Maternal and perinatal outcomes in primiparous singleton pregnancies conceived with assisted reproductive technology in British Columbia.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the odds of developing adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes in primiparous singleton pregnancies conceived with assisted reproductive technology (ART) compared with pregnancies conceived without ART. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective population-based cohort study using data from the British Columbia Perinatal Data Registry. The population included primiparous women with singleton live or stillbirths delivering at or after 20 weeks' gestation between April 1st 2008-March 31st, 2021. Women who conceived with ART were compared with those who conceived without ART. The main outcome measures were gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth, low birth weight, neonatal intensive care unit admission, stillbirth, and 5-minute Apgar score. Adjusted odds ratios were calculated. RESULTS: The study population included 191,059 primiparous women: 183,819 conceived without ART, 7,240 conceived using ART. After controlling for age, body mass index, pre-gestational diabetes, and smoking status, singleton pregnancies conceived by ART had significantly higher odds of gestational diabetes (OR 1.18, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.26) and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (OR 1.39, 95 % CI 1.29-1.51). There were also significantly increased odds of preterm birth (OR 1.35, 95 % CI 1.25-1.46), low birth weight (OR 1.35, 95 % CI 1.23-1.49), and neonatal intensive care unit admission (OR 1.21, 95 % CI 1.11-1.32). There was not a statistically significant difference in the odds of stillbirth (OR 1.06, 95 % CI 0.72-1.57) or 5-minute Apgar score < 7 (OR 1.10, 95 % CI 0.97-1.26). CONCLUSION: There is an increased odds of developing several adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes in primiparous singleton pregnancies conceived by ART including gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth, low birth weight, and increased incidence of neonatal intensive care unit admissions.

Stepwise implementation of vaginal cleansing and azithromycin at cesarean: a quality improvement study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to decrease our surgical site infection (SSI) rate by 30% by sequential implementation of vaginal cleansing and azithromycin for women who underwent a cesarean delivery (CD) after having labored or experienced rupture of membranes. METHODS: This is a quality improvement project that assessed the stepwise implementation of two interventions within three time periods: (1) 12 months prior to implementation of either intervention; (2) 14 months of vaginal cleansing as infection prophylaxis; (3) 16 months of vaginal cleansing and azithromycin as infection prophylaxis. The primary outcome measure was the SSI as defined by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and analyzed by control charts. The process measures were compliance rates of vaginal cleansing and azithromycin. Significance was detected by rules for determining a special cause variation. This study followed the SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines for reporting on quality improvement. RESULTS: There were 1033 patients included from the three study periods. The total rate of SSI decreased from 22.8% to 15.2% after implementing vaginal cleansing. Special cause variation was detected with an 8-point shift starting 4 months after implementation of vaginal cleansing. This decrease was sustained during the following 26 months. Adding azithromycin did not significantly lower the SSI rate further. When examined separately, deep SSI (p = .009) and endometritis (p = .001) significantly decreased in the post-intervention periods. Pre-operative vaginal cleansing compliance rose to 74%, and then further increased to 85% 1 year after implementation. Azithromycin compliance rose to 75%. Total length of postpartum stay decreased over the study periods from 3.5 ± 1.4 days to 3.2 ± 0.8 days (p = .001). CONCLUSION: In this quality improvement study, implementation of vaginal cleansing decreased the SSI rate by 33%, from 22.8% to 15.2%. The addition of azithromycin did not result in any additional change in SSI rate.

One-step versus two-step diagnostic testing for gestational diabetes: a randomized controlled trial.

Objective: To evaluate the incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) using the one-step as compared with the two-step approach.Study design: This was a parallel group nonblinded randomized trial conducted at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (TJUH) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania from June 2016 to December 2016. The primary outcome was GDM incidence in the one-step compared to the two-approach. Pregnant women without a history of pregestational diabetes were offered screening for GDM at gestational age 24-28 weeks. Obese women, defined as having a BMI ≥30 kg/m2, as well as those with a history of a pregnancy complicated by GDM, a history of a macrosomic baby (>4000 g), or with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), were offered early screening at their initial prenatal visit, and screening was repeated at 24-28 weeks if initially normal. Women were excluded if they had pre-existing diabetes or had a history of bariatric surgery. Women who were eligible were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the one-step or two-step approaches. A sample size of 142 women was planned per group. Women randomized to the one-step approach, after an overnight fast, were given a 2-h glucose tolerance test, which consisted of a 75-g glucose load. Blood glucose levels were measured fasting, at 1 h and 2 h after the glucose load. Diagnostic cutoffs for GDM diagnosis were one value of either fasting ≥92 mg/dL, 1 h ≥180 mg/dL, or 2 h ≥153 mg/dL, respectively. Women randomized to the two-step approach were given a nonfasting 50-g glucose load, and the blood glucose level was measured an hour after the glucose load. If that value was ≥135 mg/dL, the patient had a 3-h glucose tolerance test consisting of a 100-g glucose load. Diagnostic cutoffs for GDM diagnosis for this 3-h test were ≥2 abnormal values of fasting ≥95 mg/dL, 1 h ≥180 mg/dL, 2 h ≥155 mg/dL and 3 h ≥140 mg/dL, respectively. All analyses were done using an intention-to-treat approach, evaluating women according to the treatment group to which they were randomly allocated.Results: Two hundred eighty-four women agreed to take part in the study and underwent randomization from June 2015 to December 2015. Of them, 249 completed the screening and were followed up for the primary endpoint. Out of the 249 women who completed the screening, 123 were assigned to the one-step group and 126 to the two-step group. GDM occurred in 10 women (8.1%) in the one-step group, and 7 women (5.6%) in the two-step group (p = .42). Preeclampsia, preterm birth (PTB), induction of labor, mode of delivery and incidence of gestational age (OASIS) were not significantly different. Perinatal outcomes were similar as well.Conclusions: Screening for GDM with one-step, compared with the two-step approach, resulted in a similar incidence of GDM.

Adhesive incisional drapes during cesarean delivery for preventing wound infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of wound infection after cesarean delivery in procedures conducted using adhesive incisional drapes verses no adhesive incisional drapes. STUDY DESIGN: Searches were performed in electronic databases (MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, OVID, EMBASE, and the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews). We included randomized controlled trials comparing adhesive incisional drapes to no adhesive incisional drapes during cesarean delivery. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis was wound infection. Meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird, to produce relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: 52 publications were identified through initial search of databases and two randomized controlled trials were eligible and included in the meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis examined a total of 1943 subjects and showed a statistically significant increase in wound infections in patients in the adhesive incisional drape group when compared to the control group (RR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.02-1.65). CONCLUSION: Adhesive incisional drapes may increase the incidence of wound infections after cesarean delivery. Further studies are necessary to explore this relationship in the setting of current postoperative infection prophylaxis, including broad-spectrum antibiotic coverage, skin preparation and vaginal cleansing.