Search

Objective: To investigate the optimal gestational age to deliver pregnant people with chronic hypertension to improve perinatal outcomes., Methods: We conducted a planned secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial of chronic hypertension treatment to different blood pressure goals. Participants with term, singleton gestations were included. Those with fetal anomalies and those with a diagnosis of preeclampsia before 37 weeks of gestation were excluded. The primary maternal composite outcome included death, serious morbidity (heart failure, stroke, encephalopathy, myocardial infarction, pulmonary edema, intensive care unit admission, intubation, renal failure), preeclampsia with severe features, hemorrhage requiring blood transfusion, or abruption. The primary neonatal outcome included fetal or neonatal death, respiratory support beyond oxygen mask, Apgar score less than 3 at 5 minutes, neonatal seizures, or suspected sepsis. Secondary outcomes included intrapartum cesarean birth, length of stay, neonatal intensive care unit admission, respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), transient tachypnea of the newborn, and hypoglycemia. Those with a planned delivery were compared with those expectantly managed at each gestational week. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% CIs are reported., Results: We included 1,417 participants with mild chronic hypertension; 305 (21.5%) with a new diagnosis in pregnancy and 1,112 (78.5%) with known preexisting hypertension. Groups differed by body mass index (BMI) and preexisting diabetes. In adjusted models, there was no association between planned delivery and the primary maternal or neonatal composite outcome in any gestational age week compared with expectant management. Planned delivery at 37 weeks of gestation was associated with RDS (7.9% vs 3.0%, aOR 2.70, 95% CI, 1.40-5.22), and planned delivery at 37 and 38 weeks was associated with neonatal hypoglycemia (19.4% vs 10.7%, aOR 1.97, 95% CI, 1.27-3.08 in week 37; 14.4% vs 7.7%, aOR 1.82, 95% CI, 1.06-3.10 in week 38)., Conclusion: Planned delivery in the early-term period compared with expectant management was not associated with a reduction in adverse maternal outcomes. However, it was associated with increased odds of some neonatal complications. Delivery timing for individuals with mild chronic hypertension should weigh maternal and neonatal outcomes in each gestational week but may be optimized by delivery at 39 weeks., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure: Torri D. Metz reports personal fees from Pfizer for her role as a medical consultant for a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in pregnancy study, grants from Pfizer for role as a site PI for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in pregnancy study, and grants from Pfizer for role as a site PI for RSV vaccination in pregnancy study outside the submitted work. Sherri Longo reports that UAB received NIH funding for the CHAP trial and Ochsner was one of the sites participating in the trial. Ochsner received a subaward from UAB for participation in the trial. Ochsner is a subsite to UAB, who is in the MFMU network; therefore, they have participated in trials. They have participated in other studies with UAB, including the CSOAP trial. They have collaborated on studies with Tulane and have subawards. Kelly Gibson reports money was paid to her institution from NHLBI, NICHD, and Materna Medical. Lauren Plante reports receiving payment from Cambridge University Press and Taylor & Francis for textbook royalties. She also received an honorarium speaking fee from Monmouth Medical Center. Sean Esplin received payment from Laborie and Nemo Health. Heather Frey and Wendy Kinzler received payment from UpToDate. Todd Rosen's institution received payment from Materna, Inc. and Myriad, Inc. Mary Norton received payment from Luna Genetics. Daniel Skupski received payment from Organon and Cooper Surgical. Leonardo Pereira's institution received payment for a Johnson & Johnson clinical trial. He received payment from Prehevbrio for serving on the data safety monitoring board for hepatitis vaccine in pregnancy. Namasivayam Ambalavanan received payment from Oak Hill Bio and for serving on the advisory board and holding intellectual property with AlveolusBio and Resbiotic. Alan T. N. Tita's institution received payment from Pfizer. Everett Magann received payment from UpToDate for co-authorship of the Ultrasound Assessment of Amniotic Fluid Volume chapter. Lorraine Dugoff reports that money was paid to her institution from Myriad and Natera. Brenna L. Hughes reports receiving funding from UpToDate and Moderna. Eugene Chang reports money was paid to his institution from Roche Diagnostics and Roche. