Nils Chaillet

Nonpharmacologic Approaches for Pain Management During Labor Compared with Usual Care: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVESnTo assess the effects of nonpharmacologic approaches to pain relief during labor, according to their endogenous mechanism of action, on obstetric interventions, maternal, and neonatal outcomes.nnnDATA SOURCEnCochrane library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the MRCT databases were used to screen studies from January 1990 to December 2012.nnnSTUDY SELECTIONnAccording to Cochrane criteria, we selected randomized controlled trials that compared nonpharmacologic approaches for pain relief during labor to usual care, using intention-to-treat method.nnnRESULTSnNonpharmacologic approaches, based on Gate Control (water immersion, massage, ambulation, positions) and Diffuse Noxious Inhibitory Control (acupressure, acupuncture, electrical stimulation, water injections), are associated with a reduction in epidural analgesia and a higher maternal satisfaction with childbirth. When compared with nonpharmacologic approaches based on Central Nervous System Control (education, attention deviation, support), usual care is associated with increased odds of epidural OR 1.13 (95% CI 1.05-1.23), cesarean delivery OR 1.60 (95% CI 1.18-2.18), instrumental delivery OR 1.21 (95% CI 1.03-1.44), use of oxytocin OR 1.20 (95% CI 1.01-1.43), labor duration (29.7 min, 95% CI 4.5-54.8), and a lesser satisfaction with childbirth. Tailored nonpharmacologic approaches, based on continuous support, were the most effective for reducing obstetric interventions.nnnCONCLUSIONnNonpharmacologic approaches to relieve pain during labor, when used as a part of hospital pain relief strategies, provide significant benefits to women and their infants without causing additional harm.

Impact of single- vs double-layer closure on adverse outcomes and uterine scar defect: a systematic review and metaanalysis

A systematic review and metaanalysis were performed through electronic database searches to estimate the effect of uterine closure at cesarean on the risk of adverse maternal outcome and on uterine scar evaluated by ultrasound. Randomized controlled trials, which compared single vs double layers and locking vs unlocking sutures for uterine closure of low transverse cesarean, were included. Outcomes were short-term complications (endometritis, wound infection, maternal infectious morbidity, blood transfusion, duration of surgical procedure, length of hospital stay, mean blood loss), uterine rupture or dehiscence at next pregnancy, and uterine scar evaluation by ultrasound. Twenty of 1278 citations were included in the analysis. We found that all types of closure were comparable for short-term maternal outcomes, except for single-layer closure, which had shorter operative time (-6.1 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], -8.7 to -3.4; P < .001) than double-layer closure. Single layer (-2.6 mm; 95% CI, -3.1 to -2.1; P < .001) and locked first layer (mean difference, -2.5 mm; 95% CI, -3.2 to -1.8; P < .001) were associated with lower residual myometrial thickness. Two studies reported no significant difference between single- vs double-layer closure for uterine dehiscence (relative risk, 1.86; 95% CI, 0.44-7.90; P = .40) or uterine rupture (no case). In conclusion, current evidence based on randomized trials does not support a specific type of uterine closure for optimal maternal outcomes and is insufficient to conclude about the risk of uterine rupture. Single-layer closure and locked first layer are possibly coupled with thinner residual myometrium thickness.

Interrelations between four antepartum obstetric interventions and cesarean delivery in women at low risk: a systematic review and modeling of the cascade of interventions.

OBJECTIVESnTo critically appraise the literature on the relations between four intrapartum obstetric interventions-electronic fetal monitoring (EFM), epidural analgesia, labor induction, and labor acceleration; and two types of delivery-instrumental (forceps and vacuum) and cesarean section.nnnMETHODSnThis review included meta-analyses published between January 2000 and April 2012 including at least one randomized clinical trial published after 1995 and presenting results on low-risk pregnancies between 37 and 42 weeks of gestation, searched in the databases Medline, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE with no language restriction.nnnRESULTSnOf 306 documents identified, 8 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and presented results on women at low risk. EFM at admission (vs intermittent auscultation) was associated with cesarean delivery (odds ratio [OR] = 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.44) and epidural analgesia (OR = 1.25, 95% CI 1.09-1.43). Epidural on request was associated with cesarean delivery (OR = 1.60, 95% CI 1.18-2.18), instrumental delivery (OR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.03-1.44), and oxytocin use (OR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.01-1.43) when compared with epidural on request plus nonpharmacological labor pain control methods such as one-to-one support, breathing techniques, and relaxation. Induction and acceleration of labor showed heterogeneous patterns of associations with cesarean delivery and instrumental delivery.nnnCONCLUSIONSnComplex patterns of associations between obstetric interventions and modes of delivery were illustrated in an empirical model. Intermittent auscultation and nonpharmacological labor pain control interventions, such as one-to-one support during labor, have the potential for substantially reducing cesarean deliveries.

