OBG Management

Did mother’s allergic reaction cause fetal injury?

When a mother was admitted to the labor and delivery unit, she had strep throat; ampicillin was administered. She experienced anaphylactic symptoms that were attended to. The baby, delivered vaginally 3 hours later, was severely distressed and showed signs of asphyxia. He was found to have a permanent brain injury.

PARENTS’ CLAIM:

The ObGyn and hospital nurses failed to properly manage the mother’s anaphylactic reaction to ampicillin. Fetal heart-rate tracings indicated fetal distress. Standard of care required prompt intervention with epinephrine and/or emergency cesarean delivery. Brain injury occurred because these procedures were not performed.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE:

The nurses denied fault and explained that they appropriately and immediately responded to mild anaphylactic symptoms in the mother. They could not administer epinephrine because the ObGyn did not order it.

The ObGyn denied violating the standard of care that included minimizing the mother’s allergic reaction. Because the mother didn’t have a rash, it was not necessary to order epinephrine. The baby sustained an unknown injury earlier in the pregnancy that was unrelated to labor.

VERDICT:

A Tennessee defense verdict was returned.

Resident blamed for shoulder dystocia

A mother presented to a federally funded health center in labor. A first-year resident managed labor and delivery under the supervision of the attending physician. Shoulder dystocia was encountered and the baby suffered a permanent brachial plexus injury.

PARENTS’ CLAIM:

Negligence occurred when the resident used excessive force by pulling on the infant’s neck during delivery. The resident, who had just received his medical license, was poorly supervised by the attending physician.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE:

Suit was brought against the resident, the attending physician, the federal government, and the hospital’s residency program. The resident denied using excessive force. As soon as delivery became complex, the attending physician completed the delivery. The baby’s injuries were unpredictable and unavoidable.

VERDICT:

A $290,000 settlement with the federal government was reached before trial. A Pennsylvania defense verdict was returned for the other parties.

Related Article:
Tackle the challenging shoulder dystocia emergency by practicing delivery of the posterior arm

What caused brachial plexus injury?

An experienced midwife delivered a baby who sustained a brachial plexus injury resulting in flail arm syndrome.

PARENTS’ CLAIM:

The midwife mismanaged the delivery causing permanent injury. The child has gained little improvement with surgery and physical therapy.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE:

The injury was caused by the natural forces of labor. The midwife used appropriate techniques during the birth.

VERDICT:

A Washington defense verdict was returned.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Did mother’s allergic reaction cause fetal injury?

When a mother was admitted to the labor and delivery unit, she had strep throat; ampicillin was administered. She experienced anaphylactic symptoms that were attended to. The baby, delivered vaginally 3 hours later, was severely distressed and showed signs of asphyxia. He was found to have a permanent brain injury.

PARENTS’ CLAIM:

The ObGyn and hospital nurses failed to properly manage the mother’s anaphylactic reaction to ampicillin. Fetal heart-rate tracings indicated fetal distress. Standard of care required prompt intervention with epinephrine and/or emergency cesarean delivery. Brain injury occurred because these procedures were not performed.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE:

The nurses denied fault and explained that they appropriately and immediately responded to mild anaphylactic symptoms in the mother. They could not administer epinephrine because the ObGyn did not order it.

The ObGyn denied violating the standard of care that included minimizing the mother’s allergic reaction. Because the mother didn’t have a rash, it was not necessary to order epinephrine. The baby sustained an unknown injury earlier in the pregnancy that was unrelated to labor.

VERDICT:

A Tennessee defense verdict was returned.

Resident blamed for shoulder dystocia

A mother presented to a federally funded health center in labor. A first-year resident managed labor and delivery under the supervision of the attending physician. Shoulder dystocia was encountered and the baby suffered a permanent brachial plexus injury.

PARENTS’ CLAIM:

Negligence occurred when the resident used excessive force by pulling on the infant’s neck during delivery. The resident, who had just received his medical license, was poorly supervised by the attending physician.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE:

Suit was brought against the resident, the attending physician, the federal government, and the hospital’s residency program. The resident denied using excessive force. As soon as delivery became complex, the attending physician completed the delivery. The baby’s injuries were unpredictable and unavoidable.

VERDICT:

A $290,000 settlement with the federal government was reached before trial. A Pennsylvania defense verdict was returned for the other parties.

Related Article:
Tackle the challenging shoulder dystocia emergency by practicing delivery of the posterior arm

What caused brachial plexus injury?

An experienced midwife delivered a baby who sustained a brachial plexus injury resulting in flail arm syndrome.

PARENTS’ CLAIM:

The midwife mismanaged the delivery causing permanent injury. The child has gained little improvement with surgery and physical therapy.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE:

The injury was caused by the natural forces of labor. The midwife used appropriate techniques during the birth.

