Aetiology and use of antibiotics in pregnancy-related infections: results of the WHO Global Maternal Sepsis Study (GLOSS), 1-week inception cohort.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy-related infections are important contributors to maternal sepsis and mortality. We aimed to describe clinical, microbiological characteristics and use of antibiotics by source of infection and country income, among hospitalized women with suspected or confirmed pregnancy-related infections. METHODS: We used data from WHO Global Maternal Sepsis Study (GLOSS) on maternal infections in hospitalized women, in 52 low-middle- and high-income countries conducted between November 28th and December 4th, 2017, to describe the frequencies and medians of maternal demographic, obstetric, and clinical characteristics and outcomes, methods of infection diagnosis and causative pathogens, of single source pregnancy-related infection, other than breast, and initial use of therapeutic antibiotics. We included 1456 women. RESULTS: We found infections of the genital (n = 745/1456, 51.2%) and the urinary tracts (UTI) (n = 531/1456, 36.5%) to be the most frequent. UTI (n = 339/531, 63.8%) and post-caesarean skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI) (n = 99/180, 55.0%) were the sources with more culture samples taken and microbiological confirmations. Escherichia coli was the major uropathogen (n = 103/118, 87.3%) and Staphylococcus aureus (n = 21/44, 47.7%) was the commonest pathogen in SSTI. For 13.1% (n = 191) of women, antibiotics were not prescribed on the same day of infection suspicion. Cephalosporins (n = 283/531, 53.3%) were the commonest antibiotic class prescribed for UTI, while metronidazole (n = 303/925, 32.8%) was the most prescribed for all other sources. Ceftriaxone with metronidazole was the commonest combination for the genital tract (n = 98/745, 13.2%) and SSTI (n = 22/180, 12.2%). Metronidazole (n = 137/235, 58.3%) was the most prescribed antibiotic in low-income countries while cephalosporins and co-amoxiclav (n = 129/186, 69.4%) were more commonly prescribed in high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in antibiotics used across countries could be due to availability, local guidelines, prescribing culture, cost, and access to microbiology laboratory, despite having found similar sources and pathogens as previous studies. Better dissemination of recommendations in line with antimicrobial stewardship programmes might improve antibiotic prescription.

Engaging women to set the research agenda for assisted vaginal birth.

INTRODUCTION: Public and patient involvement can provide crucial insights to optimise research by enhancing relevance and appropriateness of studies. The World Health Organization (WHO) engaged in an inclusive process to ensure that both technical experts and women had a voice in defining the research gaps and needs to increase or reintroduce the use of assisted vaginal birth (AVB) in settings where this intervention is needed but unavailable or underused. METHODS: We describe the methods and outcomes of online workshops led by WHO to obtain women representatives' perspectives about AVB research gaps and needs. RESULTS: After technical experts created a list of research questions based on various evidence syntheses, WHO organised four online workshops with 31 women's representatives from 27 mostly low- and middle-income (LMIC) countries. Women rated the importance and priority of the research questions proposed by the technical experts, improving and broadening some of them, added new questions, and voiced their main concerns and views about AVB. Women helped to put the research questions into context in their communities, highlighted neglected factors/dimensions that influence practices and affect women's experience during labour and childbirth, underscored less salient consequences of AVB, and highlighted the main concerns of women about research on AVB. The consolidated vision of technical experts and women's representatives resulted in a technical brief published by WHO. The technical brief is expected to stimulate global research and action closely aligned with women's priorities. CONCLUSIONS: We describe a successful experience of engaging women, mostly from LMICs, in the identification of research gaps and needs to reintroduce AVB use. This process contributed to better aligning research questions with women's views, concerns, and priorities. Given the scarcity of reports about engaging women from LMICs to optimise research, this successful experience can serve as an inspiration for future work. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Women representatives were involved at every stage of the workshops described in full in this manuscript.

A research agenda to improve incidence and outcomes of assisted vaginal birth.

