Randomized Trial of Early Detection and Treatment of Postpartum Hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Delays in the detection or treatment of postpartum hemorrhage can result in complications or death. A blood-collection drape can help provide objective, accurate, and early diagnosis of postpartum hemorrhage, and delayed or inconsistent use of effective interventions may be able to be addressed by a treatment bundle. METHODS: We conducted an international, cluster-randomized trial to assess a multicomponent clinical intervention for postpartum hemorrhage in patients having vaginal delivery. The intervention included a calibrated blood-collection drape for early detection of postpartum hemorrhage and a bundle of first-response treatments (uterine massage, oxytocic drugs, tranexamic acid, intravenous fluids, examination, and escalation), supported by an implementation strategy (intervention group). Hospitals in the control group provided usual care. The primary outcome was a composite of severe postpartum hemorrhage (blood loss, ≥1000 ml), laparotomy for bleeding, or maternal death from bleeding. Key secondary implementation outcomes were the detection of postpartum hemorrhage and adherence to the treatment bundle. RESULTS: A total of 80 secondary-level hospitals across Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, and Tanzania, in which 210,132 patients underwent vaginal delivery, were randomly assigned to the intervention group or the usual-care group. Among hospitals and patients with data, a primary-outcome event occurred in 1.6% of the patients in the intervention group, as compared with 4.3% of those in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.50; P<0.001). Postpartum hemorrhage was detected in 93.1% of the patients in the intervention group and in 51.1% of those in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.41 to 1.76), and the treatment bundle was used in 91.2% and 19.4%, respectively (rate ratio, 4.94; 95% CI, 3.88 to 6.28). CONCLUSIONS: Early detection of postpartum hemorrhage and use of bundled treatment led to a lower risk of the primary outcome, a composite of severe postpartum hemorrhage, laparotomy for bleeding, or death from bleeding, than usual care among patients having vaginal delivery. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; E-MOTIVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04341662.).

Data-driven modelling of brain activity using neural networks, diffusion maps, and the Koopman operator.

We propose a machine-learning approach to construct reduced-order models (ROMs) to predict the long-term out-of-sample dynamics of brain activity (and in general, high-dimensional time series), focusing mainly on task-dependent high-dimensional fMRI time series. Our approach is a three stage one. First, we exploit manifold learning and, in particular, diffusion maps (DMs) to discover a set of variables that parametrize the latent space on which the emergent high-dimensional fMRI time series evolve. Then, we construct ROMs on the embedded manifold via two techniques: Feedforward Neural Networks (FNNs) and the Koopman operator. Finally, for predicting the out-of-sample long-term dynamics of brain activity in the ambient fMRI space, we solve the pre-image problem, i.e., the construction of a map from the low-dimensional manifold to the original high-dimensional (ambient) space by coupling DMs with Geometric Harmonics (GH) when using FNNs and the Koopman modes per se. For our illustrations, we have assessed the performance of the two proposed schemes using two benchmark fMRI time series: (i) a simplistic five-dimensional model of stochastic discrete-time equations used just for a "transparent" illustration of the approach, thus knowing a priori what one expects to get, and (ii) a real fMRI dataset with recordings during a visuomotor task. We show that the proposed Koopman operator approach provides, for any practical purposes, equivalent results to the FNN-GH approach, thus bypassing the need to train a non-linear map and to use GH to extrapolate predictions in the ambient space; one can use instead the low-frequency truncation of the DMs function space of L2-integrable functions to predict the entire list of coordinate functions in the ambient space and to solve the pre-image problem.

Tranexamic acid at cesarean delivery: drug-error deaths.

The use of tranexamic acid for postpartum hemorrhage has entered obstetrical practice globally with the evidence-based expectation of saving lives. This improvement in the care of women with postpartum hemorrhage has come at a price. For the anesthetist, having tranexamic acid ampoules close at hand would seem an obvious strategy to facilitate its use during cesarean delivery, an important setting for severe hemorrhage. Tragically, we have identified a number of recent instances of inadvertent intrathecal administration of tranexamic acid instead of local anesthetic for spinal anesthesia. Reported cases of this catastrophic error seem to be increasing. The profound neurotoxicity of tranexamic acid causes rapid-onset convulsions, with mortality of 50%. How can these tragic errors be averted? Drug safety alerts have been issued by the US Food and Drug Administration and the World Health Organization, but that is not enough. We recommend extensive dissemination of information to raise awareness of this potential hazard, and local hospital protocols to ensure that tranexamic acid is stored separately from anesthetic drugs, preferably outside the operating room and with an auxiliary warning label. Implementation of safety strategies on a very large scale will be needed to ensure that the life-saving potential of tranexamic acid is not eclipsed by drug-error mortality.

The compatibility of oxytocin and tranexamic acid injection products when mixed for co-administration by infusion for the treatment of postpartum haemorrhage: An in vitro investigation.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the compatibility of oxytocin and tranexamic acid injection products when mixed for the purpose of co-administration by intravenous infusion. DESIGN: Compatibility testing. SETTING: Hospitals taking part in a multicentre postpartum haemorrhage treatment (E-MOTIVE) trial in Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania and South Africa. SAMPLE: Oxytocin and tranexamic acid products. METHODS: The compatibility of two sentinel products of oxytocin injection and tranexamic acid injection in 200-mL infusion bags of both 0.9% w/v saline and Ringer's lactate solution was assessed. We analysed all tranexamic acid-oxytocin combinations, and each evaluation was conducted for up to 3 h. Subsequently, the compatibility of multiple tranexamic acid products with reference oxytocin products when mixed in 0.9% w/v saline over a period of 1 h was investigated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Concentration of oxytocin over time after mixing with tranexamic acid products. RESULTS: We found significant interaction between certain oxytocin and tranexamic acid products after mixing them in vitro and observing for 1 h. The interaction substantially impacted oxytocin content leading to reduction in concentration (14.8%-29.0%) immediately on mixing (t = 0 min). In some combinations, the concentration continued to decline throughout the stability assessment period. Oxytocin loss was observed in 7 out of 22 (32%) of combinations tested. CONCLUSIONS: In a clinical setting, mixing certain oxytocin and tranexamic acid products before administration may result in an underdosing of oxytocin, compromising care in an emergency life-threatening situation. The mixing of oxytocin and tranexamic acid injection products for co-administration with intravenous infusion fluids should be avoided until the exact nature of the observed interaction and its implications are understood.

