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.
METHODS: A randomized trial was performed in a university hospital in Malaysia. Participants were nulliparas at term with unripe cervixes (Bishop Score ≤ 5) admitted for IoL who were randomized to digital or speculum-aided transcervical Foley catheter insertion in lithotomy position. Primary outcomes were insertion duration, pain score [11-point Visual Numerical Rating Scale (VNRS)], and failure. All primary outcomes were recorded after the first insertion.
RESULTS: Data from 86 participants were analysed. Insertion duration (with standard deviation) was 2.72 ± 1.85 vs. 2.25 ± 0.55 min p = 0.12, pain score (VNRS) median [interquartile range] 3.5 [2-5] vs. 3 [2-5] p = 0.72 and failure 2/42 (5%) vs. 0/44 (0%) p = 0.24 for digital vs speculum respectively. There was no significant difference found between the two groups for all three primary outcomes. Induction to delivery 30.7 ± 9.4 vs 29.6 ± 11.5 h p = 0.64, Cesarean section 25/60 (64%) vs 28/64 (60%) RR 0.9 95% CI p = 0.7 and maternal satisfaction VNRS score with the birth process 7 [IQR 6-8] vs 7 [7-8] p = 0.97 for digital vs. speculum arms respectively. Other labor, delivery and neonatal secondary outcomes were not significantly different.
CONCLUSION: Digital and speculum insertion in nulliparas with unripe cervixes had similar insertion performance. As digital insertion required less equipment and consumables, it could be the preferred insertion method for the equally adept and the insertion technique to train towards.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with ISRCTN registration number 13804902 on 15 November 2017.
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.
STUDY DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial.
SETTING: Tertiary level hospital in Malaysia.
PATIENTS: 77 patients undergoing elective Caesarean delivery.
INTERVENTION: Differing speeds of spinal injection.
MEASUREMENTS: Systolic blood pressure was assessed every minute for the first 10min and incidence of hypotension (reduction in blood pressure of >30% of baseline) was recorded. The use of vasopressor and occurrence of nausea/vomiting were also recorded.
MAIN RESULTS: 36 patients in SLOW group and 41 patients in FAST group were recruited into the study. There was no significant difference in blood pressure drop of >30% (p=0.497) between the two groups. There was no difference in the amount of vasopressor used and incidence of nausea/vomiting in both groups.
CONCLUSION: In our study population, there was no difference in incidence of hypotension and nausea/vomiting when spinal injection time is prolonged beyond 15s to 60s.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT02275897. Registered on 15 October 2014.