of labour

Background Previous research has shown that the prophylactic use of uterotonic agents in the third stage of labour reduces postpartum blood loss and moderate to severe postpartum haemorrhage (PPH). PPH is defined as a blood loss of 500 mL or more within 24 hours after birth. This is one of a series of systematic reviews assessing the effects of prophylactic use of uterotonic drugs; in this review prophylactic ergot alkaloids as a whole, and different regimens of administration of ergot alkaloids, are compared with no uterotonic agents. This is an update of a Cochrane Review which was first published in 2007 and last updated in 2011. Objectives To determine the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic use of ergot alkaloids in the third stage of labour by any route (intravenous (IV), intramuscular (IM), or oral) compared with no uterotonic agents, for the prevention of PPH. 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) (19 September 2017); we also searched reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria We included all randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised trials comparing prophylactic ergot alkaloids by any route (IV, IM, or oral) with no uterotonic agents in the third stage of labour among women giving birth vaginally. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and checked them for accuracy; they also assessed the risk of bias in included studies. Two review authors assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Main results There were eight included studies: three studies had a low risk of bias and five studies had high risk of bias. The studies compared ergot alkaloids with no uterotonic agents, with a total of 2031 women in the ergot alkaloids group and 1978 women in the placebo or no treatment group. Seven studies used the IV/IM route of administration and one study used the oral route. Ergot alkaloids (any route of administration) versus no uterotonic agents Use of ergot alkaloids in the third stage of labour decreased mean blood loss (mean difference (MD) -80.52 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) -96.39 to -64.65 mL; women = 2718; studies = 3; moderate-quality evidence); decreased PPH of at least 500 mL (average risk ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.94; women = 3708; studies = 5; I2 = 83%; low-quality evidence); increased maternal haemoglobin concentration (g/dL) at 24 to 48 hours postpartum (MD 0.50 g/dL, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.62; women = 1429; studies = 1; moderate-quality evidence); and decreased the use of therapeutic uterotonics (average RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.90; women = 2698; studies = 3; I2 = 89%; low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups in severe PPH of at least 1000 mL (average RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.59; women = 1718; studies = 2; I2 = 74%; very low-quality evidence). The risk of retained placenta or manual removal of the placenta, or both, were inconsistent with high heterogeneity. Ergot alkaloids increased the risk of elevated blood pressure (average RR 2.60, 95% CI 1.03 to 6.57: women = 2559; studies = 3; low-quality evidence) and pain after birth requiring analgesia (RR 2.53, 95% CI 1.34 to 4.78: women = 1429; studies = 1; moderate-quality evidence) but there were no differences between groups in vomiting, nausea, headache or eclamptic fit. Results for IV/IM ergot alkaloids versus no uterotonic agents were similar to those for the main comparison of ergot alkaloids administered by any route, since most of the studies (seven of eight) used the IV/IM route. Only one small study (289 women) compared oral ergometrine with placebo and it showed no benefit of ergometrine over placebo. No maternal adverse effects were reported. None of the studies reported on any of our prespecified neonatal outcomes Authors' conclusions Prophylactic IM or IV injections of ergot alkaloids may be effective in reducing blood loss, reducing PPH (estimated blood loss of at least 500 mL), and increasing maternal haemoglobin. Ergot alkaloids may also decrease the use of therapeutic uterotonics, but adverse effects may include elevated blood pressure and pain after birth requiring analgesia. There were no differences between groups in terms of other adverse effects (vomiting, nausea, headache or eclamptic fit). There is a lack of evidence on the effects of ergot alkaloids on severe PPH, and retained or manual removal of placenta. There is also a lack of evidence on the oral route of administration of ergot alkaloids