Implementing a Bundle for Evidence-based Cesarean Delivery May Not Be As Beneficial as Expected: A Multi-center, Pre- and Post- Study.

BACKGROUND: Standardization of procedures improves outcomes. Though systematic reviews have summarized the evidence-based steps (EBS) of cesarean delivery (CD), their bundled implementation has not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: In this pre- and post-implementation trial, we sought to ascertain if bundled EBS of CD, compared to surgeon's preference, improves outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: A StaRI (Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies) compliant, multi-center pre- and post-implementation trial at 4 teaching hospitals was conducted. The pre-implementation period consisted of CD done based on the physicians' preferences for 3 months; educational intervention (e.g., didactics, badge cards, posters, video) occurred at the 4th month. CDs in post-implementation period employed the bundled EBS. A pre-planned 10% randomized audit of both groups assessed adherence and uptake of EBS. The primary outcome was a composite maternal morbidity (CMM), which included estimated blood loss > 1,000 mL, blood transfusion, endometritis, post-partum fever, wound complications, sepsis, thrombosis, ICU admission, hysterectomy, or death. The secondary outcome was a composite neonatal morbidity (CNM) and some of its components were 5-min Apgar score < 7, positive pressure oxygen use, hypoglycemia, or sepsis. A priori Bayesian sample size calculation indicated 700 CD in each group was needed to demonstrate 20% relative reduction (from 15% to 12%) of CMM with 75% certainty. Bayesian logistic regression with neutral priors was used to calculate likelihood of net-improvement in adjusted relative risk (aRR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI). RESULTS: A total of 1,425 consecutive CD (721 in pre- and 704 in post-implementation group) were examined. Audited data indicated that the baseline EBS utilization rate during the pre-implementation period was 79%; after the implementation bundled EBS of CD the audited adherence was 89%-an uptake of 10.0% of the EBS. In four aspects, the maternal characteristics differed significantly in the pre- and post-implementation periods: race/ethnicity, hypertensive disorder, and the relative contribution of the 4 centers to the cohorts and the gestational age at delivery, but the indications for CD and whether its duration was < versus > 60 min did not. The rates of CMM in the pre- and post-implementation groups were 26% and 22%, respectively (aRR, 0.88; 95% CrI, 0.73-1.04), with a 94 % Bayesian probability of a reduction in CMM. The CNM occurred in 37% of the pre- and in 41% of the post-implementation group (aRR, 1.12; 95% CrI 0.98-1.39), with a 95% Bayesian probability of worsening in CNM. When CMM were segregated by preterm (<37 wks) and term (> 37 weeks) CD, the improvement in maternal outcomes persisted; when CNM were segregated by gestational age subgroupsthe potential for worsening neonatal outcomes persisted as well. CONCLUSIONS: Standardization of the evidence-based bundled steps of cesarean delivery resulted in a modest reduction of the composite maternal outcome; however, a paradoxical increase in neonatal composite morbidity was noted. Although individual evidence-based steps may be of value, while awaiting additional intervention trials a formal bundling of such steps is currently not recommended.

Patient-centered perinatal palliative care: family birth plans, outcomes, and resource utilization in a diverse cohort.

BACKGROUND: Perinatal palliative care is an emerging concept in fetal medicine that offers quality-of-life options and anticipatory grief management for families of fetuses with complex conditions. Few perinatal palliative care outcomes are detailed in peer-reviewed literature. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe outcomes of perinatal palliative care at the Fetal Center of the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston and Women's Center at Children's Memorial Hermann Hospital. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort of families receiving perinatal palliative care for life-limiting fetal diagnosis, such as trisomy 13 or 18 and some major structural anomalies between 2016 and 2020. The primary outcome was whether delivery events matched families' birth plans, including fetal/neonatal clinical course matching expectations described by consultant notes. Secondary outcomes included maternal safety outcomes, use of perinatal interventions, delivery outcomes, and resource utilization outcomes. RESULTS: Of 187 perinatal palliative care consults, delivery events matched families' plans and clinicians' expectations in 89% of cases (165/185); 39% (73/187) of families requested some perinatal interventions, 64% of whom planned postnatal comfort care even while choosing antenatal interventions. Demographics and median income were similar between families who chose some interventions and those who chose comfort care. Patients choosing any interventions had more mismatches between their plans and delivery events (19% vs 2%; P<.001), were more likely to change their plans (24% vs 6%; P=.001), and unsurprisingly used more healthcare resources. They were also more likely to have intraamniotic infection or postpartum hemorrhage (9% vs 22%; P=.02), but this was associated with mode of delivery and not choice of interventions. CONCLUSION: Most families' perinatal experiences matched birth plans and expectations in this perinatal palliative care program. Families who desired interventions used more healthcare resources, but often did so with plans for postnatal comfort care, demonstrating insight into neonatal prognosis but achieving value-consistent goals, such as meeting a live neonate. Perinatal palliative care was safe for maternal patients and equitable across racial, ethnic, and income groups. Perinatal palliative care and some perinatal interventions are options for care of the whole family in complex fetal medicine cases.

Obstetrical randomized controlled trials: individuals screened, approached, and enrolled.