Tranexamic acid at cesarean delivery: drug-error deaths.

The use of tranexamic acid for postpartum hemorrhage has entered obstetrical practice globally with the evidence-based expectation of saving lives. This improvement in the care of women with postpartum hemorrhage has come at a price. For the anesthetist, having tranexamic acid ampoules close at hand would seem an obvious strategy to facilitate its use during cesarean delivery, an important setting for severe hemorrhage. Tragically, we have identified a number of recent instances of inadvertent intrathecal administration of tranexamic acid instead of local anesthetic for spinal anesthesia. Reported cases of this catastrophic error seem to be increasing. The profound neurotoxicity of tranexamic acid causes rapid-onset convulsions, with mortality of 50%. How can these tragic errors be averted? Drug safety alerts have been issued by the US Food and Drug Administration and the World Health Organization, but that is not enough. We recommend extensive dissemination of information to raise awareness of this potential hazard, and local hospital protocols to ensure that tranexamic acid is stored separately from anesthetic drugs, preferably outside the operating room and with an auxiliary warning label. Implementation of safety strategies on a very large scale will be needed to ensure that the life-saving potential of tranexamic acid is not eclipsed by drug-error mortality.

Perceptions and experiences of the prevention, detection, and management of postpartum haemorrhage: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), defined as blood loss of 500 mL or more after childbirth, is the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. It is possible to prevent complications of PPH with timely and appropriate detection and management. However, implementing the best methods of PPH prevention, detection and management can be challenging, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. OBJECTIVES: Our overall objective was to explore the perceptions and experiences of women, community members, lay health workers, and skilled healthcare providers who have experience with PPH or with preventing, detecting, and managing PPH, in community or health facility settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and grey literature on 13 November 2022 with no language restrictions. We then performed reference checking and forward citation searching of the included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with an identifiable qualitative component. We included studies that explored perceptions and experiences of PPH prevention, detection, and management among women, community members, traditional birth attendants, healthcare providers, and managers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used three-stage maximum variation sampling to ensure diversity in terms of relevance of the study to the review objectives, richness of data, and coverage of critical contextual elements: setting (region, country income level), perspective (type of participant), and topic (prevention, detection, management). We extracted data using a data extraction form designed for this review. We used thematic synthesis to analyse and synthesise the evidence, and we used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. To identify factors that may influence intervention implementation, we mapped each review finding to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Capability, Motivation, and Opportunity model of Behaviour change (COM-B). We used the Behaviour Change Wheel to explore implications for practice. MAIN RESULTS: We included 67 studies and sampled 43 studies for our analysis. Most were from low- or middle-income countries (33 studies), and most included the perspectives of women and health workers. We downgraded our confidence in several findings from high confidence to moderate, low, or very-low confidence, mainly due to concerns about how the studies were conducted (methodological limitations) or concerns about missing important perspectives from some types of participants or in some settings (relevance). In many communities, bleeding during and after childbirth is considered "normal" and necessary to expel "impurities" and restore and cleanse the woman's body after pregnancy and birth (moderate confidence). In some communities, people have misconceptions about causes of PPH or believe that PPH is caused by supernatural powers or evil spirits that punish women for ignoring or disobeying social rules or for past mistakes (high confidence). For women who give birth at home or in the community, female family members or traditional birth attendants are the first to recognise excess bleeding after birth (high confidence). Family members typically take the decision of whether and when to seek care if PPH is suspected, and these family members are often influenced by trusted traditional birth attendants or community midwives (high confidence). If PPH is identified for women birthing at home or in the community, decision-making about the subsequent referral and care pathway can be multifaceted and complex (high confidence). First responders to PPH are not always skilled or trained healthcare providers (high confidence). In health facilities, midwives may consider it easy to implement visual estimation of blood loss with a kidney dish or under-pad, but difficult to accurately interpret the amount of blood loss (very low confidence). Quantifying (rather than estimating) blood loss may be a complex and contentious change of practice for health workers (low confidence). Women who gave birth in health facilities and experienced PPH described it as painful, embarrassing, and traumatic. Partners or other family members also found the experience stressful. While some women were dissatisfied with their level of involvement in decision-making for PPH management, others felt health workers were best placed to make decisions (moderate confidence). Inconsistent availability of resources (drugs, medical supplies, blood) causes delays in the timely management of PPH (high confidence). There is limited availability of misoprostol in the community owing to stockouts, poor supply systems, and the difficulty of navigating misoprostol procurement for community health workers (moderate confidence). Health workers described working on the maternity ward as stressful and intense due to short staffing, long shifts, and the unpredictability of emergencies. Exhausted and overwhelmed staff may be unable to appropriately monitor all women, particularly when multiple women are giving birth simultaneously or on the floor of the health facility; this could lead to delays in detecting PPH (moderate confidence). Inadequate staffing, high turnover of skilled health workers, and appointment of lower-level cadres of health workers are key challenges to the provision of quality PPH care (high confidence). Through team-based simulation training, health workers of different cadres (doctors, midwives, lay health workers) can develop a shared mental model to help them work quickly, efficiently, and amicably as a team when managing women with PPH (moderate confidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight how improving PPH prevention, detection, and management is underpinned by a complex system of interacting roles and behaviours (community, women, health workers of different types and with different experiences). Multiple individual, sociocultural, and environmental factors influence the decisions and behaviours of women, families, communities, health workers, and managers. It is crucial to consider the broader health and social systems when designing and implementing PPH interventions to change or influence these behaviours. We have developed a set of prompts that may help programme managers, policymakers, researchers, and other key stakeholders to identify and address factors that affect implementation and scale-up of interventions to improve PPH prevention, detection, and management.

Sporadic miscarriage: evidence to provide effective care.

