Perioperative outcomes of cytoreductive surgery for tumours of colorectal or appendiceal origin with ovarian involvement.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Ovarian metastases (OM) are a common site for metastases in gastrointestinal tumours with peritoneal disease. This study aimed to evaluate perioperative complications between patients with and without OM following cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for appendiceal/colorectal cancer. METHODS: Female patients undergoing CRS ± HIPEC for appendiceal/colorectal tumours at a single centre from 2009 to 2020 were analysed. Patients were grouped according to presence or absence of OM at the time of CRS. RESULTS: The study included 318 patients, 72 (22.6%) had OM. Operation duration was longer for patients with OM (332 vs. 276 min, p < 0.0001). Patients with OM achieved higher rates of complete cytoreduction (93% vs. 79%, p = 0.006) despite a higher peritoneal carcinomatosis index (13 vs. 7, p < 0.001) and were more likely to require a blood transfusion (32% vs. 19%, p = 0.024) and a stoma (24% vs.10%, p = 0.005). Increasing age and presence of abdominal symptoms were independent predictors of major and all-cause morbidity, respectively. The presence of abdominal symptoms was independently associated with all-cause morbidity in the OM group. CONCLUSION: These results may assist with preoperative counselling. Prospective multicentre datasets are needed to evaluate morbidity in one- versus two-stage approaches for those with abdominal symptoms and OM.

Planned early birth versus expectant management (waiting) for prelabour rupture of membranes at term (37 weeks or more).

BACKGROUND: Prelabour rupture of membranes (PROM) at term is managed expectantly or by planned early birth. It is not clear if waiting for birth to occur spontaneously is better than intervening, e.g. by inducing labour. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to assess the effects of planned early birth (immediate intervention or intervention within 24 hours) when compared with expectant management (no planned intervention within 24 hours) for women with term PROM on maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 September 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of planned early birth compared with expectant management (either in hospital or at home) in women with PROM at 37 weeks' gestation or later. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted the data, and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-three trials involving 8615 women and their babies were included in the update of this review. Ten trials assessed intravenous oxytocin; 12 trials assessed prostaglandins (six trials in the form of vaginal prostaglandin E2 and six as oral, sublingual or vaginal misoprostol); and one trial each assessed Caulophyllum and acupuncture. Overall, three trials were judged to be at low risk of bias, while the other 20 were at unclear or high risk of bias.Primary outcomes: women who had planned early birth were at a reduced risk of maternal infectious morbidity (chorioamnionitis and/or endometritis) than women who had expectant management following term prelabour rupture of membranes (average risk ratio (RR) 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.72; eight trials, 6864 women; Tau² = 0.19; I² = 72%; low-quality evidence), and their neonates were less likely to have definite or probable early-onset neonatal sepsis (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.92; 16 trials, 7314 infants;low-quality evidence). No clear differences between the planned early birth and expectant management groups were seen for the risk of caesarean section (average RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.04; 23 trials, 8576 women; Tau² = 0.10; I² = 55%; low-quality evidence); serious maternal morbidity or mortality (no events; three trials; 425 women; very low-quality evidence); definite early-onset neonatal sepsis (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.33; six trials, 1303 infants; very low-quality evidence); or perinatal mortality (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.13 to 1.66; eight trials, 6392 infants; moderate-quality evidence). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: women who had a planned early birth were at a reduced risk of chorioamnionitis (average RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.82; eight trials, 6874 women; Tau² = 0.19; I² = 73%), and postpartum septicaemia (RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.96; three trials, 263 women), and their neonates were less likely to receive antibiotics (average RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84; 10 trials, 6427 infants; Tau² = 0.06; I² = 32%). Women in the planned early birth group were more likely to have their labour induced (average RR 3.41; 95% CI 2.87 to 4.06; 12 trials, 6945 women; Tau² = 0.05; I² = 71%), had a shorter time from rupture of membranes to birth (mean difference (MD) -10.10 hours; 95% CI -12.15 to -8.06; nine trials, 1484 women; Tau² = 5.81; I² = 60%), and their neonates had lower birthweights (MD -79.25 g; 95% CI -124.96 to -33.55; five trials, 1043 infants). Women who had a planned early birth had a shorter length of hospitalisation (MD -0.79 days; 95% CI -1.20 to -0.38; two trials, 748 women; Tau² = 0.05; I² = 59%), and their neonates were less likely to be admitted to the neonatal special or intensive care unit (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.85; eight trials, 6179 infants), and had a shorter duration of hospital (-11.00 hours; 95% CI -21.96 to -0.04; one trial, 182 infants) or special or intensive care unit stay (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.85; four trials, 5691 infants). Women in the planned early birth group had more positive experiences compared with women in the expectant management group.No clear differences between groups were observed for endometritis; postpartum pyrexia; postpartum antibiotic usage; caesarean for fetal distress; operative vaginal birth; uterine rupture; epidural analgesia; postpartum haemorrhage; adverse effects; cord prolapse; stillbirth; neonatal mortality; pneumonia; Apgar score less than seven at five minutes; use of mechanical ventilation; or abnormality on cerebral ultrasound (no events).None of the trials reported on breastfeeding; postnatal depression; gestational age at birth; meningitis; respiratory distress syndrome; necrotising enterocolitis; neonatal encephalopathy; or disability at childhood follow-up.In subgroup analyses, there were no clear patterns of differential effects for method of induction, parity, use of maternal antibiotic prophylaxis, or digital vaginal examination. Results of the sensitivity analyses based on trial quality were consistent with those of the main analysis, except for definite or probable early-onset neonatal sepsis where no clear difference was observed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low quality evidence to suggest that planned early birth (with induction methods such as oxytocin or prostaglandins) reduces the risk of maternal infectious morbidity compared with expectant management for PROM at 37 weeks' gestation or later, without an apparent increased risk of caesarean section. Evidence was mainly downgraded due to the majority of studies contributing data having some serious design limitations, and for most outcomes estimates were imprecise.Although the 23 included trials in this review involved a large number of women and babies, the quality of the trials and evidence was not high overall, and there was limited reporting for a number of important outcomes. Thus further evidence assessing the benefits or harms of planned early birth compared with expectant management, considering maternal, fetal, neonatal and longer-term childhood outcomes, and the use of health services, would be valuable. Any future trials should be adequately designed and powered to evaluate the effects on short- and long-term outcomes. Standardisation of outcomes and their definitions, including for the assessment of maternal and neonatal infection, would be beneficial.