BACKGROUND: The use of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is predicated on the idea that the study group is representative of the overall clinical population; however, recent studies have suggested that this may not be the case in obstetrics.1,2 The generalizability of several seminal obstetrical RCTs, including the A Randomized Trial of Induction Versus Expectant Management trial, has been questioned because of the high ratio of assessed-to-enrolled individuals.3 Although difficulty in recruitment for obstetrical RCTs is known,4 it has been postulated that this high ratio increases the likelihood of the study population not being truly representative. Our primary objective was to analyze the assessed-to-enrolled ratio in contemporary obstetrical RCTs. STUDY DESIGN: During a 4-year period (January 2017 to December 2020), we identified all obstetrical RCTs published in 6 journals (The New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, and Obstetrics & Gynecology). The journals were manually reviewed by 2 coauthors to ensure all obstetrical RCTs were identified and abstracted accurately. Reported patient recruitment data, per Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials recommendations,5 were abstracted from each RCT. Based on the primary outcome of the study, the purpose of the trial was categorized as preventative or treatment. Medians were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum testing, and P<.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Of 240 obstetrical RCTs that were identified, 193 (80%) reported data on the number of individuals screened and recruited. The median number of individuals screened per trial was 850 (interquartile range [IQR], 323-2582), of which 348 were eligible (IQR, 201-1347) and 300 (IQR, 133-894) were randomized. There was no difference in trials based internationally or in the United States (P=.26). Compared with preventative RCTs, the trials that had treatment as the primary outcome were significantly more likely to screen a larger number of individuals for eligibility (P<.01) and subsequently randomize (P<.02). There was no difference in the median number of individuals who declined enrollment between trials with prevention or treatment as their objective (P=.12). More individuals were lost to follow-up in trials with prevention as the primary outcome (P<.01), although the median number lost was low at 3 (IQR, 0-21). CONCLUSION: The low assessed-to-enrolled ratio found in this study suggested that researchers are casting a large net for patient recruitment. The relatively high eligible-to-randomized ratio suggested that most individuals are willing to participate in obstetrical RCTs. This finding was at odds with previous critiques of obstetrical RCTs that had called in to question study results secondary to high eligible-to-randomized ratios. Further research into how patients are recruited and counseled is indicated, to explore this variation. The ratio of patients assessed for study eligibility to patients enrolled in preventative vs treatment RCTs was not substantially different. Based on this result, patients seemed to be similarly interested in being enrolled to prevent a complication from pregnancy as in treating one. These results supported the concept that most individuals in the obstetrical RCTs represent the eligible population.

Prehospital airway management in the pediatric patient: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill children may require airway management to optimize delivery of oxygen and ventilation during resuscitation. We performed a systematic review of studies comparing the use of bag-valve-mask ventilation (BVM), supraglottic airway devices (SGA), and endotracheal intubation (ETI) in pediatric patients requiring prehospital airway management. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for papers that compared SGA or ETI to BVM use in children, including studies that reported survival outcomes. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We compared key characteristics of the candidate papers, including inclusion criteria, definitions of airway interventions, and association with outcomes. RESULTS: Of 773 studies, eight met criteria for inclusion. Only one study was a randomized controlled trial; the other seven studies were observational. Four studies compared ETI to BVM, two studies compared SGA to BVM, one study compared ETI to SGA, and two studies compared advanced airway management (AAM) to BVM. Primary outcomes varied, ranging from overall mortality and 24-h mortality to 1-month survival, hospital survival, and neurologically favorable survival. Four of the studies found no difference in survival with the use of ETI, and four found increased mortality with the use of ETI. Associations with outcomes could not be assessed by meta-analysis due to limited number of studies and the wide variation in the design, population, interventions, and outcome measures of the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review, studies of prehospital pediatric airway management varied in scope, design, and conclusions. There was insufficient evidence to evaluate efficacy of pediatric prehospital airway management; however, the current research suggests that there are equal or worse outcomes with the use of ETI compared to other airway techniques. Additional clinical trials are needed to assess the merits of this practice.

Whole blood transfusion versus component therapy in trauma resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with hemorrhagic shock from trauma often require balanced blood product transfusion with red blood cells, plasma, and platelets. Resuscitation with whole blood resuscitation is becoming a common practice. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing whole blood transfusion with balanced component therapy in patients suffering from traumatic hemorrhagic shock. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE Ovid, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for human studies comparing whole blood with component blood therapy published from January 2007 to June 2019. We included studies from both civilian and military settings and that reported 24-hour, in-hospital, or 30-day mortality. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, assessing study quality, publication bias, and heterogeneity. We used meta-analytic models to determine the associations (odds ratio [OR] with 95% confidence interval [CI]) between whole blood transfusion and (1) 24-hour mortality, and (2) in-hospital or 30-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1759 identified studies, 12 (reporting on n = 8431 patients) met inclusion criteria. There was heterogeneity in the design, setting, interventions, and outcomes of the studies. On meta-analysis, whole blood transfusion was not associated with 24-hour mortality (OR = 0.83; 95% CI = 0.56-1.24) or in-hospital/30-day mortality (OR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.48-1.31). CONCLUSION: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, compared with conventional component transfusion, whole blood was not associated with 24-hour or in-hospital mortality. However, there were important limitations with and heterogeneity among the primary studies. Additional study is needed to determine the effectiveness of whole blood.