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To estimate the association between mean arterial pressure during pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in participants with chronic hypertension using data from the CHAP (Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy) trial., Methods: A secondary analysis of the CHAP trial, an open-label, multicenter randomized trial of antihypertensive treatment in pregnancy, was conducted. The CHAP trial enrolled participants with mild chronic hypertension (blood pressure [BP] 140-159/90-104 mm Hg) and singleton pregnancies less than 23 weeks of gestation, randomizing them to active treatment (maintained on antihypertensive therapy with a goal BP below 140/90 mm Hg) or standard treatment (control; antihypertensives withheld unless BP reached 160 mm Hg systolic BP or higher or 105 mm Hg diastolic BP or higher). We used logistic regression to measure the strength of association between mean arterial pressure (average and highest across study visits) and to select neonatal outcomes. Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (per 1-unit increase in millimeters of mercury) of the primary neonatal composite outcome (bronchopulmonary dysplasia, retinopathy of prematurity, necrotizing enterocolitis, or intraventricular hemorrhage grade 3 or 4) and individual secondary outcomes (neonatal intensive care unit admission [NICU], low birth weight [LBW] below 2,500 g, and small for gestational age [SGA]) were calculated., Results: A total of 2,284 participants were included: 1,155 active and 1,129 control. Adjusted models controlling for randomization group demonstrated that increasing average mean arterial pressure per millimeter of mercury was associated with an increase in each neonatal outcome examined except NEC, specifically neonatal composite (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.12, 95% CI, 1.09-1.16), NICU admission (aOR 1.07, 95% CI, 1.06-1.08), LBW (aOR 1.12, 95% CI, 1.11-1.14), SGA below the fifth percentile (aOR 1.03, 95% CI, 1.01-1.06), and SGA below the 10th percentile (aOR 1.02, 95% CI, 1.01-1.04). Models using the highest mean arterial pressure as opposed to average mean arterial pressure also demonstrated consistent associations., Conclusion: Increasing mean arterial pressure was positively associated with most adverse neonatal outcomes except NEC. Given that the relationship between mean arterial pressure and adverse pregnancy outcomes may not be consistent at all mean arterial pressure levels, future work should attempt to further elucidate whether there is an absolute threshold or relative change in mean arterial pressure at which fetal benefits are optimized along with maternal benefits., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02299414., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Rodney K. Edwards' institution received grants from the Oklahoma Center for Advancement of Science and Technology for a pilot study related to postcesarean opioids, and from the NIH through Oklahoma CTR for a pilot trial on warming preterm infants during delayed cord clamping, a Presbyterian Health Foundation Team Science grant for a pilot trial evaluating effect of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on maternal triglycerides and fetal growth, an NIH grant to evaluate changes in atherogenic apolipoproteins with immediate prepregnancy intervention and whether they were maintained during pregnancy, a grant from Cepheid for clinical evaluation of the Xpert Xpress GBS test using vaginal/rectal dual swabs collected intrapartum, and an NIH grant for a multicenter RCT evaluating intensive glycemic targets in overweight and obese women with GDM. He has a pending NIH grant for a multicenter RCT evaluating prophylactic antibiotics for inductions of labor in nulliparous women with obesity at term. Dr. Edwards served as an expert witness in a case regarding a malpractice claim. Kelly S. Gibson's institution received funding for the Materna Medical research study (EASE). She received payment from the NIH for serving on the RADX grant review committee. She has been a speaker at an ACOG-AIM webinar and received a Ohio State AIM grant for hypertension treatment. Torri D. Metz received UpToDate royalties for two topics on trial of labor after cesarean. Her institution received payment from Pfizer, as she has been a site PI for a phase III respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine trial, a COVID-19 vaccine trial in pregnancy, and pharmacokinetic study of Paxlovid in pregnancy for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 (institution received money to conduct studies). Sean Esplin received payment from Laborie. Anna Palatnik received payment from the American Heart Association career development award and from NHLBI HL165013 to evaluate intensive postpartum antihypertensive treatment following gestational hypertension or preeclampsia. Mary E. Norton received payment from Luna Genetics. Leonardo Pereira's institution received payment from Johnson & Johnson/Janssen pharmaceuticals to support a clinical trial in alloimmunized patients. Everett F. Magann received a royalty as an author of the UpToDate chapter on ultrasound estimate of amniotic fluid volume. Eugene Chang's institution received payment from Roche Diagnostics. Alan T.N. Tita's institution received payment