Access to emergency obstetric care, including assisted vaginal birth and caesarean birth, is crucial for improving maternal and childbirth outcomes. However, although the proportion of births by caesarean section has increased during the last few decades, the use of assisted vaginal birth has declined. This is particularly the case in low- and middle-income countries, despite an assisted vaginal birth often being less risky than caesarean birth. We therefore conducted a three-step process to identify a research agenda necessary to increase the use of, or reintroduce, assisted vaginal birth: after conducting an evidence synthesis, which informed a consultation with technical experts who proposed an initial research agenda, we sought and incorporated the views of women's representatives of this agenda. This process has allowed us to identify a comprehensive research agenda, with topics categorized as: (i) the need to understand women's perceptions of assisted vaginal birth, and provide appropriate and reliable information; (ii) the importance of training health-care providers in clinical skills but also in respectful care, effective communication, shared decision-making and informed consent; and (iii) the barriers to and facilitators of implementation and sustainability. From women's feedback, we learned of the urgent need to recognize labour, childbirth and postpartum experiences as inherently physiological and dignified human processes, in which interventions should only be implemented if necessary. The promotion and/or reintroduction of assisted vaginal birth in low-resource settings requires governments, policy-makers and hospital administrators to support skilled health-care providers who can, in turn, respectfully support women in labour and childbirth.

L'accès aux soins obstétriques d'urgence, y compris l'accouchement vaginal assisté et la césarienne, est essentiel pour améliorer les effets de la maternité et de l'accouchement. Toutefois, bien que la proportion de césariennes ait augmenté ces dernières décennies, le recours à l'accouchement vaginal assisté a diminué. C'est particulièrement le cas dans les pays à revenu faible ou intermédiaire, bien que l'accouchement vaginal assisté soit souvent moins risqué qu'une césarienne. Nous avons donc mené un processus en trois étapes afin d'imaginer un programme de recherche qui permettrait d'augmenter le recours à l'accouchement vaginal assisté ou de le réintroduire. Après avoir réalisé une synthèse des données probantes, qui a servi de base à une consultation avec des experts techniques qui ont proposé un programme de recherche initial, nous avons sollicité et incorporé les avis des représentantes des femmes pour ce programme. Ce processus nous a permis d'imaginer un programme de recherche complet, avec des sujets classés comme suit: (i) la nécessité de comprendre la perception qu'ont les femmes de l'accouchement vaginal assisté et de fournir des informations appropriées et fiables; (ii) l'importance de la formation des prestataires de soins de santé en matière de compétences cliniques, mais aussi de respect dans les soins de santé, de communication efficace, de prise de décision partagée et de consentement éclairé; ou (iii) les obstacles à la mise en œuvre et à la durabilité et les facteurs qui les facilitent. Les réactions de femmes nous ont appris qu'il était urgent de reconnaître que l'accouchement, la naissance et le post-partum sont des processus humains intrinsèquement physiologiques et dignes au cours desquels les interventions ne devraient être mises en œuvre qu'en cas de nécessité. La promotion et/ou la réintroduction de l'accouchement vaginal assisté dans les régions à faibles ressources nécessitent que les pouvoirs publics, les décideurs politiques et les administrations d'hôpitaux soutiennent les prestataires de soins de santé qualifiés, qui pourront à leur tour soutenir respectueusement les femmes pendant l'accouchement.

El acceso a la atención obstétrica de emergencia, incluido el parto vaginal asistido y el parto por cesárea, es crucial para mejorar los resultados de la maternidad y el parto. No obstante, aunque el porcentaje de partos por cesárea ha aumentado en las últimas décadas, el uso del parto vaginal asistido ha disminuido. Esto ocurre especialmente en los países de ingresos bajos y medios, a pesar de que un parto vaginal asistido suele ser menos arriesgado que un parto por cesárea. Por lo tanto, llevamos a cabo un proceso de tres pasos para identificar un programa de investigación necesario para aumentar el uso del parto vaginal asistido o volver a incorporarlo: tras realizar una síntesis de la evidencia, que sirvió de base para una consulta con expertos técnicos que propusieron un programa de investigación inicial, buscamos e integramos las opiniones de las representantes de las mujeres sobre este programa. Este proceso nos ha permitido identificar un programa de investigación exhaustivo, con temas categorizados como: (i) la necesidad de comprender las percepciones de las mujeres sobre el parto vaginal asistido, y proporcionar información adecuada y fiable; (ii) la importancia de formar a los profesionales sanitarios en habilidades clínicas, pero también en atención respetuosa, comunicación efectiva, toma de decisiones compartida y consentimiento informado; o (iii) las barreras y los facilitadores de la implementación y la sostenibilidad. A partir de las opiniones de las mujeres, nos enteramos de la urgente necesidad de reconocer las experiencias del parto, el alumbramiento y el posparto como procesos humanos inherentemente fisiológicos y dignos, en los que las intervenciones solo deben aplicarse si son necesarias. La promoción o la reincoporación del parto vaginal asistido en regiones de escasos recursos exige que los gobiernos, los responsables de formular políticas y los administradores de hospitales apoyen a los profesionales sanitarios capacitados que, a su vez, pueden ayudar a las mujeres en el trabajo de parto y el alumbramiento de manera respetuosa.