Impact of inter-pregnancy BMI change on perinatal outcomes: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the patterns and predictors of inter-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) change and its impact on perinatal outcomes in the second pregnancy. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary teaching hospital in Adelaide, Australia. POPULATION: Women with their first and second consecutive, singleton deliveries occurring between 2000 and 2012 (N=5371). METHODS: Inter-pregnancy weight change calculated based on difference between BMI at respective antenatal booking visits. Association between inter-pregnancy weight change and perinatal outcomes investigated using multivariate generalised linear models, with stratification according to initial maternal BMI category in first pregnancy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Gestational diabetes (GDM); pregnancy induced hypertensive disorders; small-for-gestational age (SGA); preterm birth; large-for-gestational age (LGA) and macrosomia (>4500g). RESULTS: On average, women with a normal BMI gained 1kg/m(2) between first and second pregnancies, while women who were overweight or obese gained 1.37kg/m(2). Among women with a normal BMI in their first pregnancy, a BMI increase of ≥4kg/m(2) was associated with increased risk of developing GDM (aRR 1.97; 95% CI 1.22-3.19), a macrosomic (aRR 4.06; 95% CI 2.25-7.34) or LGA infant (aRR 1.31 0.96-1.78) in the second pregnancy, while a reduction in BMI (≤-2kg/m(2)) was associated with an increased risk of SGA (aRR 1.94; 1.19-3.16). Among women who were overweight or obese in their first pregnancy, a BMI increase of ≥2-4 and ≥4kg/m(2) was associated with increased risks of developing GDM in the second pregnancy (aRR 1.39; 95% CI 1.01-1.91 and aRR 1.64 95% CI 1.16-2.31; ptrend<0.001), while no associations were observed for a BMI increase and risk of a macrosomic, SGA, or LGA infant. In contrast, reduction in BMI (≤-2kg/m(2)) was associated with a reduced risk of GDM (aRR 0.58 95% CI 0.37-0.90) and SGA (aRR 0.47; 95% CI 0.25-0.87). CONCLUSION: Increases in BMI between pregnancies is associated with an increased risk for perinatal complications, even in normal-weight women, while a reduction in BMI is associated with improved perinatal outcomes among women who are overweight/obese. Inter-pregnancy weight control is an important target to reduce the risk of an adverse perinatal outcome in a subsequent pregnancy.

Anti-D administration in pregnancy for preventing Rhesus alloimmunisation.