from Pfizer. Sherri Longo acknowledges the financial support received for the Prospect study and other NIH-funded studies including CHAP maternal follow-up and CSOAP follow-up. She is also an investigator for the Moms on the Bayou research project with Tulane University and is receiving funding from the NIH Maternal Health Research Center of Excellence awarded to a collaborative effort between Tulane University, Ochsner Health, and RHI. Todd Rosen acknowledges the financial support received as a co-investigator from Materna Medical Inc to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Materna Prep Device; NEIHS/HIN for the Ambient Air Pollution, Weather, and Placental Abruption (APWA) study; NIH/NICHD for The Genomic Architecture of Pregnancy Loss study and Multicenter Maternal-Fetal Medicine Unit Research Network—MFMU Clinical Center (TAC); NIH/NHLBI for Pregnancy as a Window to the Future study (a CHAP maternal follow-up study) and for Cardiovascular Health After Placental Abruption study; and as a principal investigator for Sulfasalazine to Prevent Preterm Birth, funded by the Hudson Shea Foundation and The Perinatal Research Consortium. Daniel Skupski's institution received payment from Pfizer, as he served as a site PI for a phase III respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine trial (institution received money to conduct study). His institution also received payment for her to serve as a site PI for a COVID-19 vaccination trial in pregnancy. Dr. Skupski is also a paid consultant for the Organon company in relation to a medical device (Fetal Pillow) used to manage cesarean deliveries performed during the second stage of labor. Rachel Sinkey received funding paid to her institution from the NIH and the American Heart Association. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate maternal and neonatal outcomes by type of antihypertensive used in participants of the CHAP (Chronic Hypertension in Pregnancy) trial., Methods: We conducted a planned secondary analysis of CHAP, an open-label, multicenter, randomized trial of antihypertensive treatment compared with standard care (no treatment unless severe hypertension developed) in pregnant patients with mild chronic hypertension (blood pressure 140-159/90-104 mm Hg before 20 weeks of gestation) and singleton pregnancies. We performed three comparisons based on medications prescribed at enrollment: labetalol compared with standard care, nifedipine compared with standard care, and labetalol compared with nifedipine. Although active compared with standard care groups were randomized, medication assignment within the active treatment group was not random but based on clinician or patient preference. The primary outcome was the occurrence of superimposed preeclampsia with severe features, preterm birth before 35 weeks of gestation, placental abruption, or fetal or neonatal death. The key secondary outcome was small for gestational age (SGA) neonates. We also compared medication adverse effects between groups. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs were estimated with log binomial regression to adjust for confounding., Results: Of 2,292 participants analyzed, 720 (31.4%) received labetalol, 417 (18.2%) received nifedipine, and 1,155 (50.4%) received no treatment. The mean gestational age at enrollment was 10.5±3.7 weeks; nearly half of participants (47.5%) identified as non-Hispanic Black; and 44.5% used aspirin. The primary outcome occurred in 217 (30.1%), 130 (31.2%), and 427 (37.0%) in the labetalol, nifedipine, and standard care groups, respectively. Risk of the primary outcome was lower among those receiving treatment (labetalol use vs standard adjusted RR 0.82, 95% CI, 0.72-0.94; nifedipine use vs standard adjusted RR 0.84, 95% CI, 0.71-0.99), but there was no significant difference in risk when labetalol was compared with nifedipine (adjusted RR 0.98, 95% CI, 0.82-1.18). There were no significant differences in SGA or serious adverse events between participants receiving labetalol and those receiving nifedipine., Conclusion: No significant differences in predetermined maternal or neonatal outcomes were detected on the basis of the use of labetalol or nifedipine for treatment of chronic hypertension in pregnancy., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02299414., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Brenna L. Hughes reports receiving payment from UpToDate. Rodney K. Edwards' institution received payment from the Oklahoma Center for Advancement of Science and Technology and the Presbyterian Health Foundation. He received payment from the NIH through Oklahoma CTR grant for a pilot trial on warming preterm infants during delayed cord clamping. He received a Presbyterian Health Foundation grant for a pilot trial on omega-3 fatty acid supplementation effects on maternal triglycerides and fetal growth. He received an NIH grant for evaluation of atherogenic lipoproteins changes with immediate prepregnancy intervention and whether they were maintained during pregnancy. He received a grant from