Measuring women's experiences during antenatal care (ANC): scoping review of measurement tools.

BACKGROUND: The new WHO model for antenatal care (ANC) focuses on improving practice, organisation and delivery of ANC within health systems, which includes both clinical care and women's experiences of care. The goal of this review is to identify tools and measures on women's experiences of ANC. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to identify tools and measures on women's experiences of ANC. An iterative approach was used to review all tools in a series of four steps: (1) identify papers between 2007 and 2023; (2) identify the tools from these papers; (3) map relevant measures to conceptualizations of experiences of care, notably mistreatment of women and respectful maternity care and (4) identify gaps and opportunities to improve measures. RESULTS: Across the 36 tools identified, a total of 591 measures were identified. Of these, 292/591 (49.4%) measures were included and mapped to the typology of mistreatment of women used as a definition for women's experiences care during ANC in this review, while 299/591 (44.9%) irrelevant measures were excluded. Across the included measures, the highest concentration was across the domains of poor rapport between women and providers (49.8%) followed by failure to meet professional standards of care (23.3%). Approximately, 13.9% of measures were around overall respectful care, followed by health systems (6.3%), and any  physical or verbal abuse, stigma and/or discrimination (4.8%) . CONCLUSION: This analysis provides an overview of the existing tools, gaps and opportunities to measure women's experiences during ANC. Expanding beyond the childbirth period, these findings can be used to inform existing and future tools for research and monitoring measuring women's experiences of ANC.

International virtual confidential reviews of infection-related maternal deaths and near-miss in 11 low- and middle-income countries - case report series and suggested actions.

BACKGROUND: Obstetric infections are the third most common cause of maternal mortality, with the largest burden in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). We analyzed causes of infection-related maternal deaths and near-miss identified contributing factors and generated suggested actions for quality of care improvement. METHOD: An international, virtual confidential enquiry was conducted for maternal deaths and near-miss cases that occurred in 15 health facilities in 11 LMICs reporting at least one death within the GLOSS study. Facility medical records and local review committee documents containing information on maternal characteristics, timing and chain of events, case management, outcomes, and facility characteristics were summarized into a case report for each woman and reviewed by an international external review committee. Modifiable factors were identified and suggested actions were organized using the three delays framework. RESULTS: Thirteen infection-related maternal deaths and 19 near-miss cases were reviewed in 20 virtual meetings by an international external review committee. Of 151 modifiable factors identified during the review, delays in receiving care contributed to 71/85 modifiable factors in maternal deaths and 55/66 modifiable factors in near-miss cases. Delays in reaching a GLOSS facility contributed to 5/85 and 1/66 modifiable factors for maternal deaths and near-miss cases, respectively. Two modifiable factors in maternal deaths were related to delays in the decision to seek care compared to three modifiable factors in near-miss cases. Suboptimal use of antibiotics, missing microbiological culture and other laboratory results, incorrect working diagnosis, and infrequent monitoring during admission were the main contributors to care delays among both maternal deaths and near-miss cases. Local facility audits were conducted for 2/13 maternal deaths and 0/19 near-miss cases. Based on the review findings, the external review committee recommended actions to improve the prevention and management of maternal infections. CONCLUSION: Prompt recognition and treatment of the infection remain critical addressable gaps in the provision of high-quality care to prevent and manage infection-related severe maternal outcomes in LMICs. Poor uptake of maternal death and near-miss reviews suggests missed learning opportunities by facility teams. Virtual platforms offer a feasible solution to improve routine adoption of confidential maternal death and near-miss reviews locally.