The physical and psychological effect of miscarriage is commonly underappreciated. The journey from diagnosis of miscarriage, through clinical management, to supportive aftercare can be challenging for women, their partners, and caregivers. Diagnostic challenges can lead to delayed or ineffective care and increased anxiety. Inaccurate diagnosis of a miscarriage can result in the unintended termination of a wanted pregnancy. Uncertainty about the therapeutic effects of interventions can lead to suboptimal care, with variations across facilities and countries. For this Series paper, we have developed recommendations for practice from a literature review, appraisal of guidelines, and expert group discussions. The recommendations are grouped into three categories: (1) diagnosis of miscarriage, (2) prevention of miscarriage in women with early pregnancy bleeding, and (3) management of miscarriage. We recommend that every country reports annual aggregate miscarriage data, similarly to the reporting of stillbirth. Early pregnancy services need to focus on providing an effective ultrasound service, as it is central to the diagnosis of miscarriage, and be able to provide expectant management of miscarriage, medical management with mifepristone and misoprostol, and surgical management with manual vacuum aspiration. Women with the dual risk factors of early pregnancy bleeding and a history of previous miscarriage can be recommended vaginal micronised progesterone to improve the prospects of livebirth. We urge health-care funders and providers to invest in early pregnancy care, with specific focus on training for clinical nurse specialists and doctors to provide comprehensive miscarriage care within the setting of dedicated early pregnancy units.

Miscarriage matters: the epidemiological, physical, psychological, and economic costs of early pregnancy loss.

Miscarriage is generally defined as the loss of a pregnancy before viability. An estimated 23 million miscarriages occur every year worldwide, translating to 44 pregnancy losses each minute. The pooled risk of miscarriage is 15·3% (95% CI 12·5-18·7%) of all recognised pregnancies. The population prevalence of women who have had one miscarriage is 10·8% (10·3-11·4%), two miscarriages is 1·9% (1·8-2·1%), and three or more miscarriages is 0·7% (0·5-0·8%). Risk factors for miscarriage include very young or older female age (younger than 20 years and older than 35 years), older male age (older than 40 years), very low or very high body-mass index, Black ethnicity, previous miscarriages, smoking, alcohol, stress, working night shifts, air pollution, and exposure to pesticides. The consequences of miscarriage are both physical, such as bleeding or infection, and psychological. Psychological consequences include increases in the risk of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicide. Miscarriage, and especially recurrent miscarriage, is also a sentinel risk marker for obstetric complications, including preterm birth, fetal growth restriction, placental abruption, and stillbirth in future pregnancies, and a predictor of longer-term health problems, such as cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism. The costs of miscarriage affect individuals, health-care systems, and society. The short-term national economic cost of miscarriage is estimated to be £471 million per year in the UK. As recurrent miscarriage is a sentinel marker for various obstetric risks in future pregnancies, women should receive care in preconception and obstetric clinics specialising in patients at high risk. As psychological morbidity is common after pregnancy loss, effective screening instruments and treatment options for mental health consequences of miscarriage need to be available. We recommend that miscarriage data are gathered and reported to facilitate comparison of rates among countries, to accelerate research, and to improve patient care and policy development.

Recurrent miscarriage: evidence to accelerate action.

Women who have had repeated miscarriages often have uncertainties about the cause, the likelihood of recurrence, the investigations they need, and the treatments that might help. Health-care policy makers and providers have uncertainties about the optimal ways to organise and provide care. For this Series paper, we have developed recommendations for practice from literature reviews, appraisal of guidelines, and a UK-wide consensus conference that was held in December, 2019. Caregivers should individualise care according to the clinical needs and preferences of women and their partners. We define a minimum set of investigations and treatments to be offered to couples who have had recurrent miscarriages, and urge health-care policy makers and providers to make them universally available. The essential investigations include measurements of lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin antibodies, thyroid function, and a transvaginal pelvic ultrasound scan. The key treatments to consider are first trimester progesterone administration, levothyroxine in women with subclinical hypothyroidism, and the combination of aspirin and heparin in women with antiphospholipid antibodies. Appropriate screening and care for mental health issues and future obstetric risks, particularly preterm birth, fetal growth restriction, and stillbirth, will need to be incorporated into the care pathway for couples with a history of recurrent miscarriage. We suggest health-care services structure care using a graded model in which women are offered online health-care advice and support, care in a nurse or midwifery-led clinic, and care in a medical consultant-led clinic, according to clinical needs.

A Randomized Trial of Progesterone in Women with Bleeding in Early Pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Bleeding in early pregnancy is strongly associated with pregnancy loss. Progesterone is essential for the maintenance of pregnancy. Several small trials have suggested that progesterone therapy may improve pregnancy outcomes in women who have bleeding in early pregnancy. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate progesterone, as compared with placebo, in women with vaginal bleeding in early pregnancy. Women were randomly assigned to receive vaginal suppositories containing either 400 mg of progesterone or matching placebo twice daily, from the time at which they presented with bleeding through 16 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome was the birth of a live-born baby after at least 34 weeks of gestation. The primary analysis was performed in all participants for whom data on the primary outcome were available. A sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome that included all the participants was performed with the use of multiple imputation to account for missing data. RESULTS: A total of 4153 women, recruited at 48 hospitals in the United Kingdom, were randomly assigned to receive progesterone (2079 women) or placebo (2074 women). The percentage of women with available data for the primary outcome was 97% (4038 of 4153 women). The incidence of live births after at least 34 weeks of gestation was 75% (1513 of 2025 women) in the progesterone group and 72% (1459 of 2013 women) in the placebo group (relative rate, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.07; P = 0.08). The sensitivity analysis, in which missing primary outcome data were imputed, resulted in a similar finding (relative rate, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.07; P = 0.08). The incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among women with bleeding in early pregnancy, progesterone therapy administered during the first trimester did not result in a significantly higher incidence of live births than placebo. (Funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment program; PRISM Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN14163439.).

Tocolytics for delaying preterm birth: a network meta-analysis (0924).

