Relaparotomy post-cesarean delivery: characteristics and risk factors.

PURPOSE: Relaparotomy following cesarean delivery (CD) is performed at a rate of 0.2-1% of CD. The objective of the present study was to identify risk factors for relaparotomy following CD, and to examine whether there is a difference in the risk of relaparotomy between CD performed during different hours of the day. METHODS: A retrospective study on all CD over 10 years compared pregnancies that underwent laparotomy within 1 week following CD to those that did not. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients underwent relaparotomy out of 24,239 CDs (0.26%). In univariate analysis, relaparotomy was significantly associated with pregnancies following assisted-reproductive-technologies odds ratio (OR) 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.15 (1.90-5.22), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy OR 3.05 (1.62-5.72), twin pregnancies OR 95% CI 3.78 (2.21-6.48), preterm deliveries OR 95% CI 2.44 (1.46-4.10), placenta previa OR 95% CI 6.41(2.55-16.09) and urgent CD 1.74 (1.06-2.86), especially during the second-stage of labor OR 95% CI 2.73 (1.34-5.54). The time of day of CD did not influence the rate of relaparotomy. In a multivariable-regression analysis, the adjusted odds ratio for relaparotomy was 10.24 in CD due to placenta previa, and 5.28 in CD performed at the second-stage of delivery. At relaparotomy, active bleeding was found in 50 patients (78.1%), nearly half received packed cells, 12.5% developed consumptive coagulopathy, and 17.2% needed hospitalization in the intensive care unit. 6.3% underwent a second relaparotomy, mainly due to bleeding. CONCLUSION: Placenta previa, and urgent CDs mainly those performed at the second stage of labor are risk factors for relaparotomy after CD.

The efficacy of single pharmacist medication review among type II diabetic patients who take six chronic medications or more: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacist medication review has been implemented in many health organizations throughout the world in an attempt to alleviate the underlying risk of polypharmacy in elderly patients. These consultations are often frequent and prolonged, and are thus associated with increased costs. To date, data regarding the most effective way to utilize pharmacist consultations for the improvement of health status is scant. AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of a single pharmacist consultation on changes in chronic medication regimes and on selected outcomes of diabetes 1-year after the consultation. METHODS: A case-control study included an intervention group of 740 patients who had pharmacist consultations and a reference group of 1476 matched patients who did not have a pharmacist consultation. 1-year outcome measures were compared including changes in medications, improved safety, and objective variables such as Hba1c, blood pressure, and lipid profile. RESULTS: In the pharmacist consultation group, there were significantly more treatment changes ([mean 1.5 vs. 0.7, p < 0.001 medications were stopped], and [mean 1.3 vs. 0.4, p < 0.05 medications were started]). Patient safety improved with a general reduction in opiates and benzodiazepines ([50.0% vs. 31.6%, p < 0.05 opioids were stopped] and [58.8% vs 43.8%, p < 0.001 benzodiazepines were stopped]). Sulfonylurea treatment reduced (10.7% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.05 patients who stopped Sulfonylurea) and Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1) increased (16.4% vs. 11.2%, p < 0.001 patients who started GLP-1). Additionally, HbA1c levels showed a small decrease in the pharmacist consultation group ([- 0.18 ± 1.11] vs. [- 0.051 ± 0.80], p = 0.0058) but no significant differences were found regarding blood pressure or lipids profile. CONCLUSION: A single pharmacist consultation beneficially impacted specific clinical and patient safety outcomes. Pharmacist consultations may thus help resolve polypharmacy complexities in primary care.