Search

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of COVID-19 infection on the rate and indications for cesarean section (CS) according to Robson's Ten-Group Classification system. Methodology: Our study was a 6-month retrospective observational study at the Maternal and Child Health Wing where every antenatal woman who was admitted irrespective of gestational age and whether in labor or not was customarily screened for COVID-19 infection. Based on the mode of delivery, all delivered women were classified into two groups: vaginal or cesarean, and the information was then further classified according to Robson's classification. Data collected were analyzed using Excel sheets, and Chi-square test was applied to evaluate if the difference in CS rates was statistically significant. Results: During COVID months, a total number of confinements were 877, among which the cesarean section were 381, contributing to a rate of 43.4%. The total COVID-19-positive confinements during the same period were 68. Group 2 formed the vast majority of CSs, followed by Group 1 and 5. During the post-COVID months, summation of confinements was 1443, among which the CS were 580, thereby contributing to a rate of 40.1%. In contrast to COVID time, Group 5 formed the greatest chunk contributing to CS rate, followed by Group 2 and 1. There was a statistically significant difference among confinements during COVID and post-COVID period and between CS rates among COVID-19 positive and negative women. Conclusion: During the COVID pandemic, there was a decrease in the number of confinement in our hospital. However, the CS rate increased and according to Robson's classification Group 1 and 2 made greatest contribution to CSs due to changed dynamics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe the intrapartum and postpartum use of non-study antibiotics in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) during the double-blinded NICHD Global Network Azithromycin in Labor (A-PLUS) trial., Design: The antibiotic use sub-study was a planned prospective, observational sub-study of the A-PLUS trial., Settings: The study was carried out in hospitals or health centres affiliated with eight sites of the Global Network for Women's and Children's Health Research (Global Network) in seven countries: Bangladesh, Pakistan, India (two sites), Kenya, Zambia, The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Guatemala., Population: Totally, 29 278 pregnant women enrolled in the A-PLUS trial., Methods: We collected data on 29 278 pregnant women admitted to a facility for delivery related to non-study antibiotic use overall and during three time periods: (1) in the facility prior to delivery, (2) after delivery until facility discharge and (3) after discharge to 42 days post-partum., Main Outcome Measures: Non-study antibiotic use overall and for treatment or prophylaxis by the site during the three time periods., Results: Of the 29 278 women in the study, 5020 (17.1%; 95% CI 16.7%-17.6%) received non-study antibiotics in the facility prior to delivery, 11 956 (40.8%; 95% CI 40.3%-41.4%) received non-study antibiotics in the facility after delivery, and 13 390 (47.6%; 95% CI 47.0%-48.2%) women received non-study antibiotics after delivery and after facility discharge. Antibiotics were prescribed more often among women in the Asian and Guatemalan sites than in the African sites. In the three time-periods, among those receiving antibiotics, prophylaxis was the indication in 82.3%, 97.7% and 90.7% of the cases, respectively. The type of antibiotics used varied substantially by time-period and site, but generally, penicillin-type drugs, cephalosporin-type drugs and metronidazole were used more frequently than other types., Conclusions: Across the eight sites of the Global Network, in the facility before delivery, and in the post-partum periods before and after facility discharge, antibiotics were used frequently, but use was highly variable by site and time-period., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To assess whether, in those requiring continuing uterine stimulation after cervical ripening with oral misoprostol and membrane rupture, augmentation with low-dose oral misoprostol is superior to intravenous oxytocin., Design: Open-label, superiority randomised trial., Setting: Government hospitals in India., Population: Women who were induced for hypertensive disease in pregnancy and had undergone cervical ripening with oral misoprostol, but required continuing stimulation after artificial membrane rupture., Methods: Participants received misoprostol (25 micrograms, orally, 2-hourly) or titrated oxytocin through an infusion pump. All women had one-to-one care; fetal monitoring was conducted using a mixture of intermittent and continuous electronic fetal monitoring., Main Outcome Measures: Caesarean birth., Results: A total of 520 women were randomised and the baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. The caesarean section rate was not reduced with the use of misoprostol (misoprostol, 84/260, 32.3%, vs oxytocin, 71/260, 27.3%; aOR 1.23; 95% CI 0.81-1.85; P = 0.33). The interval from randomisation to birth was somewhat longer with misoprostol (225 min, 207-244 min, vs 194 min, 179-210 min; aOR 1.137; 95% CI 1.023-1.264; P = 0.017). There were no cases of hyperstimulation in either arm. The rates of fetal heart rate abnormalities and maternal side effects were similar. Fewer babies in the misoprostol arm were admitted to the special care unit (10 vs 21 in the oxytocin group; aOR 0.463; 95% CI 0.203-1.058; P = 0.068) and there were no neonatal deaths in the misoprostol group, compared with three neonatal deaths in the oxytocin arm. Women's acceptability ratings were high in both study groups., Conclusions: Following cervical preparation with oral misoprostol and membrane rupture, the use of continuing oral misoprostol for augmentation did not significantly reduce caesarean rates, compared with the use of oxytocin. There were no hyperstimulation or significant adverse events in either arm of the trial., (© 2024 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)