VERDICT:

A Washington defense verdict was returned.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Did mother’s allergic reaction cause fetal injury?

When a mother was admitted to the labor and delivery unit, she had strep throat; ampicillin was administered. She experienced anaphylactic symptoms that were attended to. The baby, delivered vaginally 3 hours later, was severely distressed and showed signs of asphyxia. He was found to have a permanent brain injury.

PARENTS’ CLAIM:

The ObGyn and hospital nurses failed to properly manage the mother’s anaphylactic reaction to ampicillin. Fetal heart-rate tracings indicated fetal distress. Standard of care required prompt intervention with epinephrine and/or emergency cesarean delivery. Brain injury occurred because these procedures were not performed.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE:

The nurses denied fault and explained that they appropriately and immediately responded to mild anaphylactic symptoms in the mother. They could not administer epinephrine because the ObGyn did not order it.

The ObGyn denied violating the standard of care that included minimizing the mother’s allergic reaction. Because the mother didn’t have a rash, it was not necessary to order epinephrine. The baby sustained an unknown injury earlier in the pregnancy that was unrelated to labor.

VERDICT:

A Tennessee defense verdict was returned.

Resident blamed for shoulder dystocia

A mother presented to a federally funded health center in labor. A first-year resident managed labor and delivery under the supervision of the attending physician. Shoulder dystocia was encountered and the baby suffered a permanent brachial plexus injury.

PARENTS’ CLAIM:

Negligence occurred when the resident used excessive force by pulling on the infant’s neck during delivery. The resident, who had just received his medical license, was poorly supervised by the attending physician.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE:

Suit was brought against the resident, the attending physician, the federal government, and the hospital’s residency program. The resident denied using excessive force. As soon as delivery became complex, the attending physician completed the delivery. The baby’s injuries were unpredictable and unavoidable.

VERDICT:

A $290,000 settlement with the federal government was reached before trial. A Pennsylvania defense verdict was returned for the other parties.

Related Article:
Tackle the challenging shoulder dystocia emergency by practicing delivery of the posterior arm

What caused brachial plexus injury?

An experienced midwife delivered a baby who sustained a brachial plexus injury resulting in flail arm syndrome.

PARENTS’ CLAIM:

The midwife mismanaged the delivery causing permanent injury. The child has gained little improvement with surgery and physical therapy.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE:

The injury was caused by the natural forces of labor. The midwife used appropriate techniques during the birth.

VERDICT:

A Washington defense verdict was returned.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Removal of wrong ovary?

Several years earlier, a patient had undergone a hysterectomy but retained her ovaries and fallopian tubes. She reported recurrent pelvic pain, especially on the left side, to a gynecologic surgeon. Ultrasonography (US) results showed a small follicular cyst on the right ovary and a simple cyst on the left ovary. The patient consented to diagnostic laparoscopy with possible left salpingo-oophorectomy. During the procedure, the surgeon removed the right fallopian tube and ovary. After recovery, the patient continued to have left-sided pelvic pain. When she saw another surgeon a year later, US results showed that the left ovary and tube were still intact. The patient underwent left salpingo-oophorectomy.

PATIENT’S CLAIM:

The surgeon removed the wrong ovary and tube, a breach of the standard of care, and didn’t adequately explain his surgical actions.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE:

Standard of care was maintained. During surgery, the surgeon encountered severe adhesions on the patient’s left side and was unable to visualize her left ovary. He decided that what had appeared to be an ovary on US most likely was a fluid collection, and that the patient’s left ovary must have been removed at hysterectomy. The surgeon concluded that the hemorrhagic cyst on the right ovary and adhesions were causing the patient’s pain, and removed them. The patient had given him permission to perform laparoscopic surgery, but he did not have her consent to convert to laparotomy, which would have been necessary to confirm the absence of her left ovary.

VERDICT:

An Alabama defense verdict was returned.

Related Article:
Medical errors: Meeting ethical obligations and reducing liability with proper communication

Was wrong hysterectomy procedure chosen?

After being treated by her ObGyn for postmenopausal bleeding with medication and dilation and curettage, a 50-year-old woman underwent total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH). At an office visit 3 weeks postsurgery, she reported uncontrollable urination. The patient was admitted to a hospital, where cystogram results showed a vesico-vaginal fistula (VVF). She was treated with catheter drainage and referred to a urologist. The patient underwent 2 unsuccessful repair operations. A third repair, performed 10 months after the TAH, was successful.

PATIENT’S CLAIM:

The ObGyn should have performed laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) instead of TAH because the patient’s cervix would have remained intact and VVF would not have developed. Medical bills totaled $194,000.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE:

The standard of care did not require LSH. Had the ObGyn left the cervix intact, the patient could have continued bleeding with increased risk of cervical cancer. A bladder injury is a known complication of hysterectomy.