Cepheid for the clinical evaluation of the Xpert Xpress GBS test using vaginal/rectal swabs collected intrapartum. He was awarded an Oklahoma State DOH contract for support for patient-centered, comprehensive pregnancy care for women with substance use disorders. He received an NIH grant for a multicenter RCT of intensive glycemic targets in women with overweight and obesity with GDM. Lastly, he has a pending NIH grant for a multicenter RCT of prophylactic antibiotics for induction of labor in women with obesity. He has served on an expert witness case regarding a medical malpractice claim. Kelly S. Gibson's institution received an NHCID-MFMU network grant and Materna Medical research support (EASE). She received payment from NIH as a RADx grant reviewer and was an Ohio AIM grant recipient as an AIM webinar speaker. Rachel Sinkey received funding paid to her institution from the NIH and the American Heart Association. Kelly S. Gibson reports her institution received an NHCID-MFMU network grant and Materna Medical research support (EASE). She received payment as a NIH-RADx grant reviewer. Torri D. Metz received UpToDate royalties for two topics on trial of labor after cesarean. Her institution received payment from Pfizer, as she has been a site PI for a phase III respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine trial (institution received money to conduct study). Her institution also received payment for her to serve as a site PI for a COVID-19 vaccination trial in pregnancy. She has received payment from Pfizer as a site PI for a pharmacokinetic study of Paxlovid in pregnancy for mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Sean Esplin received payment from Laborie. Mary E. Norton received payment from Luna Genetics. Daniel Skupski received payment from Organon and Cooper Surgical. Leonardo Pereira's institution received payment from Johnson & Johnson/Janssen Pharmaceuticals for an FDA trial on alloimmunization management. Everett F. Magann is a co-author on and UpToDate chapter on amniotic fluid volume assessment. Heather Frey also received royalties for contributions to UpToDate on the topic of uterine rupture. Alan T.N. Tita's institution received funding from Pfizer. Torri D. Metz received UpToDate royalties for two topics on trial of labor after cesarean. Her institution received payment from Pfizer, as she has been a site PI for a phase III respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine trial, a COVID-19 vaccine trial in pregnancy, and pharmacokinetic study of Paxlovid in pregnancy for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 (institution received money to conduct studies). Kara K. Hoppe's institution received an NIH grant for a multicenter RCT of remote blood pressure monitoring with health coaching versus standard of care, HHS funding for a hypertension challenge initiative, Marani to study implementation of their remote patient monitoring platform for hypertensive patients in pregnancy and postpartum. Additionally, she received payment for the NIH as a grant reviewer and WisPQC for providing physician leadership for the state quality initiative on hypertension in pregnancy. Eugene Chang received payment from Roche diagnostics for research on sflt-1/plgf. Sherri Longo acknowledges the financial support received for the Prospect study and other NIH-funded studies including CHAP maternal follow-up and CSOAP follow-up. She is also an investigator for the Moms on the Bayou research project with Tulane University and is receiving funding from the NIH Maternal Health Research Center of Excellence awarded to a collaborative effort between Tulane University, Ochsner Health, and RHI. Alan T.N. Tita's institution received funding from Pfizer. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the association between maternal blood pressure (BP) below 130/80 mm Hg compared with 130-139/80-89 mm Hg and pregnancy outcomes., Methods: We conducted a planned secondary analysis of CHAP (Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy), an open label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Participants with mean BP below 140/90 mm Hg were grouped as below 130/80 mm Hg compared with 130-139/80-89 mm Hg by averaging postrandomization clinic BP throughout pregnancy. The primary composite outcome was preeclampsia with severe features, indicated preterm birth before 35 weeks of gestation, placental abruption, or fetal or neonatal death. The secondary outcome was small for gestational age (SGA)., Results: Of 2,408 patients in CHAP, 2,096 met study criteria; 1,328 had mean BP 130-139/80-89 mm Hg and 768 had mean BP below 130/80 mm Hg. Participants with mean BP below 130/80 mm Hg were more likely to be older, on antihypertensive medication, in the active treatment arm, and to have lower BP at enrollment. Mean clinic BP below 130/80 mm Hg was associated with lower frequency of the primary outcome (16.0% vs 35.8%, adjusted relative risk 0.45; 95% CI 0.38-0.54) as well as lower risk of severe preeclampsia and indicated birth before 35 weeks of gestation. There was