Usability, acceptability, and feasibility of the World Health Organization Labour Care Guide: A mixed-methods, multicountry evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: The World Health Organization's (WHO) Labour Care Guide (LCG) is a "next-generation" partograph based on WHO's latest intrapartum care recommendations. It aims to optimize clinical care provided to women and their experience of care. We evaluated the LCG's usability, feasibility, and acceptability among maternity care practitioners in clinical settings. METHODS: Mixed-methods evaluation with doctors, midwives, and nurses in 12 health facilities across Argentina, India, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, and Tanzania. Purposively sampled and trained practitioners applied the LCG in low-risk women during labor and rated experiences, satisfaction, and usability. Practitioners were invited to focus group discussions (FGDs) to share experiences and perceptions of the LCG, which were subjected to framework analysis. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-six practitioners applied the LCG in managing labor and birth of 1,226 low-risk women. The majority of women had a spontaneous vaginal birth (91.6%); two cases of intrapartum stillbirths (1.63 per 1000 births) occurred. Practitioner satisfaction with the LCG was high, and median usability score was 67.5%. Practitioners described the LCG as supporting precise and meticulous monitoring during labor, encouraging critical thinking in labor management, and improving the provision of woman-centered care. CONCLUSIONS: The LCG is feasible and acceptable to use across different clinical settings and can promote woman-centered care, though some design improvements would benefit usability. Implementing the LCG needs to be accompanied by training and supportive supervision, and strategies to promote an enabling environment (including updated policies on supportive care interventions, and ensuring essential equipment is available).

'We always find things to learn from.' Lessons from the implementation of the global maternal sepsis study on research capacity: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Research capacity strengthening could be an indirect outcome of implementing a research project. The objective of this study was to explore the ability of the global maternal sepsis study (GLOSS), implemented in 52 countries, to develop and strengthen sexual and reproductive health research capacity of local participants in low- and middle- income participating countries. METHODS: We carried out a qualitative study employing grounded theory in sixteen countries in Africa and Latin America. We used inductive and deductive methods through a focus group discussion and semi-structured interviews for the emergence of themes. Participants of the focus group discussion (n = 8) were GLOSS principal investigators (PIs) in Latin America. Interviewees (n = 63) were selected by the country GLOSS PIs in both Africa and Latin America, and included a diverse sample of participants involved in different aspects of study implementation. Eighty-two percent of the participants were health workers. We developed a conceptual framework that took into consideration data obtained from the focus group and refined it based on data from the interviews. RESULTS: Six themes emerged from the data analysis: recognized need for research capacity, unintended effects of participating in research, perceived ownership and linkage with the research study, being just data collectors, belonging to an institution that supports and fosters research, and presenting study results back to study implementers. Research capacity strengthening needs were consistently highlighted including involvement in protocol development, training and technical support, data analysis, and project management. The need for institutional support for researchers to conduct research was also emphasised. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that research capacity strengthening of local researchers was an unintentional outcome of the large multi-country study on maternal sepsis. However, for sustainable research capacity to be built, study coordinators and funders need to deliberately plan for it, addressing needs at both the individual and institutional level.

The development of the WHO Labour Care Guide: an international survey of maternity care providers.

BACKGROUND: The partograph is the most commonly used labour monitoring tool in the world. However, it has been used incorrectly or inconsistently in many settings. In 2018, a WHO expert group reviewed and revised the design of the partograph in light of emerging evidence, and they developed the first version of the Labour Care Guide (LCG). The objective of this study was to explore opinions of skilled health personnel on the first version of the WHO Labour Care Guide. METHODS: Skilled health personnel (including obstetricians, midwives and general practitioners) of any gender from Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America were identified through a large global research network. Country coordinators from the network invited 5 to 10 mid-level and senior skilled health personnel who had worked in labour wards anytime in the last 5 years. A self-administered, anonymous, structured, online questionnaire including closed and open-ended questions was designed to assess the clarity, relevance, appropriateness of the frequency of recording, and the completeness of the sections and variables on the LCG. RESULTS: A total of 110 participants from 23 countries completed the survey between December 2018 and January 2019. Variables included in the LCG were generally considered clear, relevant and to have been recorded at the appropriate frequency. Most sections of the LCG were considered complete. Participants agreed or strongly agreed with the overall design, structure of the LCG, and the usefulness of reference thresholds to trigger further assessment and actions. They also agreed that LCG could potentially have a positive impact on clinical decision-making and respectful maternity care. Participants disagreed with the value of some variables, including coping, urine, and neonatal status. CONCLUSIONS: Future end-users of WHO Labour Care Guide considered the variables to be clear, relevant and appropriate, and, with minor improvements, to have the potential to positively impact clinical decision-making and respectful maternity care.