Impact of uterine closure on residual myometrial thickness after cesarean: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUNDnIncomplete healing of uterine scar after cesarean has been associated with adverse gynecological and obstetrical outcomes. Several studies reported that uterine closure at cesarean influences the healing of uterine scar and the risk of uterine rupture at subsequent pregnancies: the commonly used locked single-layer suture including the decidua being associated with a 4-fold increased risk of uterine rupture. However, data from randomized trials are lacking.nnnOBJECTIVEnWe sought to evaluate the impact of 3 techniques of uterine closure after cesarean delivery on uterine scar healing.nnnSTUDY DESIGNnThis was a 3-arm 1:1:1 randomized study in women with singleton pregnancies undergoing elective primary cesarean delivery at ≥38 weeks gestation. Closure of the uterine scar was carried out by locked single layer including the decidua, double layer with locked first layer including the decidua, or double layer with unlocked first layer excluding the decidua. Primary outcome was residual myometrial thickness (RMT) at the site of the scar, measured by transvaginal ultrasound 6 months after delivery. Secondary outcome was the RMT as a percentage of the myometrial thickness above the scar (healing ratio). Intent-to-treat analyses using Student t test were performed to compare each double-layer technique to the single-layer closure, and P < .025 was considered significant.nnnRESULTSnComplete follow-up was obtained from 73 (90%) of the 81 participants. Compared to single-layer closure, double-layer closure with unlocked first layer was associated with thicker RMT (3.8 ± 1.6 mm vs 6.1 ± 2.2 mm; P < .001) and greater healing ratio (54 ± 20% vs 73 ± 23%; P = .004). In contrast, double-layer closure with locked first layer was not significantly different than single-layer closure in either RMT (4.8 ± 1.3; P = .032) or healing ratio (60 ± 21%; P = .287).nnnCONCLUSIONnDouble-layer closure with unlocked first layer is associated with better uterine scar healing than locked single layer.

Evaluation of quality improvement for cesarean sections programmes through mixed methods

BackgroundThe rate of avoidable caesarean sections (CS) could be reduced through multifaceted strategies focusing on the involvement of health professionals and compliance with clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Quality improvements for CS (QICS) programmes (QICS) based on this approach, have been implemented in Canada and Spain. Objectives Their objectives are as follows: 1) Toto identify clusters in each setting with similar results in terms of cost-consequences, 2) Toto investigate whether demographic, clinical or context characteristics can distinguish these clusters, and 3) Toto explore the implementation of QICS in the 2 regions, in order to identify factors that have been facilitators in changing practices and reducing the use of obstetric intervention, as well as the challenges faced by hospitals in implementing the recommendations.MethodsDescriptive study with a quantitative and qualitative approach. 1) Cluster analysis at patient level with data from 16 hospitals in Quebec (Canada) (nu2009=u2009105,348) and 15 hospitals in Andalusia (Spain) (nu2009=u200964,760). The outcome measures are CS and costs. For the cost, we will consider the intervention, delivery and complications in mother and baby, from the hospital perspective. Cluster analysis will be used to identify participants with similar patterns of CS and costs based, and t tests will be used to evaluate if the clusters differed in terms of characteristics: Hospital level (academic status of hospital, level of care, supply and demand factors), patient level (mother age, parity, gestational age, previous CS, previous pathology, presentation of the baby, baby birth weight). 2) Analysis of in-depth interviews with obstetricians and midwives in hospitals where the QICS were implemented, to explore the differences in delivery-related practices, and the importance of the different constructs for positive or negative adherence to CPGs. Dimensions: political/management level, hospital level, health professionals, mothers and their birth partner.DiscussionThis work sets out a new approach for programme evaluation, using different techniques to make it possible to take into account the specific context where the programmes were implemented.

Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labour after previous caesarean section in sub‐Saharan countries

To assess the risks of uterine rupture, maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labour (TOL) after one previous caesarean were compared with having an elective repeated caesarean section (ERCS) without labour in low‐resource settings.

Protocol for a systematic review on the effect of demand generation interventions on uptake and use of modern contraceptives in LMIC

BackgroundDespite a global increase in contraception use, its prevalence remains low in low- and middle-income countries. One strategy to improve uptake and use of contraception, as an essential complement to policies and supply-side interventions, is demand generation. Demand generation interventions have reportedly produced positive effects on uptake and use of family planning services, but the evidence base remains poorly documented. To reduce this knowledge gap, we will conduct a systematic review on the impact of demand generation interventions on the use of modern contraception. The objectives of the review will be as follows: (1) to synthesize evidence on the impacts and costs of family planning demand generation interventions and on their effectiveness in improving modern contraceptive use and (2) to identify the indicators used to assess effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and impacts of demand generation interventions.Methods/designWe will systematically review the public health and health promotion literature in several databases (e.g., CINAHL, Medline, EMBASE) as well as gray literature. We will select articles from 1970 to 2015, in French and in English. The review will include studies that assess the impact of family planning programs or interventions on changes in contraception use. The studied interventions will be those with a demand generation component, even if a supply component is implemented. Two members of the team will independently search, screen, extract data, and assess the quality of the studies selected. Different tools will be used to assess the quality of the studies depending on the study design. If appropriate, a meta-analysis will be conducted. The analysis will involve comparing odd ratios (OR)DiscussionThe systematic review results will be disseminated to United Nations Population Fund program countries and will contribute to the development of a guidance document and programmatic tools for planning, implementing, and evaluating demand generation interventions in family planning. Improving the effectiveness of family planning programs is critical for empowering women and adolescent girls, improving human capital, reducing dependency ratios, reducing maternal and child mortality, and achieving demographic dividends in low- and middle-income countries.Systematic review registrationThis protocol is registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42015017549).

Labor Dystocia and the Risk of Uterine Rupture in Women with Prior Cesarean.

Objectiveu2003The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between labor dystocia and uterine rupture. Methodsu2003We performed a secondary analysis of a multicenter case-control study that included women with single, prior, low-transverse cesarean section who experienced complete uterine rupture during a trial of labor (TOL). For each case, three women who underwent a TOL without uterine rupture were selected as controls. Data were collected on cervical dilatations from admission to delivery. We evaluated the relationship between uterine rupture and labor dystocia according to several criteria, including the World Health Organizations (WHOs) partogram. Resultsu2003Data were available for 90 cases and 260 controls. Compared with the controls, uterine rupture was associated with less cervical dilatation on admission, slower cervical dilatation in the first stage of labor and longer second stage of labor (all with pu2009<u20090.05). Performing cesarean when the labor curve crossed the ACTION line of WHOs partogram or when the second stage was greater than 2 hours could have (1) prevented up to 56% of uterine rupture and (2) reduced the duration of labor in 57% of women with failed TOL. Conclusionu2003Labor dystocia is a significant risk factor for uterine rupture. Labor progression should be assessed regularly in women with prior cesarean.

Erratum to: ‘Evaluation of quality improvement for cesarean sections programmes through mixed methods’

Unfortunately, the original version of this article [1] contained an error. The acknowledgements was included incorrectly. The correct acknowledgements can be found below. n nThe authors gratefully acknowledge the funding of this research provided by the Ministry of Health and Consumers’ Affairs - –Spain (FIS Exp. PI13/01340 and FEDER funds) and the CHIR- Quebec Training Network in Perinatal Research (QTNPR). The study funders had no role in the study design, data analysis, data collection, data interpretation or the writing of the report. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily of the funding bodies.