BACKGROUND: During pregnancy, a Rhesus negative (Rh-negative) woman may develop antibodies when her fetus is Rhesus positive (Rh-positive). These antibodies may harm Rh-positive babies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antenatal anti-D immunoglobulin on the incidence of Rhesus D alloimmunisation when given to Rh-negative women without anti-D antibodies. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials in Rh-negative women without anti-D antibodies given anti-D after 28 weeks of pregnancy, compared with no treatment, placebo or a different regimen of anti-D. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We included two trials involving over 4500 women, comparing anti-D prophylaxis with no anti-D during pregnancy in this review. Overall, the trials were judged to be at moderate to high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence for pre-specified outcomes was also assessed using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.In regards to primary review outcomes, there did not appear to be a clear difference in the risks of immunisation when women who received anti-D at 28 and 34 weeks' gestation were compared with women who were not given antenatal anti-D: risk ratio (RR) for incidence of Rhesus D alloimmunisation during pregnancy was 0.42 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.17, two trials, 3902 women; GRADE: low quality evidence); at birth of a Rh-positive infant the RR was 0.42 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.17, two trials, 2297 women); and within 12 months after birth of a Rh-positive infant the average RR was 0.39 (95% CI 0.10 to 1.62, two trials, 2048 women; Tau²: 0.47; I²: 39%; GRADE: low quality evidence). Neither of the trials reported on incidence of Rhesus D alloimmunisation in subsequent pregnancies.Considering secondary outcomes, in one trial, women receiving anti-D during pregnancy were shown to be less likely to register a positive Kleihauer test (which detects fetal cells in maternal blood) in pregnancy (at 32 to 25 weeks) (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.88; 1884 women; GRADE: low quality evidence) and at the birth of a Rh-positive infant (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.79; 1189 women; GRADE: low quality evidence). No clear differences were seen for neonatal jaundice (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.30; 1882 infants; GRADE: very low quality evidence). Neither of the trials reported on adverse effects associated with anti-D treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Existing studies do not provide conclusive evidence that the use of anti-D during pregnancy benefits either mother or baby in terms of incidence of Rhesus D alloimmunisation during the pregnancy or postpartum, or the incidence of neonatal morbidity (jaundice) (low to very low quality evidence). However women receiving anti-D may be less likely to register a positive Kleihauer test in pregnancy and at the birth of a Rh-positive infant (low quality evidence). Fewer women who receive anti-D during pregnancy may have Rhesus D antibodies in a subsequent pregnancy, with benefits for the baby, however this needs to be tested in studies of robust design.

Anti-D administration in pregnancy for preventing Rhesus alloimmunisation.

BACKGROUND: During pregnancy, a Rhesus negative (Rh-negative) woman may develop antibodies when her fetus is Rhesus positive (Rh-positive). These antibodies may harm Rh-positive babies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antenatal anti-D immunoglobulin on the incidence of Rhesus D alloimmunisation when given to Rh-negative women without anti-D antibodies. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials in Rh-negative women without anti-D antibodies given anti-D after 28 weeks of pregnancy, compared with no treatment, placebo or a different regimen of anti-D. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted the data. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials with moderate to high risk of bias, involving over 4500 women, compared anti-D prophylaxis with no anti-D during pregnancy. When women received anti-D at 28 and 34 weeks' gestation, risks of immunisation were not significantly different than for women not given antenatal anti-D: risk ratio (RR) of immunisation during pregnancy was 0.42 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.17); after the birth of a Rh-positive infant the RR was 0.42 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.17); and within 12 months after birth of a Rh-positive infant the RR was 0.39 (95% CI 0.10 to 1.62).However, women receiving anti-D during pregnancy were significantly less likely to register a positive Kleihauer test (which detects fetal cells in maternal blood) in pregnancy (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.88) and at the birth of a Rh-positive infant (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.79). No data were available for the risk of Rhesus D alloimmunisation in a subsequent pregnancy. No significant differences were seen for neonatal jaundice, and no adverse effects were reported in either trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The risk of Rhesus D alloimmunisation during or immediately after a first pregnancy is about 1%. Administration of 100 µg (500 IU) anti-D to women in their first pregnancy can reduce this risk to about 0.2% without, to date, any adverse effects. Although unlikely to confer benefit in the current pregnancy, fewer women may have Rhesus D antibodies in any subsequent pregnancy, but the effects of this needs to be tested in studies of robust design.