What drives change in neonatal intensive care units? A qualitative study with physicians and nurses in six European countries.

BACKGROUND: Innovation is important to improve patient care, but few studies have explored the factors that initiate change in healthcare organizations. METHODS: As part of the European project EPICE on evidence-based perinatal care, we carried out semi-structured interviews (N = 44) with medical and nursing staff from 11 randomly selected neonatal intensive care units in 6 countries. The interviews focused on the most recent clinical or organizational change in the unit relevant to the care of very preterm infants. Thematic analysis was performed using verbatim transcripts of recorded interviews. RESULTS: Reported changes concerned ventilation, feeding and nutrition, neonatal sepsis, infant care, pain management and care of parents. Six categories of drivers to change were identified: availability of new knowledge or technology; guidelines or regulations from outside the unit; need to standardize practices; participation in research; occurrence of adverse events; and wish to improve care. Innovations originating within the unit, linked to the availability of new technology and seen to provide clear benefit for patients were more likely to achieve consensus and rapid implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Innovation can be initiated by several drivers that can impact on the success and sustainability of change.

Sexual and reproductive health (SRH): a key issue in the emergency response to the coronavirus disease (COVID- 19) outbreak.

The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak was first declared in China in December 2019, and WHO declared the pandemic on 11 March 2020. A fast-rising number of confirmed cases has been observed in all continents, with Europe at the epicentre of the outbreak at this moment.Sexual and reproductive health (SRH) and rights is a significant public health issue during the epidemics. The novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is new to humans, and only limited scientific evidence is available to identify the impact of the disease COVID-19 on SRH, including clinical presentation and outcomes of the infection during pregnancy, or for persons with STI/HIV-related immunosuppression. Beyond the clinical scope of SRH, we should not neglect the impacts at the health system level and disruptions or interruptions in regular provision of SRH services, such as pre- and postnatal checks, safe abortion, contraception, HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted infections. Furthermore, other aspects merit attention such as the potential increase of gender-based violence and domestic abuse, and effects of stigma and discrimination associated with COVID-19 and their effects on SRH clients and health care providers. Therefore, there is an urgent need for the scientific community to generate sound clinical, epidemiological, and psycho-social behavioral links between COVID-19 and SRH and rights outcomes.

Correction to: Sexual and reproductive health (SRH): a key issue in the emergency response to the coronavirus disease (COVID- 19) outbreak.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Factors influencing awareness of healthcare providers on maternal sepsis: a mixed-methods approach.

BACKGROUND: An awareness campaign set to accompany the Global Maternal Sepsis Study (GLOSS) was launched in 2017. In order to better develop and evaluate the campaign, we sought to understand the factors that influence awareness of maternal sepsis by exploring healthcare providers' knowledge, perception of enabling environments, and perception of severity of maternal sepsis. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods approach that included 13 semi-structured interviews to GLOSS regional and country coordinators and 1555 surveys of providers working in GLOSS participating facilities. Directed content analysis and grounded theory were used for qualitative analysis, based on a framework including four overarching themes around maternal health conditions, determinants of maternal health, barriers and facilitators to sepsis identification and management, plus 24 additional sub-topics that emerged during the interviews. Descriptive statistics for frequencies and percentages were used for the quantitative analysis; significance was tested using Pearson χ2. Logistic regressions were performed to adjust for selected variables. RESULTS: Analysis of interviews described limited availability of resources, poor quality of care, insufficient training and lack of protocols as some of the barriers to maternal sepsis identification and management. Analysis from the quantitative survey showed that while 92% of respondents had heard of maternal sepsis only 15% were able to correctly define it and 43% to correctly identify initial management. Provider confidence, perceived availability of resources and of a supportive environment were low (33%, 38%, and 48% respectively). Overall, the predictor that most explained awareness was training. Respondents from the survey and interviewees identified sepsis among the main conditions affecting women at their facilities. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness on maternal sepsis, while acknowledged as important, remains low. Healthcare providers need resources and support to feel confident about the correct identification and management of sepsis, as a prerequisite for the improvement of awareness of maternal sepsis. Similarly, providers need to know about maternal sepsis and its severity to understand the importance of reducing sepsis-related mortality and morbidity. Awareness raising campaigns can help bring neglected maternal health conditions, such as sepsis, to the forefront of global and local agendas.