no association with SGA., Conclusion: In pregnant patients with mild chronic hypertension, mean BP below 130/80 mm Hg was associated with improved pregnancy outcomes without increased risk of SGA., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02299414., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Alan T.N. Tita reported money was paid to his institution by Pfizer for his efforts on this study. Torri D. Metz disclosed money was paid to her from UpToDate for two topics on trial of labor after cesarean, and money was paid to her institution from Gestvision as a site PI for a preeclampsia point-of-care test; her institution received money to conduct the study (ended August 2020). She has been a site PI for Pfizer on a phase III RSV vaccine trial, and her institution received money to conduct the study. She has also been a member of the Pfizer medical advisory board (1/15/21) and site PI for a COVID-19 vaccination trial in pregnancy. She has served on the SMFM Board of Directors. Lorraine Dugoff reports money was paid to her institution from Laboratory Holdings, Inc. and Natera, Inc. Brenna L. Hughes reports receiving payment from UpToDate. Mary E. Norton reports receiving payment from the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Luna Genetics. Daniel Skupski disclosed he is a consultant for Cooper Surgical, Inc, and has received payment from Organon. Namasivayam Ambalayanan reports receiving payment from Resbiotic/AlveolusBio and Shire/Oak Hill Bio. 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 estimate the association between timing of administration of adjunctive azithromycin for prophylaxis at unscheduled cesarean delivery and maternal infection and neonatal morbidity., Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized trial of adjunctive azithromycin prophylaxis in patients with singleton gestations who were undergoing unscheduled cesarean delivery. The primary exposure was the timing of initiation of the study drug (after skin incision or 0-30 minutes, more than 30-60 minutes, or more than 60 minutes before skin incision). The primary outcome was a composite of endometritis, wound infection, and other maternal infections occurring up to 6 weeks after cesarean delivery. Secondary outcomes included composite neonatal morbidity, neonatal intensive care unit admission for longer than 72 hours, and neonatal sepsis. The association of azithromycin with outcomes was compared within each antibiotic timing group and presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs. A Breslow-Day homogeneity test was applied to assess differences in association by antibiotic timing., Results: Of 2,013 participants, antibiotics were initiated after skin incision (median 3 minutes, range 0-229 minutes) in 269 (13.4%), 0-30 minutes before skin incision in 1,378 (68.5%), more than 30-60 minutes before skin incision in 270 (13.4%), and more than 60 minutes before skin incision (median 85 minutes, range 61-218 minutes) in 96 (4.8%). The RRs (95% CIs) of the infectious composite outcome for azithromycin compared with placebo were significantly lower for groups that initiated azithromycin after skin incision or within 1 hour before skin incision (after skin incision: RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.76; 0-30 minutes before: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44-0.89; more than 30-60 minutes before: 0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.66). Risks were not significantly different in patients who received azithromycin more than 60 minutes before skin incision (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.10-3.36). Results were similar when endometritis and wound infections were analyzed separately. Neonatal outcomes were not significantly different for azithromycin compared with placebo across all timing groups., Conclusion: Adjunctive azithromycin administration up to 60 minutes before or at a median of 3 minutes after skin incision was associated with reduced risks of maternal composite postoperative infection in unscheduled cesarean deliveries., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01235546., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Sherri Longo reported that money was paid to her institution: University of Alabama received the primary NIH grant, and Ochsner (her institution) participated in the study with her as the PI at Ochsner (received financial support from UAB). Michelle Owens reported receiving payment from AMAG pharmaceuticals, Progenity, and Quidel. Alan T.N. Tita reported that money was paid to his institution (University of Alabama at Birmingham) from Pfizer and the CDC. Sean Esplin served on the scientific advisory board of Clinical Innovations and holds stock for Sera Prognostics. Sean Blackwell reported financial support from the NIH/NICHD, Hologic, AMAG and Clinical Computer Systems Inc. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the association of institutional protocols for vaginal preparation with antiseptic solution and the surgical site infection rate in women undergoing cesarean delivery during labor., Methods: This is a secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial of adjunctive azithromycin prophylaxis for cesarean delivery performed in laboring patients with viable pregnancies. The primary outcome for this analysis was the rate of superficial or deep surgical site infection within 6 weeks postpartum, as per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria. Maternal secondary outcomes included a composite of endometritis, wound infection or other infections, postoperative maternal fever, length of hospital stay, and the rates of hospital readmission, unexpected office visits, and emergency department visits., Results: A total of 523 women delivered in institutions with vaginal antisepsis policies before cesarean delivery and 1,490 delivered in institutions without such policies. There was no difference in superficial and deep surgical site infection rates between women with and without vaginal preparation (5.5% vs 4.1%; odds ratio [OR] 1.38, 95% CI 0.87-2.17), even after adjusting for possible confounders (adjusted OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.43-1.73). The lack of significant benefit was noted in all other maternal secondary outcomes., Conclusion: Institutional policies for vaginal preparation before cesarean delivery were not associated with lower rates of surgical site infection in women undergoing cesarean delivery during labor.

Objective: To identify maternal clinical risk factors for postcesarean maternal infection in a randomized clinical trial of preincision extended-spectrum antibiotic prophylaxis., Methods: We conducted a planned secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. Patients were 24 weeks of gestation or greater and delivered by cesarean after a minimum of 4 hours of ruptured membranes or labor. All participants received standard preincision prophylaxis and were randomized to receive azithromycin or placebo. The primary outcome for this analysis is maternal infection: a composite outcome of endometritis, wound infection (superficial or deep), or other infections occurring up to 6 weeks postpartum. Maternal clinical characteristics associated with maternal infection, after controlling for azithromycin assignment, were identified. These maternal factors were included in a multivariable logistic regression model for maternal infection., Results: Of 2,013 patients, 1,019 were randomized to azithromycin. Overall, 177 (8.8%) had postcesarean maternal infection. In the final adjusted model, compared with the reference groups, women of black race-ethnicity, with a nontransverse uterine incision, with duration of membrane rupture greater than 6 hours, and surgery duration greater than 49 minutes, were associated higher odds of maternal infection (all with adjusted odds ratios [ORs] of approximately 2); azithromycin was associated with lower odds of maternal infection (adjusted OR 0.4, 95% confidence interval 0.3-0.6)., Conclusion: Despite preincision azithromycin-based extended-spectrum antibiotic prophylaxis, postcesarean maternal infection remains a significant source of morbidity. Recognition of risk factors may help guide innovative prevention strategies., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT012235546.

Objective: To create a simple tool for predicting the likelihood of successful trial of labor after cesarean delivery (TOLAC) during the pregnancy after a primary cesarean delivery using variables available at the time of admission., Methods: Data for all deliveries at 14 regional hospitals over an 8-year period were reviewed. Women with one cesarean delivery and one subsequent delivery were included. Variables associated with successful VBAC were identified using multivariable logistic regression. Points were assigned to these characteristics, with weighting based on the coefficients in the regression model to calculate an integer VBAC score. The VBAC score was correlated with TOLAC success rate and was externally validated in an independent cohort using a logistic regression model., Results: A total of 5,445 women met inclusion criteria. Of those women, 1,170 (21.5%) underwent TOLAC. Of the women who underwent trial of labor, 938 (80%) had a successful VBAC. A VBAC score was generated based on the Bishop score (cervical examination) at the time of admission, with points added for history of vaginal birth, age younger than 35 years, absence of recurrent indication, and body mass index less than 30. Women with a VBAC score less than 10 had a likelihood of TOLAC success less than 50%. Women with a VBAC score more than 16 had a TOLAC success rate more than 85%. The model performed well in an independent cohort with an area under the curve of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.76-0.84)., Conclusions: Prediction of TOLAC success at the time of admission is highly dependent on the initial cervical examination. This simple VBAC score can be utilized when counseling women considering TOLAC., Level of Evidence: II., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.