Dataset Information

Route of oxytocin administration for preventing blood loss at caesarean section: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Assess the effects of different routes of prophylactic oxytocin administration for preventing blood loss at caesarean section (CS).

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, BVS, SciELO and Global Index Medicus were searched through 24 May 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different routes of prophylactic oxytocin administration during CS. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted by two investigators independently. We pooled results in fixed effects meta-analyses and calculated average risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. We used GRADE to assess the overall quality of evidence for each outcome.

Results

Three trials (180 women) were included in the review. All studies compared intramyometrial (IMY) versus intravenous oxytocin in women having prelabour CS. IMY compared with intravenous oxytocin administration may result in little or no difference in the incidence of postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.70; N=100 participants; 1 RCT), hypotension (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.29 to 3.45; N=40; 1 RCT), headache (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 69.52; N=40; 1 RCT) or facial flushing (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.08; N=40; 1 RCT); IMY oxytocin may reduce nausea/vomiting (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.69; N=140; 2 RCTs). We are very uncertain about the effect IMY versus intravenous oxytocin on the need for additional uterotonics (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.25 to 2.69; N=140; 2 RCTs). IMY oxytocin may reduce blood loss slightly (MD -57.40 mL, 95% CI -101.71 to -13.09; N=40; 1 RCT).

Conclusions

There is limited, low to very low certainty evidence on the effects of IMY versus intravenous oxytocin at CS for preventing blood loss. The evidence is insufficient to support choosing one route over another. More trials, including studies that assess intramuscular oxytocin administration, are needed on this relevant question.

Prospero registration number

CRD42020186797.

SUBMITTER: Torloni MR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8449971 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundProphylactic antibiotics reduce infectious morbidity from caesarean section. The timing of their administration, however, is a matter of controversy.ObjectivesTo examine maternal and neonatal infectious morbidity in women receiving preoperative prophylaxis compared with those receiving intraoperative administration.Search strategyMedline, Embase, Current Controlled Trials and Cochrane Central were searched from their inception dates to December 2011.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials of a single dose of any antibiotic comparing preoperative with intraoperative administration were selected.Data collection and analysisTrial characteristics, outcomes and quality measures, based on the Cochrane tool for risk of bias, were independently extracted. The random effect model of DerSimonian and Laird to estimate relative risks (RRs) for maternal and neonatal outcomes was used.Main resultsSix trials met the inclusion criteria, reporting on 2313 women and 2345 newborns. Preoperative administration was associated with a significant 41% reduction in the rate of endometritis compared with intraoperative administration (RR 0.59; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.37-0.94; I2 0%). In the preoperative group, there were nonsignificant reductions in the rates of wound infection (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.44-1.14; I2 0%), maternal febrile morbidity (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.46-1.95; I2 0%), neonatal sepsis (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.47-1.41; I2 0%), neonatal septic work-up (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.71-1.21; I2 0%) and neonatal intensive-care unit admission (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.65-1.28; I2 0%). There were nonsignificant increases in the rates of maternal pyelonephritis (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.49-2.43; I2 0%) and neonatal pneumonia (RR 3.36; 95% CI 0.55-20.47; I2 0%).ConclusionsCompared with intraoperative administration, preoperative antibiotics significantly reduce the rate of endometritis. The lack of neonatal adverse effects should be cautiously interpreted given the limited power of the trials to detect such effects.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the effects on maternal infectious morbidity and neonatal outcomes of the timing of antibiotic prophylaxis in women undergoing caesarean section. A recent National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guideline reported that antibiotic administration before skin incision reduces the risk of maternal infection; this recommendation was based on a meta-analysis, however one including trials that were not double blind and not including a trial published recently.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesSearches of PubMed and EMBASE and reference lists of the retrieved articles.Inclusion criteriaRandomised double-blind controlled trials comparing the administration of antibiotics before skin incision with administration after cord clamping.Data extraction and analysisData on maternal total infectious morbidity, endometritis and wound infection, as well as neonatal intensive care unit admission, neonatal infection and neonatal sepsis were extracted and combined using random effects meta-analysis.ResultsFive studies reporting on 1777 parturients were included in our systematic review. The relative risk (RR) for maternal total infectious morbidity for antibiotic administration before incision compared with antibiotic administration after cord clamping was 0.64 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.15). Likewise, there was no difference in the risk of wound infection (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.27). Parturients receiving the antibiotic preoperatively had a significantly reduced risk of endometritis (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.87; number needed to treat 41, 95% CI 23 to 165). Analyses of the neonatal outcome parameters revealed no differences between the regimens of antibiotic administration, but were based on few studies.ConclusionsIn contrast to a recent NICE guideline, we did not find a reduction in total infectious morbidity with antibiotic administration before skin incision; we confirmed a reduction in the risk of endometritis and a lack of effect on the risk for wound infection.

Project description:Background:Caesarean section rates have increased worldwide in recent decades. Caesarean section is an essential maternal healthcare service. However, it has both maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes. Therefore this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the prevalence, indication, and outcomes of caesarean section in Ethiopia. Methods:Twenty three cross-sectional studies with a total population of 36,705 were included. Online databases (PubMed/Medline, Hinari, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) and online university repository was used. All the included papers were extracted and appraised using the standard extraction sheet format and Joanna Briggs Institute respectively. The pooled prevalence of the caesarean section, indications, and outcomes was calculated using the random-effect model. Result:The overall pooled prevalence of Caesarean section was 29.55% (95% CI: 25.46-33.65). Caesarean section is associated with both maternal and neonatal complications. Cephalopelvic disproportion [18.13%(95%CI: 12.72-23.53] was the most common indication of Caesarean section followed by non-reassuring fetal heart rate pattern [19.57% (95%CI: 16.06-23.08]. The common neonatal complications following Caesarean section included low APGAR score, perinatal asphyxia, neonatal sepsis, meconium aspiration syndrome, early neonatal death, stillbirth, and prematurity whereas febrile morbidity, surgical site infection, maternal mortality, severe anemia, and postpartum hemorrhage were the most common maternal complications following Caesarean section. Conclusion:In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the rate of Cesarean section was high. Cephalopelvic disproportion, low Apgar score, and febrile morbidity were the most common indication of Caesarean section, neonatal outcome and maternal morbidity following Caesarean section respectively. Increasing unjustified Caesarean section deliveries as a way to increase different neonatal and maternal complications, then several interventions needed to target both the education of professionals and the public.