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is the leading cause of death in newborns and children. Tocolytic drugs aim to delay preterm birth by suppressing uterine contractions to allow time for administration of corticosteroids for fetal lung maturation, magnesium sulphate for neuroprotection, and transport to a facility with appropriate neonatal care facilities. However, there is still uncertainty about their effectiveness and safety. OBJECTIVES: To estimate relative effectiveness and safety profiles for different classes of tocolytic drugs for delaying preterm birth, and provide rankings of the available drugs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov (21 April 2021) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials assessing effectiveness or adverse effects of tocolytic drugs for delaying preterm birth. We excluded quasi- and non-randomised trials. We evaluated all studies against predefined criteria to judge their trustworthiness. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses, to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available tocolytics. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of the network meta-analysis effect estimates for each tocolytic versus placebo or no treatment. MAIN RESULTS: This network meta-analysis includes 122 trials (13,697 women) involving six tocolytic classes, combinations of tocolytics, and placebo or no treatment. Most trials included women with threatened preterm birth, singleton pregnancy, from 24 to 34 weeks of gestation. We judged 25 (20%) studies to be at low risk of bias. Overall, certainty in the evidence varied. Relative effects from network meta-analysis suggested that all tocolytics are probably effective in delaying preterm birth compared with placebo or no tocolytic treatment. Betamimetics are possibly effective in delaying preterm birth by 48 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.20; low-certainty evidence), and 7 days (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.25; low-certainty evidence). COX inhibitors are possibly effective in delaying preterm birth by 48 hours (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.23; low-certainty evidence). Calcium channel blockers are possibly effective in delaying preterm birth by 48 hours (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.24; low-certainty evidence), probably effective in delaying preterm birth by 7 days (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.27; moderate-certainty evidence), and prolong pregnancy by 5 days (0.1 more to 9.2 more; high-certainty evidence). Magnesium sulphate is probably effective in delaying preterm birth by 48 hours (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.23; moderate-certainty evidence). Oxytocin receptor antagonists are probably effective in delaying preterm birth by 48 hours (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.22; moderate-certainty evidence), are effective in delaying preterm birth by 7 days (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.30; high-certainty evidence), and possibly prolong pregnancy by 10 days (95% CI 2.3 more to 16.7 more). Nitric oxide donors are probably effective in delaying preterm birth by 48 hours (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31; moderate-certainty evidence), and 7 days (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.37; moderate-certainty evidence). Combinations of tocolytics are probably effective in delaying preterm birth by 48 hours (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.27; moderate-certainty evidence), and 7 days (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.34; moderate-certainty evidence). Nitric oxide donors ranked highest for delaying preterm birth by 48 hours and 7 days, and delay in birth (continuous outcome), followed by calcium channel blockers, oxytocin receptor antagonists and combinations of tocolytics. Betamimetics (RR 14.4, 95% CI 6.11 to 34.1; moderate-certainty evidence), calcium channel blockers (RR 2.96, 95% CI 1.23 to 7.11; moderate-certainty evidence), magnesium sulphate (RR 3.90, 95% CI 1.09 to 13.93; moderate-certainty evidence) and combinations of tocolytics (RR 6.87, 95% CI 2.08 to 22.7; low-certainty evidence) are probably more likely to result in cessation of treatment. Calcium channel blockers possibly reduce the risk of neurodevelopmental morbidity (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.85; low-certainty evidence), and respiratory morbidity (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.88; low-certainty evidence), and result in fewer neonates with birthweight less than 2000 g (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87; low-certainty evidence). Nitric oxide donors possibly result in neonates with higher birthweight (mean difference (MD) 425.53 g more, 95% CI 224.32 more to 626.74 more; low-certainty evidence), fewer neonates with birthweight less than 2500 g (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.69; low-certainty evidence), and more advanced gestational age (MD 1.35 weeks more, 95% CI 0.37 more to 2.32 more; low-certainty evidence). Combinations of tocolytics possibly result in fewer neonates with birthweight less than 2500 g (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.93; low-certainty evidence). In terms of maternal adverse effects, betamimetics probably cause dyspnoea (RR 12.09, 95% CI 4.66 to 31.39; moderate-certainty evidence), palpitations (RR 7.39, 95% CI 3.83 to 14.24; moderate-certainty evidence), vomiting (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.91; moderate-certainty evidence), possibly headache (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.42; low-certainty evidence) and tachycardia (RR 3.01, 95% CI 1.17 to 7.71; low-certainty evidence) compared with placebo or no treatment. COX inhibitors possibly cause vomiting (RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.18 to 5.48; low-certainty evidence). Calcium channel blockers (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.39 to 4.83; low-certainty evidence), and nitric oxide donors probably cause headache (RR 4.20, 95% CI 2.13 to 8.25; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo or no tocolytic treatment, all tocolytic drug classes that we assessed (betamimetics, calcium channel blockers, magnesium sulphate, oxytocin receptor antagonists, nitric oxide donors) and their combinations were probably or possibly effective in delaying preterm birth for 48 hours, and 7 days. Tocolytic drugs were associated with a range of adverse effects (from minor to potentially severe) compared with placebo or no tocolytic treatment, although betamimetics and combination tocolytics were more likely to result in cessation of treatment. The effects of tocolytic use on neonatal outcomes such as neonatal and perinatal mortality, and on safety outcomes such as maternal and neonatal infection were uncertain.

Outcomes of ovarian transposition in cervical cancer; an updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the most common indication for ovarian transposition in reproductive-age women. Ovarian transposition should be performed in premenopausal women undergoing pelvic irradiation to preserve ovarian function, and prevent early menopause. As women become more knowledgeable about their fertility options, it is still unclear who will benefit from the intervention. We updated our previous meta-analysis of ovarian function preservation, symptomatic ovarian cysts, and metastases to the transposed ovaries following ovarian transposition in cervical cancer patients to further guide current clinical practice. METHODS: A systematic search of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases, dating from January 1980 to July 2021, was conducted. We computed the summary proportions of women who had ovarian function preservation, non-ovarian cyst formation and metastases to the transposed ovaries following ovarian transposition by random-effects meta-analysis and we explored study heterogeneity by type of radiotherapy. RESULTS: There were 29 publications reporting on 1160 women with cervical cancer who underwent ovarian transposition. In the group that underwent surgery alone, 91% of the women had preserved ovarian function (95% CI 83-100), 89% (95% CI 80-99) of women who did not develop ovarian cysts, and 99% (95% CI 1-5) of women who did not suffer metastases to the transposed ovaries. In the surgery ± brachytherapy (BR) group, the proportion of women with the preserved ovarian function was 93% (95% CI 76-113), 84% (95% CI 69-103) of women who did not develop ovarian cysts, and 99% (95% CI 82-120) of women who did not suffer metastases to the transposed ovaries. In the external beam pelvic radiotherapy (EBRT) ± BR ± surgery group, the proportion of women with the preserved ovarian function was 61% (95% CI 55-69), and 95% (95% CI 85-107) of women who developed ovarian cysts. There were no metastases to the transposed ovaries in that group. CONCLUSIONS: In women with cervical cancer, ovarian transposition offers a significant preservation of the ovarian function. Despite an expected incidence of ovarian cyst formation, it carries almost no risk for metastases to the transposed ovaries.