Correction to: Towards a consensus definition of maternal sepsis: results of a systematic review and expert consultation.

After publication of the original article [1], it came to the authors' attention that the Acknowledgements section was not completed correctly. The Acknowledgements of the article should have been as follows.

The global maternal sepsis study and awareness campaign (GLOSS): study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Maternal sepsis is the underlying cause of 11% of all maternal deaths and a significant contributor to many deaths attributed to other underlying conditions. The effective prevention, early identification and adequate management of maternal and neonatal infections and sepsis can contribute to reducing the burden of infection as an underlying and contributing cause of morbidity and mortality. The objectives of the Global Maternal Sepsis Study (GLOSS) include: the development and validation of identification criteria for possible severe maternal infection and maternal sepsis; assessment of the frequency of use of a core set of practices recommended for prevention, early identification and management of maternal sepsis; further understanding of mother-to-child transmission of bacterial infection; assessment of the level of awareness about maternal and neonatal sepsis among health care providers; and establishment of a network of health care facilities to implement quality improvement strategies for better identification and management of maternal and early neonatal sepsis. METHODS: This is a facility-based, prospective, one-week inception cohort study. This study will be implemented in health care facilities located in pre-specified geographical areas of participating countries across the WHO regions of Africa, Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, Europe, South East Asia, and Western Pacific. During a seven-day period, all women admitted to or already hospitalised in participating facilities with suspected or confirmed infection during any stage of pregnancy through the 42nd day after abortion or childbirth will be included in the study. Included women will be followed during their stay in the facilities until hospital discharge, death or transfer to another health facility. The maximum intra-hospital follow-up period will be 42 days. DISCUSSION: GLOSS will provide a set of actionable criteria for identification of women with possible severe maternal infection and maternal sepsis. This study will provide data on the frequency of maternal sepsis and uptake of effective diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in obstetrics in different hospitals and countries. We will also be able to explore links between interventions and maternal and perinatal outcomes and identify priority areas for action.

Odon device for instrumental vaginal deliveries: results of a medical device pilot clinical study.

BACKGROUND: A prolonged and complicated second stage of labour is associated with serious perinatal complications. The Odon device is an innovation intended to perform instrumental vaginal delivery presently under development. We present an evaluation of the feasibility and safety of delivery with early prototypes of this device from an early terminated clinical study. METHODS: Hospital-based, multi-phased, open-label, pilot clinical study with no control group in tertiary hospitals in Argentina and South Africa. Multiparous and nulliparous women, with uncomplicated singleton pregnancies, were enrolled during the third trimester of pregnancy. Delivery with Odon device was attempted under non-emergency conditions during the second stage of labour. The feasibility outcome was delivery with the Odon device defined as successful expulsion of the fetal head after one-time application of the device. RESULTS: Of the 49 women enrolled, the Odon device was inserted successfully in 46 (93%), and successful Odon device delivery as defined above was achieved in 35 (71%) women. Vaginal, first and second degree perineal tears occurred in 29 (59%) women. Four women had cervical tears. No third or fourth degree perineal tears were observed. All neonates were born alive and vigorous. No adverse maternal or infant outcomes were observed at 6-weeks follow-up for all dyads, and at 1 year for the first 30 dyads. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery using the Odon device is feasible. Observed genital tears could be due to the device or the process of delivery and assessment bias. Evaluating the effectiveness and safety of the further developed prototype of the BD Odon Device™ will require a randomized-controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR ACTRN12613000141741 Registered 06 February 2013. Retrospectively registered.

