Search

Background Infections are among the leading causes of maternal mortality and morbidity. The Global Maternal Sepsis and Neonatal Initiative, launched in 2016 by WHO and partners, sought to reduce the burden of maternal infections and sepsis and was the basis upon which the Global Maternal Sepsis Study (GLOSS) was implemented in 2017. In this Article, we aimed to describe the availability of facility resources and services and to analyse their association with maternal outcomes. Methods GLOSS was a facility-based, prospective, 1-week inception cohort study implemented in 713 health-care facilities in 52 countries and included 2850 hospitalised pregnant or recently pregnant women with suspected or confirmed infections. All women admitted for or in hospital with suspected or confirmed infections during pregnancy, childbirth, post partum, or post abortion at any of the participating facilities between Nov 28 and Dec 4 were eligible for inclusion. In this study, we included all GLOSS participating facilities that collected facility-level data (446 of 713 facilities). We used data obtained from individual forms completed for each enrolled woman and their newborn babies by trained researchers who checked the medical records and from facility forms completed by hospital administrators for each participating facility. We described facilities according to country income level, compliance with providing core clinical interventions and services according to women's needs and reported availability, and severity of infection-related maternal outcomes. We used a logistic multilevel mixed model for assessing the association between facility characteristics and infection-related maternal outcomes. Findings We included 446 facilities from 46 countries that enrolled 2560 women. We found a high availability of most services and resources needed for obstetric care and infection prevention. We found increased odds for severe maternal outcomes among women enrolled during the post-partum or post-abortion period from facilities located in low-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 1middot84 [95% CI 1middot05-3middot22]) and among women enrolled during pregnancy or childbirth from non-urban facilities (adjusted odds ratio 2middot44 [1middot02-5middot85]). Despite compliance being high overall, it was low with regards to measuring respiratory rate (85 [24%] of 355 facilities) and measuring pulse oximetry (184 [57%] of 325 facilities). Interpretation While health-care facilities caring for pregnant and recently pregnant women with suspected or confirmed infections have access to a wide range of resources and interventions, worse maternal outcomes are seen among recently pregnant women located in low-income countries than among those in higher-income countries; this trend is similar for pregnant women. Compliance with cost-effective clinical practices and timely care of women with particular individual characteristics can potentially improve infection-related maternal outcomes. Funding UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, WHO, Merck for Mothers, and US Agency for International Development. Copyright (c) 2021 World Health Organization; licensee Elsevier. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 3.0 IGO license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any use of this article, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organisation, products, or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article's original URL.

Aim: To develop clinical algorithms for the assessment and management of slow progress of labour. Population: Low-risk singleton, term, pregnant women in labour. Setting: Institutional births in low- and middle-income countries. Search Strategy: We systematically reviewed the literature on normal labour progression, and guidance on clinical management of abnormally slow progression from 1 December 2015 to 1 December 2020. Case scenarios: We developed two clinical algorithms: one for abnormally slow labour progression and arrest during first and one for second stage. Conclusions: Identifying abnormal progress of labour is often challenging. These algorithms may help to reduce misdiagnosis.

This chapter reviews and compiles the most recent published evidence assessing the overall labour duration and patterns of progression for both nulliparous and parous women, as well as the accuracy of the alert and action lines in the World Health Organization (WHO) partograph for the identification of women at risk of birth complications. Systematic reviews of observational studies reporting on the duration of the first and the second stages of labour, and on cervical dilatation patterns for women with low risk of complications with ‘normal’ perinatal outcomes were identified and updated. The accuracy of the alert (1 cm/h) and action lines of the cervicograph in the partogram to predict adverse birth outcomes among women in first stage of labour was also reviewed, questioning the appropriateness of considering cervical dilatation over time as an isolated indicator to define labour progression or arrest.