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriage (MifeMiso): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The anti-progesterone drug mifepristone and the prostaglandin misoprostol can be used to treat missed miscarriage. However, it is unclear whether a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is more effective than administering misoprostol alone. We investigated whether treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol would result in a higher rate of completion of missed miscarriage compared with misoprostol alone. METHODS: MifeMiso was a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial in 28 UK hospitals. Women were eligible for enrolment if they were aged 16 years and older, diagnosed with a missed miscarriage by pelvic ultrasound scan in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, chose to have medical management of miscarriage, and were willing and able to give informed consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a single dose of oral mifepristone 200 mg or an oral placebo tablet, both followed by a single dose of vaginal, oral, or sublingual misoprostol 800 µg 2 days later. Randomisation was managed via a secure web-based randomisation program, with minimisation to balance study group assignments according to maternal age (<30 years vs ≥30 years), body-mass index (<35 kg/m2vs ≥35 kg/m2), previous parity (nulliparous women vs parous women), gestational age (<70 days vs ≥70 days), amount of bleeding (Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score; ≤2 vs ≥3), and randomising centre. Participants, clinicians, pharmacists, trial nurses, and midwives were masked to study group assignment throughout the trial. The primary outcome was failure to spontaneously pass the gestational sac within 7 days after random assignment. Primary analyses were done according to intention-to-treat principles. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN17405024. FINDINGS: Between Oct 3, 2017, and July 22, 2019, 2595 women were identified as being eligible for the MifeMiso trial. 711 women were randomly assigned to receive either mifepristone and misoprostol (357 women) or placebo and misoprostol (354 women). 696 (98%) of 711 women had available data for the primary outcome. 59 (17%) of 348 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group did not pass the gestational sac spontaneously within 7 days versus 82 (24%) of 348 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio [RR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·54-0·99; p=0·043). 62 (17%) of 355 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group required surgical intervention to complete the miscarriage versus 87 (25%) of 353 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (0·71, 0·53-0·95; p=0·021). We found no difference in incidence of adverse events between the study groups. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol was more effective than misoprostol alone in the management of missed miscarriage. Women with missed miscarriage should be offered mifepristone pretreatment before misoprostol to increase the chance of successful miscarriage management, while reducing the need for miscarriage surgery. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Progestogens for preventing miscarriage: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Miscarriage, defined as the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks' gestation, is common with approximately 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their lifetime, and 15% to 20% of pregnancies ending in a miscarriage. Progesterone has an important role in maintaining a pregnancy, and supplementation with different progestogens in early pregnancy has been attempted to rescue a pregnancy in women with early pregnancy bleeding (threatened miscarriage), and to prevent miscarriages in asymptomatic women who have a history of three or more previous miscarriages (recurrent miscarriage). OBJECTIVES: To estimate the relative effectiveness and safety profiles for the different progestogen treatments for threatened and recurrent miscarriage, and provide rankings of the available treatments according to their effectiveness, safety, and side-effect profile. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 15 December 2020: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE(R), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness or safety of progestogen treatment for the prevention of miscarriage. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved. We excluded quasi- and non-randomised trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We performed pairwise meta-analyses and indirect comparisons, where possible, to determine the relative effects of all available treatments, but due to the limited number of included studies only direct or indirect comparisons were possible. We estimated the relative effects for the primary outcome of live birth and the secondary outcomes including miscarriage (< 24 weeks of gestation), preterm birth (< 37 weeks of gestation), stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy, congenital abnormalities, and adverse drug events. Relative effects for all outcomes are reported separately by the type of miscarriage (threatened and recurrent miscarriage). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Our meta-analysis included seven randomised trials involving 5,682 women, and all provided data for meta-analysis. All trials were conducted in hospital settings. Across seven trials (14 treatment arms), the following treatments were used: three arms (21%) used vaginal micronized progesterone; three arms (21%) used dydrogesterone; one arm (7%) used oral micronized progesterone; one arm (7%) used 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone, and six arms (43%) used placebo. Women with threatened miscarriage Based on the relative effects from the pairwise meta-analysis, vaginal micronized progesterone (two trials, 4090 women, risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.07, high-certainty evidence), and dydrogesterone (one trial, 406 women, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.07, moderate-certainty evidence) probably make little or no difference to the live birth rate when compared with placebo for women with threatened miscarriage. No data are available to assess the effectiveness of 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone or oral micronized progesterone for the outcome of live birth in women with threatened miscarriage. The pre-specified subgroup analysis by number of previous miscarriages is only possible for vaginal micronized progesterone in women with threatened miscarriage. In women with no previous miscarriages and early pregnancy bleeding, there is probably little or no improvement in the live birth rate (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.04, high-certainty evidence) when treated with vaginal micronized progesterone compared to placebo. However, for women with one or more previous miscarriages and early pregnancy bleeding, vaginal micronized progesterone increases the live birth rate compared to placebo (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.15, high-certainty evidence). Women with recurrent miscarriage Based on the results from one trial (826 women) vaginal micronized progesterone (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.15, high-certainty evidence) probably makes little or no difference to the live birth rate when compared with placebo for women with recurrent miscarriage. The evidence for dydrogesterone compared with placebo for women with recurrent miscarriage is of very low-certainty evidence, therefore the effects remain unclear. No data are available to assess the effectiveness of 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone or oral micronized progesterone for the outcome of live birth in women with recurrent miscarriage. Additional outcomes All progestogen treatments have a wide range of effects on the other pre-specified outcomes (miscarriage (< 24 weeks of gestation), preterm birth (< 37 weeks of gestation), stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy) in comparison to placebo for both threatened and recurrent miscarriage. Moderate- and low-certainty evidence with a wide range of effects suggests that there is probably no difference in congenital abnormalities and adverse drug events with vaginal micronized progesterone for threatened (congenital abnormalities RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.46, moderate-certainty evidence; adverse drug events RR 1.07 95% CI 0.81 to 1.39, moderate-certainty evidence) or recurrent miscarriage (congenital abnormalities 0.75, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.85, low-certainty evidence; adverse drug events RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.29, moderate-certainty evidence) compared with placebo. There are limited data and very low-certainty evidence on congenital abnormalities and adverse drug events for the other progestogens. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The overall available evidence suggests that progestogens probably make little or no difference to live birth rate for women with threatened or recurrent miscarriage. However, vaginal micronized progesterone may increase the live birth rate for women with a history of one or more previous miscarriages and early pregnancy bleeding, with likely no difference in adverse events. There is still uncertainty over the effectiveness and safety of alternative progestogen treatments for threatened and recurrent miscarriage.