Room for improvement in breast milk feeding after very preterm birth in Europe: Results from the EPICE cohort.

Breast milk feeding (BMF) is associated with lower neonatal morbidity in the very preterm infant (<32 weeks gestation) and breastfeeding is beneficial for maternal health. Previous studies show large variations in BMF after very preterm birth and recognize the need for targeted breastfeeding support in the neonatal intensive care units (NICU). In a European collaboration project about evidence-based practices after very preterm birth, we examined the association between maternal, obstetric, and infant clinical factors; neonatal and maternal care unit policies; and BMF at discharge from the NICU. In multivariable analyses, covariates associated with feeding at discharge were first investigated as predictors of any BMF and in further analysis as predictors of exclusive or partial BMF. Overall, 58% (3,826/6,592) of the infants received any BMF at discharge, but there were large variations between regions (range 36-80%). Primiparity, administration of antenatal corticosteroids, first enteral feed <24 hr after birth, and mother's own milk at first enteral feed were predictors positively associated with any BMF at discharge. Vaginal delivery, singleton birth, and receiving mother's own milk at first enteral feed were associated with exclusive BMF at discharge. Units with a Baby Friendly Hospital accreditation improved any BMF at discharge; units with protocols for BMF and units using donor milk had higher rates of exclusive BMF at discharge. This study suggests that there is a high potential for improving BMF through policies and support in the NICU.

Routine antibiotic prophylaxis after normal vaginal birth for reducing maternal infectious morbidity.