Background Despite decades of research, the concept of normality in labour in terms of its progression and duration is not universal or standardized. However, in clinical practice, it is important to define the boundaries that distinguish what is normal from what is abnormal to enable women and care providers have a shared understanding of what to expect and when labour interventions are justified. Objectives To synthesise available evidence on the duration of latent and active first stage and the second stage of spontaneous labour in women at low risk of complications with ‘normal’ perinatal outcomes. Search strategy PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, POPLINE, Global Health Library, and reference lists of eligible studies. Selection criteria Observational studies and other study designs. Data collection and analysis Four authors extracted data on: maternal characteristics; labour interventions; duration of latent first stage, active first stage, and second stage of labour; and the definitions of onset of latent and active first stage, and second stage where reported. Heterogeneity in the included studies precluded meta-analysis and data were presented descriptively. Main results Thirty-seven studies reporting the duration of first and/or second stages of labour for 208,000 women met our inclusion criteria. Among nulliparous women, the median duration of active first stage (when the starting reference point was 4 cm) ranged from 3.7–5.9 h (95th percentiles: 14.5–16.7 h). With active phase starting from 5 cm, the median duration was from 3.8–4.3 h (95th percentiles: 11.3–12.7 h). The median duration of second stage ranged from 14 to 66 min (95th percentiles: 65–138 min) and from 6 to 12 min (95th percentiles: 58–76 min) in nulliparous and parous women, respectively. Sensitivity analyses excluding first and second stage interventions did not significantly impact on these findings Conclusions The duration of spontaneous labour in women with good perinatal outcomes varies from one woman to another. Some women may experience labour for longer than previously thought, and still achieve a vaginal birth without adverse perinatal outcomes. Our findings question the rigid limits currently applied in clinical practice for the assessment of prolonged first or second stage that warrant obstetric intervention.

Background The World Health Organization (WHO) is in the process of updating antenatal care (ANC) guidelines. Objectives To map the existing clinical practice guidelines related to routine ANC for healthy women and to summarise all practices considered during routine ANC. Search strategy A systematic search in four databases for all clinical practice guidelines published after January 2000. Selection criteria Two researchers independently assessed the list of potentially eligible publications. Data collection and analysis Information on scope of the guideline, type of practice, associated gestational age, recommendation type and the source of evidence were mapped. Main results Of 1866 references, we identified 85 guidelines focusing on the ANC period: 15 pertaining to routine ANC and 70 pertaining to specific situations. A total of 135 interventions from routine ANC guidelines were extracted, and categorised as clinical interventions (n = 80), screening/diagnostic procedures (n = 47) and health systems related (n = 8). Screening interventions, (syphilis, anaemia) were the most common practices. Within the 70 specific situation guidelines, 102 recommendations were identified. Overall, for 33 (out of 171) interventions there were conflicting recommendations provided by the different guidelines. Conclusion Mapping the current guidelines including practices related to routine ANC informed the scoping phase for the WHO guideline for ANC. Our analysis indicates that guideline development processes may lead to different recommendations, due to context, evidence base or assessment of evidence. It would be useful for guideline developers to map and refer to other similar guidelines and, where relevant, explore the discrepancies in recommendations and others. Tweetable abstract We identified existing ANC guidelines and mapped scope, practices, recommendations and source of evidence., Tweetable abstract We identified existing ANC guidelines and mapped scope, practices, recommendations and source of evidence.