Methods for managing miscarriage: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Miscarriage, defined as the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks' gestation, is common with approximately 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their lifetime. An estimated 15% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Miscarriage can lead to serious morbidity, including haemorrhage, infection, and even death, particularly in settings without adequate healthcare provision. Early miscarriages occur during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, and can be managed expectantly, medically or surgically. However, there is uncertainty about the relative effectiveness and risks of each option. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the relative effectiveness and safety profiles for the different management methods for early miscarriage, and to provide rankings of the available methods according to their effectiveness, safety, and side-effect profile using a network meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 February 2021), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (12 February 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness or safety of methods for miscarriage management. Early miscarriage was defined as less than or equal to 14 weeks of gestation, and included missed and incomplete miscarriage. Management of late miscarriages after 14 weeks of gestation (often referred to as intrauterine fetal deaths) was not eligible for inclusion in the review. Cluster- and quasi-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved. We excluded non-randomised trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least three review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We estimated the relative effects and rankings for the primary outcomes of complete miscarriage and composite outcome of death or serious complications. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Relative effects for the primary outcomes are reported subgrouped by the type of miscarriage (incomplete and missed miscarriage). We also performed pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available methods. MAIN RESULTS: Our network meta-analysis included 78 randomised trials involving 17,795 women from 37 countries. Most trials (71/78) were conducted in hospital settings and included women with missed or incomplete miscarriage. Across 158 trial arms, the following methods were used: 51 trial arms (33%) used misoprostol; 50 (32%) used suction aspiration; 26 (16%) used expectant management or placebo; 17 (11%) used dilatation and curettage; 11 (6%) used mifepristone plus misoprostol; and three (2%) used suction aspiration plus cervical preparation. Of these 78 studies, 71 (90%) contributed data in a usable form for meta-analysis. Complete miscarriage Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 59 trials (12,591 women), we found that five methods may be more effective than expectant management or placebo for achieving a complete miscarriage: · suction aspiration after cervical preparation (risk ratio (RR) 2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 3.20, low-certainty evidence), · dilatation and curettage (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.75, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.62, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.66, moderate-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.46, low-certainty evidence). The highest ranked surgical method was suction aspiration after cervical preparation. The highest ranked non-surgical treatment was mifepristone plus misoprostol. All surgical methods were ranked higher than medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Composite outcome of death and serious complications Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 35 trials (8161 women), we found that four methods with available data were compatible with a wide range of treatment effects compared with expectant management or placebo: · dilatation and curettage (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.06, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.32, low-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.15, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.84, low-certainty evidence). Importantly, no deaths were reported in these studies, thus this composite outcome was entirely composed of serious complications, including blood transfusions, uterine perforations, hysterectomies, and intensive care unit admissions. Expectant management and placebo ranked the lowest when compared with alternative treatment interventions. Subgroup analyses by type of miscarriage (missed or incomplete) agreed with the overall analysis in that surgical methods were the most effective treatment, followed by medical methods and then expectant management or placebo, but there are possible subgroup differences in the effectiveness of the available methods.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on relative effects from the network meta-analysis, all surgical and medical methods for managing a miscarriage may be more effective than expectant management or placebo. Surgical methods were ranked highest for managing a miscarriage, followed by medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Expectant management or placebo had the highest chance of serious complications, including the need for unplanned or emergency surgery. A subgroup analysis showed that surgical and medical methods may be more beneficial in women with missed miscarriage compared to women with incomplete miscarriage. Since type of miscarriage (missed and incomplete) appears to be a source of inconsistency and heterogeneity within these data, we acknowledge that the main network meta-analysis may be unreliable. However, we plan to explore this further in future updates and consider the primary analysis as separate networks for missed and incomplete miscarriage.

Formative research to design an implementation strategy for a postpartum hemorrhage initial response treatment bundle (E-MOTIVE): study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal death worldwide. When PPH occurs, early identification of bleeding and prompt management using evidence-based guidelines, can avert most PPH-related severe morbidities and deaths. However, adherence to the World Health Organization recommended practices remains a critical challenge. A potential solution to inefficient and inconsistent implementation of evidence-based practices is the application of a 'clinical care bundle' for PPH management. A clinical care bundle is a set of discrete, evidence-based interventions, administered concurrently, or in rapid succession, to every eligible person, along with teamwork, communication, and cooperation. Once triggered, all bundle components must be delivered. The E-MOTIVE project aims to improve the detection and first response management of PPH through the implementation of the "E-MOTIVE" bundle, which consists of (1) Early PPH detection using a calibrated drape, (2) uterine Massage, (3) Oxytocic drugs, (4) Tranexamic acid, (5) Intra Venous fluids, and (6) genital tract Examination and escalation when necessary. The objective of this paper is to describe the protocol for the formative phase of the E-MOTIVE project, which aims to design an implementation strategy to support the uptake of this bundle into practice. METHODS: We will use behavior change and implementation science frameworks [e.g. capability, opportunity, motivation and behavior (COM-B) and theoretical domains framework (TDF)] to guide data collection and analysis, in Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and Tanzania. There are four methodological components: qualitative interviews; surveys; systematic reviews; and design workshops. We will triangulate findings across data sources, participant groups, and countries to explore factors influencing current PPH detection and management, and potentially influencing E-MOTIVE bundle implementation. We will use these findings to develop potential strategies to improve implementation, which will be discussed and agreed with key stakeholders from each country in intervention design workshops. DISCUSSION: This formative protocol outlines our strategy for the systematic development of the E-MOTIVE implementation strategy. This focus on implementation considers what it would take to support roll-out and implementation of the E-MOTIVE bundle. Our approach therefore aims to maximize internal validity in the trial alongside future scalability, and implementation of the E-MOTIVE bundle in routine practice, if proven to be effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04341662.