BACKGROUND: Infectious morbidities contribute to considerable maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, including women at no apparent increased risk of infection. To reduce the incidence of infections, antibiotics are often administered to women after uncomplicated childbirth, particularly in settings where women are at higher risk of puerperal infectious morbidities. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether routine administration of prophylactic antibiotics to women after normal (uncomplicated) vaginal birth, compared with placebo or no antibiotic prophylaxis, reduces postpartum maternal infectious morbidities and improves outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 August 2017), LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (22 August 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised or quasi-randomised trials evaluating the use of prophylactic antibiotics versus placebo or no antibiotic prophylaxis. Trials using a cluster-randomised design would have been eligible for inclusion, but we found none.In future updates of this review, we will include studies published in abstract form only, provided sufficient information is available to assess risks of bias. We will consider excluded abstracts for inclusion once the full publication is available, or the authors provide more information.Trials using a cross-over design are not eligible for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors conducted independent assessment of trials for inclusion and risks of bias. They independently extracted data and checked them for accuracy, resolving differences in assessments by discussion. They evaluated methodological quality using standard Cochrane criteria and the GRADE approach.We present the summaries as risk ratios (RRs) and mean difference (MDs) using fixed- or random-effect models. For one primary outcome we found considerable heterogeneity and interaction. We explored further using subgroup analysis to investigate the effects of the randomisation unit. All review authors discussed and interpreted the results. MAIN RESULTS: One randomised controlled trial (RCT) and two quasi-RCTs contributed data on 1779 women who had uncomplicated vaginal births, comparing different antibiotic regimens with placebo or no treatment. The included trials took place in the 1960s (one trial) and 1990s (two trials). The trials were conducted in France, the USA and Brazil. Antibiotics administered included: oral sulphamethoxypyridazine or chloramphenicol for three to five days, and intravenous amoxicillin and clavulanic acid in a single dose one hour after birth. We rated most of the domains for risk of bias as high risk, with the exception of reporting bias and other potential bias.The quality of evidence ranged from low to very low, based on the GRADE quality assessment, given very serious design limitations of the included studies, few events and wide confidence intervals (CIs) of effect estimates.We found a decrease in the risk of endometritis (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.83, two trials, 1364 women,very low quality). However, one trial reported zero events for this outcome and we rate the evidence as very low quality. There was little or no difference between groups for the risk of urinary tract infection (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.19, two trials, 1706 women,low quality), wound infection after episiotomy (reported as wound dehiscence in the included trials) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.96, two trials, 1364 women, very low quality) and length of maternal hospital stay in days (MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.01, one trial, 1291 women, very low quality). Cost of care in US dollar equivalent was 2½ times higher in the control group compared to the group receiving antibiotics prophylaxis (USD 3600: USD 9000, one trial, 1291 women). There were few or no differences between treated and control groups for adverse effects of antibiotics (skin rash) reported in one woman in each of the two trials (RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.32 to 28.95, two trials, 1706 women, very low quality). The incidence of severe maternal infectious morbidity, antimicrobial resistance or women's satisfaction with care were not addressed by any of the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Routine administration of antibiotics may reduce the risk of endometritis after uncomplicated vaginal birth. The small number and nature of the trials limit the interpretation of the evidence for application in practice, particularly in settings where women may be at higher risk of developing endometritis. The use of antibiotics did not reduce the incidence of urinary tract infections, wound infection or the length of maternal hospital stay. Antibiotics are not a substitute for infection prevention and control measures around the time of childbirth and the postpartum period. The decision to routinely administer prophylactic antibiotics after normal vaginal births needs to be balanced by patient features, childbirth setting and provider experience, including considerations of the contribution of indiscriminate use of antibiotics to raising antimicrobial resistance. Well-designed and high-powered randomised controlled trials would help to evaluate the added value of routine antibiotic administration as a measure to prevent maternal infections after normal vaginal delivery.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for episiotomy repair following vaginal birth.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial infections occurring during labour, childbirth, and the puerperium may be associated with considerable maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. Antibiotic prophylaxis might reduce wound infection incidence after an episiotomy, particularly in situations associated with a higher risk of postpartum perineal infection, such as midline episiotomy, extension of the incision, or in settings where the baseline risk of infection after vaginal birth is high. However, available evidence is unclear concerning the role of prophylactic antibiotics in preventing infections after an episiotomy. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether routine antibiotic prophylaxis before or immediately after incision or repair of episiotomy for women with an uncomplicated vaginal birth, compared with either placebo or no antibiotic prophylaxis, prevents maternal infectious morbidities and improves outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 24 July 2017, and screened reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised trials, and cluster-randomised trials that compared the use of routine antibiotic prophylaxis for incision or repair of an episiotomy for women with otherwise normal vaginal births, compared with either placebo or no antibiotic prophylaxis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data, and checked them for accuracy. We only found one quasi-randomised trial that met the inclusion criteria and was included in the analysis, therefore, we did not perform a meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included one quasi-RCT (with data from 73 women) in the review. The trial, which was conducted in a public hospital in Brazil, compared oral chloramphenicol 500 mg four times daily for 72 hours after episiotomy repair (N = 34) and no treatment (N = 39). We assessed most of the domains at high risk of bias because women were randomised according to even and odd numbers, allocation concealment was based on protocol number, there was no treatment or placebo administered in the control group, we were unclear about the blinding of outcome assessments, and outcomes were incompletely reported. We considered the other domains to be at low risk of bias. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for very serious design limitations (related to lack of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding) and imprecision of effect estimates (small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals (CI) of effect estimates).We found very low-quality evidence, from one trial of 73 women, that there was no clear indication that prophylactic antibiotics reduced the incidence of episiotomy wound dehiscence with infection (risk ratio (RR) 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.28), or without infection (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.34). No cases of other puerperal infections (e.g. endometritis) were reported in either the antibiotic or control group.The trial did not report on any of the secondary outcomes of interest for this review, including severe maternal infectious morbidity, discomfort or pain at the episiotomy wound site, sexual function postpartum, adverse effects of antibiotics, costs of care, women's satisfaction with care, and individual antimicrobial resistance. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to assess the clinical benefits or harms of routine antibiotic prophylaxis for episiotomy repair after normal birth. The only trial included in this review had several methodological limitations, with very serious limitations in design, and imprecision of effect estimates. In addition, the trial tested an antibiotic with limited application in current clinical practice. There is a need for a careful and rigorous assessment of the comparative benefits and harms of prophylactic antibiotics on infection morbidity after episiotomy, in well-designed randomised controlled trials, using common antibiotics and regimens in current obstetric practice.