Search

Objective: To estimate the effect of diabetes group prenatal care on rates of preterm birth and large for gestational age (LGA) among patients with diabetes in pregnancy compared with individual diabetes prenatal care., Data Sources: We searched Ovid Medline (1946-), Embase.com (1947-), Scopus (1823-), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov., Methods of Study Selection: We searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing diabetes group prenatal care with individual care among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus or gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The primary outcomes were preterm birth before 37 weeks of gestation and LGA (birth weight at or above the 90th percentile). Secondary outcomes were small for gestational age, cesarean delivery, neonatal hypoglycemia, neonatal intensive care unit admission, breastfeeding at hospital discharge, long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) uptake, and 6-week postpartum visit attendance. Secondary outcomes, limited to the subgroup of patients with GDM, included rates of GDM requiring diabetes medication (A2GDM) and completion of postpartum oral glucose tolerance testing (OGTT). Heterogeneity was assessed with the Cochran Q test and I2 statistic. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and weighted mean differences., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: Eight studies met study criteria and were included in the final analysis: three RCTs and five observational studies. A total of 1,701 patients were included in the pooled studies: 770 (45.3%) in diabetes group prenatal care and 931 (54.7%) in individual care. Patients in diabetes group prenatal care had similar rates of preterm birth compared with patients in individual care (seven studies: pooled rates 9.5% diabetes group prenatal care vs 11.5% individual care, pooled RR 0.77, 95% CI, 0.59-1.01), which held for RCTs and observational studies. There was no difference between diabetes group prenatal care and individual care in rates of LGA overall (four studies: pooled rate 16.7% diabetes group prenatal care vs 20.2% individual care, pooled RR 0.93, 95% CI, 0.59-1.45) or by study type. Rates of other secondary outcomes were similar between diabetes group prenatal care and individual care, except patients in diabetes group prenatal care were more likely to receive postpartum LARC (three studies: pooled rates 46.1% diabetes group prenatal care vs 34.1% individual care, pooled RR 1.44, 95% CI, 1.09-1.91). When analysis was limited to patients with GDM, there were no differences in rates of A2GDM or postpartum visit attendance, but patients in diabetes group prenatal care were significantly more likely to complete postpartum OGTT (five studies: pooled rate 74.0% diabetes group prenatal care vs 49.4% individual care, pooled RR 1.58, 95% CI, 1.19-2.09)., Conclusion: Patients with type 2 diabetes and GDM who participate in diabetes group prenatal care have similar rates of preterm birth, LGA, and other pregnancy outcomes compared with those who participate in individual care; however, they are significantly more likely to receive postpartum LARC, and those with GDM are more likely to return for postpartum OGTT., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, CRD42021279233., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Stacey Ehrenberg Buchner reports receiving payment from Dexcom, Inc. Michelle P Debbink reports her institution received payment from the March of Dimes as part of the Reproductive Scientist Development Program, and from the Larry H. Miller Family Foundation as part of the Driving Out Diabetes Program at the University of Utah. Jeannie C. Kelly reports receiving payment to her institution from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Doris Duke Foundation, and past payments from Pew Charitable Trusts and the Barnes Jewish Foundation. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate whether viewing an educational video on pain management reduces opioid use after cesarean delivery., Methods: We conducted a randomized, controlled trial of women aged 18 years or older who underwent cesarean delivery at a tertiary care center. Eligible women were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to usual discharge pain medication instructions plus an educational video on pain management or to usual discharge pain medication instructions alone. All women received the same opioid prescription at discharge: Twenty 5-mg oxycodone tablets. Participants were contacted at 7 days and at 14 days after delivery to assess the number of oxycodone tablets used, adjunct medication (acetaminophen and ibuprofen) use, pain scores, and overall satisfaction of pain control. The primary outcome was the number of oxycodone tablets used from discharge through postpartum day 14. A sample size of 23 per group (n=46) was planned to detect a 25% difference in mean number of oxycodone tablets used between groups, as from 20 to 15., Results: From July 2019 through December 2019, 61 women were screened and 48 were enrolled-24 in each group. Women who viewed the educational video used significantly fewer opioid tablets from discharge through postpartum day 14 compared with women who received usual pain medication instructions (median 1.5, range 0-20 vs median 10, range 0-24, P<.001). Adjunct medication use, pain scores, and satisfaction with pain control did not differ significantly between groups., Conclusion: Among women who underwent cesarean delivery, viewing an educational video on pain management reduced postdischarge opioid use., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03959969., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of an intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage-control device for postpartum hemorrhage treatment., Methods: A multicenter, prospective, single-arm treatment study of a novel intrauterine device that uses low-level vacuum to induce uterine myometrial contraction to achieve control of abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding and postpartum hemorrhage was undertaken at 12 centers in the United States. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the proportion of participants in whom use of the intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage-control device controlled abnormal bleeding without requiring escalating interventions. The primary safety endpoint was the incidence, severity, and seriousness of device-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes included time to bleeding control, rate of transfusion, and device usability scored by each investigator using the device., Results: Of 107 participants enrolled with primary postpartum hemorrhage or abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding, 106 received any study treatment with the device connected to vacuum, and successful treatment was observed in 94% (100/106, 95% CI 88-98%) of these participants. In those 100 participants, definitive control of abnormal bleeding was reported in a median of 3 minutes (interquartile range 2.0-5.0) after connection to vacuum. Eight adverse events deemed possibly related to the device or procedure were reported, all of which were outlined as risks in the study and all of which resolved with treatment without serious clinical sequelae. Transfusion of 1-3 units of red blood cells was required in 35 participants, and five participants required 4 or more units of red blood cells. The majority of investigators reported the intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage-control device as easy to use (98%) and would recommend it (97%)., Conclusion: Intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage control may provide a new rapid and effective treatment option for abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding or postpartum hemorrhage, with the potential to prevent severe maternal morbidity and mortality., Funding Source: Alydia Health, Inc., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02883673.