Excessive bleeding after birth is the leading cause of maternal death globally. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended several treatment options for bleeding after birth. However, these treatments are not used regularly, or consistently for all women. A key underlying issue is that it is challenging for health workers to identify when women are bleeding too much, because measuring the amount of blood loss is difficult.Maternal health experts have proposed a new clinical 'care bundle' for caring for women with excessive bleeding after birth. A care bundle is a way to group together multiple treatments (e.g. 3­5 treatments). These treatments are then given to the woman at the same time, or one after another in quick succession, and supported by strategies to improve teamwork, communication, and cooperation.This is a research protocol for the preliminary phase of our study ("E-MOTIVE"), which means that it is a description of what we plan to do and how we plan to do it. The aim of our study is to develop a strategy for how we will test whether the E-MOTIVE bundle works through collaborative activities with midwives and doctors in five countries (Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and Tanzania) to develop a strategy for how we will test whether the E-MOTIVE bundle works. We plan to do this by conducting interviews and surveys with midwives and doctors, and reviewing other research conducted on PPH to understand what works in different settings. We will discuss our research findings in a workshop, with midwives and doctors in the study countries to co-create a strategy that will work for them, based on their needs and preferences.

Micronized vaginal progesterone to prevent miscarriage: a critical evaluation of randomized evidence.

Progesterone is essential for the maintenance of pregnancy. Several small trials have suggested that progesterone supplementation may reduce the risk of miscarriage in women with recurrent or threatened miscarriage. Cochrane Reviews summarized the evidence and found that the trials were small with substantial methodologic weaknesses. Since then, the effects of first-trimester use of vaginal micronized progesterone have been evaluated in 2 large, high-quality, multicenter placebo-controlled trials, one targeting women with unexplained recurrent miscarriages (the PROMISE [PROgesterone in recurrent MIScarriagE] trial) and the other targeting women with early pregnancy bleeding (the PRISM [PRogesterone In Spontaneous Miscarriage] trial). The PROMISE trial studied 836 women from 45 hospitals in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands and found a 3% greater live birth rate with progesterone but with substantial statistical uncertainty. The PRISM trial studied 4153 women from 48 hospitals in the United Kingdom and found a 3% greater live birth rate with progesterone, but with a P value of .08. A key finding, first observed in the PROMISE trial, and then replicated in the PRISM trial, was that treatment with vaginal micronized progesterone 400 mg twice daily was associated with increasing live birth rates according to the number of previous miscarriages. Prespecified PRISM trial subgroup analysis in women with the dual risk factors of previous miscarriage(s) and current pregnancy bleeding fulfilled all 11 conditions for credible subgroup analysis. For the subgroup of women with a history of 1 or more miscarriage(s) and current pregnancy bleeding, the live birth rate was 75% (689/914) with progesterone vs 70% (619/886) with placebo (rate difference 5%; risk ratio, 1.09, 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.15; P=.003). The benefit was greater for the subgroup of women with 3 or more previous miscarriages and current pregnancy bleeding; live birth rate was 72% (98/137) with progesterone vs 57% (85/148) with placebo (rate difference 15%; risk ratio, 1.28, 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.51; P=.004). No short-term safety concerns were identified from the PROMISE and PRISM trials. Therefore, women with a history of miscarriage who present with bleeding in early pregnancy may benefit from the use of vaginal micronized progesterone 400 mg twice daily. Women and their care providers should use the findings for shared decision-making.

Intravenous versus intramuscular prophylactic oxytocin for the third stage of labour.

BACKGROUND: There is general agreement that oxytocin given either through the intravenous or intramuscular route is effective in reducing postpartum blood loss. However, it is unclear whether the subtle differences between the mode of action of these routes have any effect on maternal and infant outcomes. This review was first published in 2012 and last updated in 2018. OBJECTIVES: To determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of oxytocin administered intravenously or intramuscularly for prophylactic management of the third stage of labour after vaginal birth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (19 December 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were randomised trials comparing intravenous with intramuscular oxytocin for prophylactic management of the third stage of labour after vaginal birth. We excluded quasi-randomised trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence with the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials, involving 7817 women, met the inclusion criteria for this review. The trials compared intravenous versus intramuscular administration of oxytocin just after the birth of the anterior shoulder or soon after the birth of the baby. All trials were conducted in hospital settings and included women with term pregnancies, undergoing a vaginal birth. Overall, the included studies were at moderate or low risk of bias, with two trials providing clear information on allocation concealment and blinding. For GRADE outcomes, the certainty of the evidence was generally moderate to high, except from two cases where the certainty of the evidence was either low or very low. High-certainty evidence suggests that intravenous administration of oxytocin in the third stage of labour compared with intramuscular administration carries a lower risk for postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) ≥ 500 mL (average risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.92; six trials; 7731 women) and blood transfusion (average RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.77; four trials; 6684 women). Intravenous administration of oxytocin probably reduces the risk of PPH ≥ 1000 mL, although the 95% CI crosses the line of no-effect (average RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.08; four trials; 6681 women; moderate-certainty evidence). In all studies but one, there was a reduction in the risk of PPH ≥ 1000 mL with intravenous oxytocin. The study that found a large increase with intravenous administration was small (256 women), and contributed only 3% of total events. Once this small study was removed from the meta-analysis, heterogeneity was eliminated and the treatment effect favoured intravenous oxytocin (average RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.88; three trials; 6425 women; high-certainty evidence). Additionally, a sensitivity analysis, exploring the effect of risk of bias by restricting analysis to those studies rated as 'low risk of bias' for random sequence generation and allocation concealment, found that the prophylactic administration of intravenous oxytocin reduces the risk for PPH ≥ 1000 mL, compared with intramuscular oxytocin (average RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.94; two trials; 1512 women). The two routes of oxytocin administration may be comparable in terms of additional uterotonic use (average RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.25; six trials; 7327 women; low-certainty evidence). Although intravenous compared with intramuscular administration of oxytocin probably results in a lower risk for serious maternal morbidity (e.g. hysterectomy, organ failure, coma, intensive care unit admissions), the confidence interval suggests a substantial reduction, but also touches the line of no-effect. This suggests that there may be no reduction in serious maternal morbidity (average RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.00; four trials; 7028 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Most events occurred in one study from Ireland reporting high dependency unit admissions, whereas in the remaining three studies there was only one case of uvular oedema. There were no maternal deaths reported in any of the included studies (very low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in the risk of hypotension between intravenous and intramuscular administration of oxytocin (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.15; four trials; 6468 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Subgroup analyses based on the mode of administration of intravenous oxytocin (bolus injection or infusion) versus intramuscular oxytocin did not show any substantial differences on the primary outcomes. Similarly, additional subgroup analyses based on whether oxytocin was used alone or as part of active management of the third stage of labour (AMTSL) did not show any substantial differences between the two routes of administration. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous administration of oxytocin is more effective than its intramuscular administration in preventing PPH during vaginal birth. Intravenous oxytocin administration presents no additional safety concerns and has a comparable side effects profile with its intramuscular administration. Future studies should consider the acceptability, feasibility and resource use for the intervention, especially in low-resource settings.

