DESIGN: Randomised trial.
SETTING: University Hospital, Malaysia: April 2016-October 2016.
POPULATION: 331 women delivered by caesarean section.
METHOD: Participants were randomised to leaving their wound entirely exposed (n = 165) or dressed (n = 166) with a low adhesive dressing (next day removal).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were superficial SSI rate (assessed by provider inspection up to hospital discharge and telephone questionnaires on days 14 and 28) and patient satisfaction with wound coverage management before hospital discharge.
RESULTS: The superficial SSI rates were 2/153 (1.3%) versus 5/157 (3.2%) (relative risk [RR] 0.4, 95% CI 0.1-2.1; P = 0.45) and patient satisfaction with wound management was 7 [5-8] versus 7 [5-8] (P = 0.81) in exposed compared with dressed study groups, respectively. In the wound-exposed patients, stated preference for wound exposure significantly increased from 35.5 to 57.5%, whereas in the wound-dressed patients, the stated preference for a dressed wound fell from 48.5 to 34.4% when assessed at recruitment (pre-randomisation) to day 28. There were no significant differences in inpatient additional dressing or gauze use for wound care, post-hospital discharge self-reported wound issues of infection, antibiotics, redness and inflammation, swollen, painful, and fluid leakage to day 28 across trial groups.
CONCLUSION: The trial is underpowered as SSI rates were lower than expected. Nevertheless, leaving caesarean wounds exposed does not appear to have detrimental effects, provided patient counselling to manage expectations is undertaken.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: An exposed compared with a dressed caesarean wound has a similar superficial surgical site infection rate, patient satisfaction and appearance.
DESIGN: This multicenter, parallel group, randomized controlled trial involved 363 prevalent CAPD patients from 8 centers. The primary endpoint was peritonitis rate; secondary endpoints were technique failure and technical problems encountered. The duration of the evaluation was 1 year.
RESULTS: The risk of peritonitis on Carex varied between the centers. We found a significant treatment-center interaction effect (likelihood ratio test: p = 0.03). The incidence rate ratio (IRR) of peritonitis on Carex as compared with Ultra ranged from 0.4 to 7.2. In two centers, Carex was inferior to Ultra with regard to peritonitis; but, in five centers, the results were inconclusive. Equivalence was not demonstrated in any center. The overall rate of peritonitis in the Carex group was twice that in the Ultra group [IRR: 2.18; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.51 to 3.14]. Technique failure and technical problems were more common with the Carex system. Technique failure rate at 1 year was 44% in the Carex group and 22% in the Ultra group.
CONCLUSIONS: Equivalence between the Carex disconnect system and the Ultra disconnect system could not be demonstrated. The risk of peritonitis on Carex varied significantly between centers.
DESIGN: Pragmatic multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Residents across 4 nursing homes in Singapore were included if they were aged 65 years and above, and taking 5 or more medications.
METHODS: The intervention involved a 5-step deprescribing intervention, which involved a multidisciplinary team-care medication review with pharmacists, physicians, and nurses (in which pharmacists discussed with other team members the feasibility of deprescribing and implementation using the Beers and STOPP criteria) or to an active waitlist control for the first 3 months.
RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-five residents from 4 nursing homes participated in the study from February 2017 to March 2018. At 6 months, the deprescribing intervention did not reduce falls. Subgroup analysis showed that intervention reduced fall risk scores within the deprescribing-naïve group by 0.18 (P = .04). Intervention was associated with a reduction in mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval 0.07, 0.41; P
STUDY DESIGN: Participants were randomized to intravenous bolus injection of 100mcg carbetocin or 10IU oxytocin after cesarean delivery of the baby. The primary outcome is any additional uterotonic which may be administered by the blinded provider for perceived inadequate uterine tone with or without hemorrhage in the first 24hours after delivery. Secondary outcomes include operating time, perioperative blood loss, change in hemoglobin and hematocrit levels, blood transfusion and reoperation for postpartum hemorrhage.
RESULTS: Additional uterotonic rates were 107/276 (38.8%) vs. 155/271 (57.2%) [RR 0.68 95% CI 0.57-0.81 p<0.001; NNTb 6 95% CI 3.8-9.8], mean operating time 45.9±16.0 vs. 44.5±13.1minutes p=0.26, mean blood loss 458±258 vs. 446±281ml p=0.6, severe postpartum hemorrhage (≥1000ml) rates 15/276 (5.4%) vs. 10/271 (3.7%) p=0.33 and blood transfusion rates 6/276 (2.2%) vs. 10/271 (3.7%); p=0.30 for carbetocin and oxytocin arms respectively. There was only one case of re-operation (oxytocin arm). In the cases that needed additional uterotonic 98% (257/262) was started intraoperatively and in 89% (234/262) the only additional uterotonic administered was an oxytocin infusion over 6hours.
CONCLUSION: Fewer women in the carbetocin arm needed additional uterotonics but perioperative blood loss, severe postpartum hemorrhage, blood transfusion and operating time were not different.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate repeated applications of cold vs room temperature (placebo control) compress to the repaired primiparous perineum on pain upon movement.
STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in a university hospital in Malaysia from May 2022 to February 2023. A total of 224 women with a repaired episiotomy or spontaneous second-degree tear sustained at normal delivery were randomized as follows: 113 to frozen gel pack and 111 to room temperature gel pack, as wound compress. The compress was applied to the perineal repair site at 3 timepoints: immediately after repair, and at 4 and 8 hours after delivery, for 20 minutes at each application. The primary outcomes were pain during movement at 12 and 24 hours after delivery, scored using the 0 to 10 numerical rating scale. The secondary outcomes include duration of hospital stay; analgesic consumption; recovery and functional metrics of reestablishing flatus, mobilization, and urination, breastfeeding; maternal satisfaction with the allocated compress; and after hospital discharge for up to 6 weeks after birth through telephone interview, analgesic consumption, perineal pain, resumption of vaginal sex, and women's perception of perineal wound healing.
RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) of pain at movement scores were 4 (4-5) vs 5 (4-5) (P=.018) at 12 hours and 2 (1-3) vs 2 (2-3) (P=.173) at 24 hours after birth for cold vs room temperature compress, respectively. Maternal satisfaction scores were 8 (7-9) vs 7 (6-8) (P=.119), oral analgesic for perineal pain while at the postnatal ward was taken by 94 of 113 (83.2%) vs 85 of 109 (78.0%) (relative risk, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.21), and time to the first satisfactory breastfeeding episode was 11.6 (7.9-15.5) vs 13.0 (8.0-20.7) hours (P=.303) for cold vs room temperature compress, respectively. At 2 weeks telephone follow-up, analgesic intake and perineal pain were not different. At 6 weeks, analgesic intake, perineal pain, resumption of vaginal sex, exclusive breastfeeding, and maternal perception of perineal healing were not different.
CONCLUSION: Intermittent cold compress in the first 8 hours to the repaired perineum reduces pain at 12 hours but the effect attenuates by 24 hours. Maternal satisfaction with their allocated compress was not different. There was no suggestion of harm or benefit on the other secondary outcomes.
METHODS: A randomized trial was conducted in a University hospital in Malaysia. Nulliparous women at term who were about to start pushing were randomized to massage during pushing and warm compress to the perineum in between pushes or to standard "hands-off" care. Primary outcome was suturing for perineal injury (episiotomy or tear).
RESULTS: A total of 156 participants were analyzed based on intention to treat. Perineal repair rates were 53/79 (67%) for MassComp versus 70/77 (91%) for control (relative risk [RR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.98, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome [NNTb ] 5, 95% CI 2.83-8.62, P
METHODS: : Nulliparas with uncomplicated PROM at term, a Bishop score less than or equal to 6, and who required labor induction were recruited for a double-blind randomized trial. Participants were randomly assigned to 3-mg dinoprostone pessary and oxytocin infusion or placebo and oxytocin infusion. A cardiotocogram was performed before induction and maintained to delivery. Dinoprostone pessary or placebo was placed in the posterior vaginal fornix. Oxytocin intravenous infusion was commenced at 2 milliunits/min and doubled every 30 minutes to a maximum of 32 milliunits/min. Oxytocin infusion rate was titrated to achieve four contractions every 10 minutes. Primary outcomes were vaginal delivery within 12 hours and maternal satisfaction with the birth process using a visual analog scale (VAS) from 0 to 10 (higher score, greater satisfaction).
RESULTS: : One hundred fourteen women were available for analysis. Vaginal delivery rates within 12 hours were 25 of 57 (43.9%) for concurrent treatment compared with 27/57 (47.4%) (relative risk 0.9, 95% confidence interval 0.6-1.4, P=.85) for oxytocin only; median VAS was 8 (interquartile range [IQR] 2) compared with 8 (IQR 2), P=.38. Uterine hyperstimulation was 14% compared with 5.3%, P=.20; overall vaginal delivery rates were 59.6% compared with 64.9%, P=.70; and induction to vaginal delivery interval 9.7 hours compared with 9.4 hours P=.75 for concurrent treatment compared with oxytocin, respectively. There was no significant difference for any other outcome.
CONCLUSION: : Concurrent vaginal dinoprostone and intravenous oxytocin for labor induction of term PROM did not expedite delivery or improve patient satisfaction.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: : Current Controlled Trials, www.controlled-trials.com, ISRCTN74376345
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: : I.
RECENT FINDINGS: The cause of hyperemesis is continuing to be elaborated. Recent data attest to the effectiveness of the oral doxylamine-pyridoxine in NVP. Follow-up data of children exposed in early pregnancy to doxylamine-pyridoxine for NVP are reassuring. Evidence is increasing for ginger as an effective herbal remedy for NVP. Metoclopramide is effective in NVP and hyperemesis gravidarum, with a good balance of efficacy and tolerability. A recent large-scale study on first trimester exposure to metoclopramide is reassuring of its safety. Evidence is emerging for the treatment of acid reflux to ameliorate NVP. The role of corticosteroids for hyperemesis gravidarum remains controversial. Transpyloric feeding may be warranted for persistent weight loss, despite optimal antiemetic therapy.
SUMMARY: Women with significant NVP should be identified so that they can be safely and effectively treated.
METHODS: This prospective, randomized controlled, open-label trial evaluated 50 women with insulin-treated GDM randomized to either retrospective CGM (6-day sensor) at 28, 32 and 36 weeks' gestation (Group 1, CGM, n = 25) or usual antenatal care without CGM (Group 2, control, n = 25). All women performed seven-point capillary blood glucose (CBG) profiles at least 3 days per week and recorded hypoglycaemic events (symptomatic and asymptomatic CBG