Background Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. Prophylactic uterotonic agents can prevent PPH, and are routinely recommended. The current World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation for preventing PPH is 10 IU (international units) of intramuscular or intravenous oxytocin. There are several uterotonic agents for preventing PPH but there is still uncertainty about which agent is most effective with the least side effects. This is an update of a Cochrane Review which was first published in April 2018 and was updated to incorporate results from a recent large WHO trial. Objectives To identify the most effective uterotonic agent(s) to prevent PPH with the least side effects, and generate a ranking according to their effectiveness and side-effect profile. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (24 May 2018), and reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria All randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised trials comparing the effectiveness and side effects of uterotonic agents with other uterotonic agents, placebo or no treatment for preventing PPH were eligible for inclusion. Quasi-randomised trials were excluded. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved. Data collection and analysis At least three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We estimated the relative effects and rankings for preventing PPH ≥ 500 mL and PPH ≥ 1000 mL as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included blood loss and related outcomes, morbidity outcomes, maternal well-being and satisfaction and side effects. Primary outcomes were also reported for pre-specified subgroups, stratifying by mode of birth, prior risk of PPH, healthcare setting, dosage, regimen and route of administration. We performed pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available agents. Main results The network meta-analysis included 196 trials (135,559 women) involving seven uterotonic agents and placebo or no treatment, conducted across 53 countries (including high-, middle- and low-income countries). Most trials were performed in a hospital setting (187/196, 95.4%) with women undergoing a vaginal birth (71.5%, 140/196). Relative effects from the network meta-analysis suggested that all agents were effective for preventing PPH ≥ 500 mL when compared with placebo or no treatment. The three highest ranked uterotonic agents for prevention of PPH ≥ 500 mL were ergometrine plus oxytocin combination, misoprostol plus oxytocin combination and carbetocin. There is evidence that ergometrine plus oxytocin (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.84, moderate certainty), carbetocin (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.93, moderate certainty) and misoprostol plus oxytocin (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.86, low certainty) may reduce PPH ≥ 500 mL compared with oxytocin. Low-certainty evidence suggests that misoprostol, injectable prostaglandins, and ergometrine may make little or no difference to this outcome compared with oxytocin. All agents except ergometrine and injectable prostaglandins were effective for preventing PPH ≥ 1000 mL when compared with placebo or no treatment. High-certainty evidence suggests that ergometrine plus oxytocin (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03) and misoprostol plus oxytocin (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.11) make little or no difference in the outcome of PPH ≥ 1000 mL compared with oxytocin. Low-certainty evidence suggests that ergometrine may make little or no difference to this outcome compared with oxytocin meanwhile the evidence on carbetocin was of very low certainty. High-certainty evidence suggests that misoprostol is less effective in preventing PPH ≥ 1000 mL when compared with oxytocin (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.42). Despite the comparable relative treatment effects between all uterotonics (except misoprostol) and oxytocin, ergometrine plus oxytocin, misoprostol plus oxytocin combinations and carbetocin were the highest ranked agents for PPH ≥ 1000 mL. Misoprostol plus oxytocin reduces the use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.73, high certainty) and probably also reduces the risk of blood transfusion (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.70, moderate certainty) when compared with oxytocin. Carbetocin, injectable prostaglandins and ergometrine plus oxytocin may also reduce the use of additional uterotonics but the certainty of the evidence is low. No meaningful differences could be detected between all agents for maternal deaths or severe morbidity as these outcomes were rare in the included randomised trials where they were reported. The two combination regimens were associated with important side effects. When compared with oxytocin, misoprostol plus oxytocin combination increases the likelihood of vomiting (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.18, high certainty) and fever (RR 3.14, 95% CI 2.20 to 4.49, moderate certainty). Ergometrine plus oxytocin increases the likelihood of vomiting (RR 2.93, 95% CI 2.08 to 4.13, moderate certainty) and may make little or no difference to the risk of hypertension, however absolute effects varied considerably and the certainty of the evidence was low for this outcome. Subgroup analyses did not reveal important subgroup differences by mode of birth (caesarean versus vaginal birth), setting (hospital versus community), risk of PPH (high versus low risk for PPH), dose of misoprostol (≥ 600 mcg versus < 600 mcg) and regimen of oxytocin (bolus versus bolus plus infusion versus infusion only). Authors' conclusions All agents were generally effective for preventing PPH when compared with placebo or no treatment. Ergometrine plus oxytocin combination, carbetocin, and misoprostol plus oxytocin combination may have some additional desirable effects compared with the current standard oxytocin. The two combination regimens, however, are associated with significant side effects. Carbetocin may be more effective than oxytocin for some outcomes without an increase in side effects. Which drug is best for reducing excessive blood loss after birth? What is the issue? The aim of this Cochrane Review was to find out which drug is most effective in preventing excessive blood loss at childbirth and has the least side effects. We collected and analysed all the relevant studies to answer this question (date of search: 24 May 2018). Why is this important? Excessive bleeding after birth is the most common reason why mothers die in childbirth worldwide. Although most women will have moderate bleeding at birth, others may bleed excessively, and this can pose a serious risk to their health and life. To reduce excessive bleeding at birth, the routine administration of a drug to contract the uterus (uterotonic) has become standard practice across the world. Different drugs given routinely at birth have been used for reducing excessive bleeding. They include oxytocin, misoprostol, ergometrine, carbetocin, injectable prostaglandins and combinations of these drugs, each with different effectiveness and side effects. Some of the side effects identified include: vomiting, high blood pressure and fever. Currently, oxytocin is recommended as the standard drug to reduce excessive bleeding. We analysed all the available evidence to compare the effectiveness and side-effect profiles for each drug. What evidence did we find? We found 196 studies involving 135,559 women. We compared seven uterotonic agents against each other and against women receiving no uterotonic. Studies were conducted across 53 countries. In most studies women were giving birth normally and in a hospital. The analysis suggests that all drugs are effective for preventing blood loss that equals or exceeds 500 mL when compared with no routine uterotonic treatment. Compared with oxytocin (the standard recommended drug), the three best drugs for this outcome were a combination of ergometrine plus oxytocin, carbetocin, and a combination of misoprostol plus oxytocin. We found the other drugs misoprostol, injectable prostaglandins, and ergometrine may make little or no difference to this outcome compared with oxytocin. All drugs except ergometrine and injectable prostaglandins are effective for preventing blood loss that equals or exceeds 1000 mL when compared with no treatment. Ergometrine plus oxytocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin make little or no difference in this outcome compared with oxytocin. It is uncertain whether carbetocin and ergometrine alone make any difference to this outcome. However, misoprostol is less effective in preventing blood loss that equals or exceeds 1000 mL compared with oxytocin. Misoprostol plus oxytocin reduces the use of additional uterotonics and probably also reduces the risk of blood transfusion when compared with oxytocin. Carbetocin, injectable prostaglandins and ergometrine plus oxytocin may also reduce the use of additional uterotonics but the certainty of the evidence is low. No meaningful differences could be detected between all agents for maternal deaths or severe birth complication as these are rare in such studies. The two combinations of drugs were associated with important side effects. When compared with oxytocin, women receiving misoprostol plus oxytocin combination are more likely to suffer vomiting and fever. Women receiving ergometrine plus oxytocin are also more likely to suffer vomiting and may make little or no difference to the risk of hypertension, however the certainty of the evidence was low for this outcome. The analyses gave similar results irrespective of whether women were giving birth normally or by caesarean, in a hospital or in the community, were at high or low risk for bleeding excessively after birth, whether they received a high or a low dose of misoprostol and whether they received a bolus or an infusion of oxytocin or both. What does this mean? All agents were generally effective for preventing excessive bleeding when compared with no uterotonic drug treatment. Ergometrine plus oxytocin combination, carbetocin, and misoprostol plus oxytocin combination may have some additional benefits compared with the current standard oxytocin. The two combination drugs, however, are associated with significant side effects that women might find disturbing compared with oxytocin. Carbetocin may have some additional benefits compared with oxytocin and appears to be without an increase in side effects.

