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: Randomised trial.
SETTING: University Hospital, Malaysia: April 2016-April 2017.
POPULATION: One hundred and sixty women hospitalised for HG.
METHOD: Women were randomised upon admission to fasting for 12 hours or expedited oral feeding. Standard HG care was instituted.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary outcome was satisfaction score with overall treatment at 24 hours (0-10 Visual Numerical Rating Scale VNRS), vomiting episodes within 24 hours and nausea VNRS score at enrolment, and at 8, 16 and 24 hours.
RESULTS: Satisfaction score, median (interquartile range) 8 (5-9) versus 8 (7-9) (P = 0.08) and 24-hour vomiting episodes were 1 (0-4) versus 1 (0-5) (P = 0.24) for 12-hour fasting versus expedited feeding, respectively. Repeated measures analysis of variance of nausea scores over 24 hours showed no difference (P = 0.11) between trial arms. Participants randomised to 12-hour fasting compared with expedited feeding were less likely to prefer their feeding regimen in future hospitalisation (41% versus 65%, P = 0.001), to recommend to a friend (65% versus 84%, P = 0.01; RR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-0.9) and to adhere to protocol (85% versus 95%, P = 0.04; RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.8-1.0). Symptoms profile, ketonuria status at 24 hours and length of hospital stay were not different.
CONCLUSION: Advisory of 12-hour fasting compared with immediate oral feeding resulted in a non-significant difference in satisfaction score but adherence to protocol and fidelity to and recommendation of immediate oral feeding to a friend were lower. The 24-hour nausea scores and vomiting episodes were similar.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Women hospitalised for hyperemesis gravidarum could feed as soon, as much and as often as can be tolerated compared with initial fasting.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate regular (4-hourly prior to each oral misoprostol dose with amniotomy when feasible) compared with restricted (only if indicated) vaginal assessments during labor induction with oral misoprostol in term nulliparous women MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a randomized trial between November 2016 and September 2017 in a university hospital in Malaysia. Our oral misoprostol labor induction regimen comprised 50 μg of misoprostol administered 4 hourly for up to 3 doses in the first 24 hours. Participants assigned to regular assessment had vaginal examinations before each 4-hourly misoprostol dose with a view to amniotomy as soon as it was feasible. Participants in the restricted arm had vaginal examinations only if indicated. Primary outcomes were patient satisfaction with the birth process (using an 11-point visual numerical rating scale), induction to vaginal delivery interval, and vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours.
RESULTS: Data from 204 participants (101 regular, 103 restricted) were analyzed. The patient satisfaction score with the birth process was as follows (median [interquartile range]): 7 [6-9] vs 8 [6-10], P = .15. The interval of induction to vaginal delivery (mean ± standard deviation) was 24.3 ± 12.8 vs 31.1 ± 15.0 hours (P = .013). The vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours was 27.7% vs 20.4%; (relative risk [RR], 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-2.3; P = .14) for the regular vs restricted arms, respectively. The cesarean delivery rate was 50% vs 43% (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9-1.5; P = .36). When assessed after delivery, participants' fidelity to their assigned vaginal examination schedule in a future labor induction was 45% vs 88% (RR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7; P < .001), and they would recommend their assigned schedule to a friend (47% vs 87%; RR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5-0.7; P < .001) in the regular compared with the restricted arms, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Despite a shorter induction to vaginal delivery interval with regular vaginal examination and a similar vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours and birth process satisfaction score, women expressed a higher preference for the restricted examination schedule and were more likely to recommend such a schedule to a friend.
AIMS: To evaluate IOL in full-term multiparas with ripe cervixes to achieve delivery at normal working hours and improve maternal satisfaction.
METHODS: A randomised trial was performed in a tertiary hospital in Malaysia. Low-risk multiparas with ripe cervixes (Bishop score ≥6) were recruited at 38+4 -40+0 weeks, then randomised to planned labour induction at 39+0 weeks or expectant care. Primary outcomes were delivery during 'normal working hours' 09:00-17:00 hours, Monday-Friday and patient satisfaction by visual numerical rating scale.
RESULTS: For IOL (n = 80) vs expectant care (n = 80) arms respectively, primary outcomes of delivery at normal working hours was 27/80 (34%) vs 29/78 (37%), relative risk (RR) 0.9, 95% CI 0.5-1.7, P = 0.41, patient satisfaction was 8.0 ± 1.8 vs 7.8 ± 1.6, P = 0.41; presentation for spontaneous labour or rupture of membranes were 27/80 (34%) vs 70/79 (89%), RR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.5, P
METHODS: From 2015 and 2017, nulliparas, ≥ 39 weeks' gestation with prolonged latent phase of labor (persistent contractions after overnight hospitalization > 8 h), cervical dilation ≤3 cm, intact membranes and reassuring cardiotocogram were recruited. Participants were randomized to immediate induction of labor (with vaginal dinoprostone or amniotomy or oxytocin as appropriate) or expectant management (await labor for at least 24 h unless indicated intervention as directed by care provider). Primary outcome measure was Cesarean delivery.
RESULTS: Three hundred eighteen women were randomized (159 to each arm). Data from 308 participants were analyzed. Cesarean delivery rate was 24.2% (36/149) vs. 23.3%, (37/159) RR 1.0 95% CI 0.7-1.6; P = 0.96 in induction of labor vs. expectant arms. Interval from intervention to delivery was 17.1 ± 9.9 vs. 40.1 ± 19.8 h; P