Objective: To examine the association of a resident-driven quality initiative with cesarean delivery surgical site infections., Methods: This was a quasi-experimental, preintervention and postintervention study of women undergoing cesarean delivery at 23 weeks of gestation or greater between January 2015 and June 2018 at a single tertiary care center. We implemented a resident-driven, evidence-based surgical bundle, excluding women who underwent emergency cesarean or had chorioamnionitis. The bundle included routine prophylactic antibiotics (both cefazolin and azithromycin), chlorhexidine alcohol skin preparation, use of clippers instead of a razor, vaginal cleansing with povidone iodine, placental removal by umbilical cord traction, subcutaneous tissue closure if wound thickness greater than 2 cm, suture skin closure, dressing removal between 24 and 48 hours, and use of postoperative chlorhexidine soap. Our primary outcome was surgical site infections (superficial incisional, deep incisional, and organ or space surgical site infections) occurring up to 6 weeks postpartum. Outcomes were compared between the preimplementation period (January 2015-August 2016) and postimplementation period (December 2016-June 2018). Coarsened Exact Matching with k-to-k solution was performed using age, race-ethnicity, body mass index, rupture of membranes, and labor., Results: In total, 1,624 underwent cesarean delivery in the preimplementation and 1,523 postimplementation periods, respectively; 1,100 women in the postimplementation period were matched to 1,100 women in the preimplementation period. The rate of surgical site infections in the unmatched cohort was significantly lower in the postimplementation period compared to those in the preimplementation period (2.2% [33/1,523] vs 4.5% [73/1,624]; odds ratio [OR] 0.47 [95% CI 0.31-0.71]; P<.001). This decrease in the rate of surgical site infections remained statistically significant after matching (1.9% [21/1,100] vs 4.1% [45/1,100]; OR 0.46 [0.27-0.77]; P<.001)., Conclusion: After implementation of a resident-driven quality initiative using a surgical bundle, we observed a significant decrease in cesarean surgical site infections.

Objective: To compare maternal and neonatal outcomes based on length of the latent phase during induction with rupture of membranes before 6 cm dilation., Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study using data from the Consortium of Safe Labor study, including 9,763 nulliparous and 8,379 multiparous women with singleton, term pregnancies undergoing induction at 2 cm dilation or less with rupture of membranes before 6 cm dilation after which the latent phase ended. Outcomes were evaluated according to duration of oxytocin and rupture of membranes., Results: At time points from 6 to 18 hours of oxytocin and rupture of membranes, the rates of nulliparous women remaining in the latent phase declined (35.9-1.4%) and the rates of vaginal delivery for those remaining in the latent phase at these time periods decreased (54.1-29.9%) Nulliparous women remaining in the latent phase for 12 hours compared with women who had exited the latent phase had significantly increased rates of chorioamnionitis (12.1% compared with 4.1%) and endometritis (3.6% compared with 1.3%) and increased rates of neonatal intensive care unit admission (8.7% compared with 6.3%). Similar patterns were present for multiparous women at 15 hours., Conclusion: Based on when neonatal morbidity increased, in an otherwise uncomplicated induction of labor with rupture of membranes, a latent phase after initiation of oxytocin of at least 12 hours for nulliparous women and 15 hours in multiparous women is a reasonable criterion for diagnosing a failed induction.

Objective: To evaluate maternal and neonatal outcomes by attempted mode of operative delivery from a low station in the second stage of labor., Methods: Retrospective study of 2,518 women carrying singleton fetuses at 37 weeks of gestation or greater who underwent attempted forceps-assisted delivery, attempted vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery, or cesarean delivery from a low station in the second stage of labor. Primary outcomes were stratified by parity and included a maternal adverse outcome composite (postpartum hemorrhage, transfusion, endometritis, peripartum hysterectomy, or intensive care unit admission) and a neonatal adverse outcome composite (5-minute Apgar score less than 4, respiratory morbidity, neonatal intensive care unit admission, shoulder dystocia, birth trauma, or sepsis)., Results: In nulliparous patients, the maternal adverse composite was not significantly different between women who underwent attempted forceps (12.1% compared with 10.8%, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-1.34) or vacuum (8.3% compared with 10.8%, adjusted OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.40-1.16) delivery compared with cesarean delivery. Among parous women, the maternal adverse composite was not significantly different with attempted forceps (10.7% compared with 12.5%, adjusted OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.09-1.71) or vacuum (11.3% compared with 12.5%, adjusted OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11-1.72) compared with cesarean delivery. Compared with neonates delivered by cesarean, the neonatal adverse composite was significantly lower among neonates born to nulliparous women who underwent attempted forceps (9.4% compared with 16.7%, adjusted OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27-0.72) but not among those who underwent vacuum delivery (11.9% compared with 16.7%, adjusted OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.44-1.04). Among parous women, the neonatal adverse composite was not significantly different after attempted forceps (4.1% compared with 12.5%, adjusted OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.06-1.35) or vacuum (12.5% compared with 12.5%, adjusted OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.28-3.87) compared with cesarean delivery., Conclusion: A trial of forceps delivery from a low station compared with cesarean delivery was associated with decreased neonatal morbidity among neonates born to nulliparous women., Level of Evidence: II.