On the continuum of maternal health care, two extreme situations exist: too little, too late (TLTL) and too much, too soon (TMTS). TLTL describes care with inadequate resources, below evidence-based standards, or care withheld or unavailable until too late to help. TLTL is an underlying problem associated with high maternal mortality and morbidity. TMTS describes the routine over-medicalisation of normal pregnancy and birth. TMTS includes unnecessary use of non-evidence-based interventions, as well as use of interventions that can be life saving when used appropriately, but harmful when applied routinely or overused. As facility births increase, so does the recognition that TMTS causes harm and increases health costs, and often concentrates disrespect and abuse. Although TMTS is typically ascribed to high-income countries and TLTL to low-income and middle-income ones, social and health inequities mean these extremes coexist in many countries. A global approach to quality and equitable maternal health, supporting the implementation of respectful, evidence-based care for all, is urgently needed. We present a systematic review of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for routine antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care, categorising them as recommended, recommended only for clinical indications, and not recommended. We also present prevalence data from middle-income countries for specific clinical practices, which demonstrate TLTL and increasing TMTS. Health-care providers and health systems need to ensure that all women receive high-quality, evidence-based, equitable and respectful care. The right amount of care needs to be offered at the right time, and delivered in a manner that respects, protects, and promotes human rights. Fil: Miller, Suellen. University of California; Estados Unidos Fil: Abalos, Edgardo Javier. Centro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales; Argentina Fil: Chamillard, Monica. Centro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales; Argentina Fil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Efectividad Clínica y Política de Salud; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina Fil: Colaci, Daniela. Efectividad Clínica y Política de Salud; Argentina Fil: Comandé, Daniel. Efectividad Clínica y Política de Salud; Argentina Fil: Diaz, Virginia. Centro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales; Argentina Fil: Geller, Stacie. University of Illinois; Estados Unidos Fil: Hanson, Claudia. Karolinska Institutet; Suecia. London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine; Reino Unido Fil: Langer, Ana. Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health; Estados Unidos Fil: Manuelli, Victoria. University of California; Estados Unidos Fil: Millar, Kathryn. Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health; Estados Unidos Fil: Morhason Bello, Imran. University of Ibadan; Nigeria. London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine; Reino Unido Fil: Castro, Cynthia Pileggi. GLIDE Technical Cooperation and Research; Brasil. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil Fil: Pileggi, Vicky Nogueira. GLIDE Technical Cooperation and Research; Brasil. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil Fil: Robinson, Nuriya. University of California at Los Angeles; Estados Unidos Fil: Skaer, Michelle. Safe Motherhood Program; Estados Unidos Fil: Souza, João Paulo. GLIDE Technical Cooperation and Research; Brasil. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil Fil: Vogel, Joshua P. Organización de las Naciones Unidas. Unicef. Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia; Argentina. Organizacion Mundial de la Salud; Argentina Fil: Althabe, Fernando. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Efectividad Clínica y Política de Salud; Argentina