Uterotonic agents for first-line treatment of postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), defined as a blood loss of 500 mL or more after birth, is the leading cause of maternal death worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that all women giving birth should receive a prophylactic uterotonic agent. Despite the routine administration of a uterotonic agent for prevention, PPH remains a common complication causing one-quarter of all maternal deaths globally. When prevention fails and PPH occurs, further administration of uterotonic agents as 'first-line' treatment is recommended. However, there is uncertainty about which uterotonic agent is best for the 'first-line' treatment of PPH. OBJECTIVES: To identify the most effective uterotonic agent(s) with the least side-effects for PPH treatment, and generate a meaningful ranking among all available agents according to their relative effectiveness and side-effect profile. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (5 May 2020), and the reference lists of all retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised trials comparing the effectiveness and safety of uterotonic agents with other uterotonic agents for the treatment of PPH were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed all trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed each trial for risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were additional blood loss of 500 mL or more after recruitment to the trial until cessation of active bleeding and the composite outcome of maternal death or severe morbidity. Secondary outcomes included blood loss-related outcomes, morbidity outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes. We performed pairwise meta-analyses and indirect comparisons, where possible, but due to the limited number of included studies, we were unable to conduct the planned network meta-analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials, involving 3738 women in 10 countries, were included in this review. All trials were conducted in hospital settings. Randomised women gave birth vaginally, except in one small trial, where women gave birth either vaginally or by caesarean section. Across the seven trials (14 trial arms) the following agents were used: six trial arms used oxytocin alone; four trial arms used misoprostol plus oxytocin; three trial arms used misoprostol; one trial arm used Syntometrine® (oxytocin and ergometrine fixed-dose combination) plus oxytocin infusion. Pairwise meta-analysis of two trials (1787 participants), suggests that misoprostol, as first-line treatment uterotonic agent, probably increases the risk of blood transfusion (risk ratio (RR) 1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 2.14, moderate-certainty) compared with oxytocin. Low-certainty evidence suggests that misoprostol administration may increase the incidence of additional blood loss of 1000 mL or more (RR 2.57, 95% CI 1.00 to 6.64). The data comparing misoprostol with oxytocin is imprecise, with a wide range of treatment effects for the additional blood loss of 500 mL or more (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.69 to 4.02, low-certainty), maternal death or severe morbidity (RR 1.98, 95% CI 0.36 to 10.72, low-certainty, based on one study n = 809 participants, as the second study had zero events), and the use of additional uterotonics (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.94, low-certainty). The risk of side-effects may be increased with the use of misoprostol compared with oxytocin: vomiting (2 trials, 1787 participants, RR 2.47, 95% CI 1.37 to 4.47, high-certainty) and fever (2 trials, 1787 participants, RR 3.43, 95% CI 0.65 to 18.18, low-certainty). According to pairwise meta-analysis of four trials (1881 participants) generating high-certainty evidence, misoprostol plus oxytocin makes little or no difference to the use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.05) and to blood transfusion (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.17) compared with oxytocin. We cannot rule out an important benefit of using the misoprostol plus oxytocin combination over oxytocin alone, for additional blood loss of 500 mL or more (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.06, moderate-certainty). We also cannot rule out important benefits or harms for additional blood loss of 1000 mL or more (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.34, moderate-certainty, 3 trials, 1814 participants, one study reported zero events), and maternal mortality or severe morbidity (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.39, moderate-certainty). Misoprostol plus oxytocin increases the incidence of fever (4 trials, 1866 participants, RR 3.07, 95% CI 2.62 to 3.61, high-certainty), and vomiting (2 trials, 1482 participants, RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.95, high-certainty) compared with oxytocin alone. For all outcomes of interest, the available evidence on the misoprostol versus Syntometrine® plus oxytocin combination was of very low-certainty and these effects remain unclear. Although network meta-analysis was not performed, we were able to compare the misoprostol plus oxytocin combination with misoprostol alone through the common comparator of oxytocin. This indirect comparison suggests that the misoprostol plus oxytocin combination probably reduces the risk of blood transfusion (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.99, moderate-certainty) and may reduce the risk of additional blood loss of 1000 mL or more (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.89, low-certainty) compared with misoprostol alone. The combination makes little or no difference to vomiting (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.59, high-certainty) compared with misoprostol alone. Misoprostol plus oxytocin compared to misoprostol alone are compatible with a wide range of treatment effects for additional blood loss of 500 mL or more (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.26, low-certainty), maternal mortality or severe morbidity (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 4.24, low-certainty), use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.73, low-certainty), and fever (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.17 to 4.77, low-certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that oxytocin used as first-line treatment of PPH probably is more effective than misoprostol with less side-effects. Adding misoprostol to the conventional treatment of oxytocin probably makes little or no difference to effectiveness outcomes, and is also associated with more side-effects. The evidence for most uterotonic agents used as first-line treatment of PPH is limited, with no evidence found for commonly used agents, such as injectable prostaglandins, ergometrine, and Syntometrine®.

Hydrosalpinx and pregnancy loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the association between hydrosalpinx and pregnancy loss and the effects of treatment for hydrosalpinx? DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the risk of pregnancy loss, and the benefit of treatment in women with hydrosalpinx. Searches were conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science. RESULTS: A meta-analysis of 14 observational studies showed a 74% relative increase in the risk of pregnancy loss in women with hydrosalpinx compared with women without hydrosalpinx (relative risk [RR] = 1.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43, 2.12, P< 0.00001, I2 = 31%). Pooling of risk ratios from seven randomized trials and six observational studies of treatment of hydrosalpinx showed a reduction in pregnancy loss of approximately half when compared with no treatment (RR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.34, 0.63, P <0.00001, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: This evidence suggests that the presence of hydrosalpinx increases the risk of pregnancy loss and that treatment can reduce this risk. However, in all studies apart from one, participants conceived through IVF so the evidence is less certain for women conceiving naturally. Further research should consider whether women with recurrent miscarriages should have routine screening for hydrosalpinx.