VERDICT:

A Mississippi defense verdict was returned.

Woman dies after uterine fibroid removal

A 39-year-old woman with a history of hypertension, diabetes, moderate obesity, and end-stage renal disease underwent myomectomy. A first-year resident assisted the attending anesthesiologist during the procedure. While the patient was under general anesthesia, her blood pressure (BP) dropped rapidly and remained at an abnormally low level for 45 minutes. Then the patient’s heart rate dropped to around 30 bpm and remained at that level for 15 minutes before her BP and heart rate were finally restored. The patient never regained consciousness and remained in an irreversible coma until she died 6 days later.

ESTATE’S CLAIM:

The anesthesiologist and resident negligently allowed the patient’s BP and heart rate to fall to dangerously low levels. Because the patient had hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, she required a higher BP to maintain adequate cerebral perfusion. The physicians precipitated the patient’s hypotension by giving her an excessive dose of morphine and bupivacaine via epidural catheter prior to induction of general anesthesia, and then failed to give her sufficient doses of vasopressors to increase her BP to safe levels. They failed to properly treat the condition in a timely manner, causing brain damage, and ultimately, death.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE:

The case was settled during mediation.

VERDICT:

A $900,000 Massachusetts settlement was reached.

Related Article:
Total abdominal hysterectomy the Mayo Clinic way

Ureter injured during hysterectomy

A 47-year-old woman’s right ureter was damaged during laparoscopic hysterectomy. During surgery, the gynecologist called in a urologist to repair the injury. The patient reported postsurgical complications including renal function impairment. A computed tomography scan showed a right ureter obstruction. When surgery confirmed complete obstruction of the ureter, she had a temporary nephrostomy drain placed. After 4 weeks, the patient returned to the operating room to have the right ureter implanted into the bladder. The patient reported occasional painful urination with increased urinary frequency and decreased right kidney size.

PATIENT’S CLAIM:

The gynecologist lacerated the ureter because he did not adequately identify and protect the ureter; this error represented a departure from the standard of care. The urologist failed to properly repair the injury. The patient sought recovery of $990,000 for past and future pain and suffering.

DEFENDANTS’ CLAIM:

The suit against the urologist and hospital was dropped, but continued against the gynecologist. The gynecologist claimed that the patient’s injury was a thermal burn, and is a known complication of the procedure.

VERDICT:

A $500,000 New York verdict was returned.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Removal of wrong ovary?

Several years earlier, a patient had undergone a hysterectomy but retained her ovaries and fallopian tubes. She reported recurrent pelvic pain, especially on the left side, to a gynecologic surgeon. Ultrasonography (US) results showed a small follicular cyst on the right ovary and a simple cyst on the left ovary. The patient consented to diagnostic laparoscopy with possible left salpingo-oophorectomy. During the procedure, the surgeon removed the right fallopian tube and ovary. After recovery, the patient continued to have left-sided pelvic pain. When she saw another surgeon a year later, US results showed that the left ovary and tube were still intact. The patient underwent left salpingo-oophorectomy.

PATIENT’S CLAIM:

The surgeon removed the wrong ovary and tube, a breach of the standard of care, and didn’t adequately explain his surgical actions.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE:

Standard of care was maintained. During surgery, the surgeon encountered severe adhesions on the patient’s left side and was unable to visualize her left ovary. He decided that what had appeared to be an ovary on US most likely was a fluid collection, and that the patient’s left ovary must have been removed at hysterectomy. The surgeon concluded that the hemorrhagic cyst on the right ovary and adhesions were causing the patient’s pain, and removed them. The patient had given him permission to perform laparoscopic surgery, but he did not have her consent to convert to laparotomy, which would have been necessary to confirm the absence of her left ovary.

VERDICT:

An Alabama defense verdict was returned.

Related Article:
Medical errors: Meeting ethical obligations and reducing liability with proper communication

Was wrong hysterectomy procedure chosen?

After being treated by her ObGyn for postmenopausal bleeding with medication and dilation and curettage, a 50-year-old woman underwent total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH). At an office visit 3 weeks postsurgery, she reported uncontrollable urination. The patient was admitted to a hospital, where cystogram results showed a vesico-vaginal fistula (VVF). She was treated with catheter drainage and referred to a urologist. The patient underwent 2 unsuccessful repair operations. A third repair, performed 10 months after the TAH, was successful.

PATIENT’S CLAIM:

The ObGyn should have performed laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) instead of TAH because the patient’s cervix would have remained intact and VVF would not have developed. Medical bills totaled $194,000.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE:

The standard of care did not require LSH. Had the ObGyn left the cervix intact, the patient could have continued bleeding with increased risk of cervical cancer. A bladder injury is a known complication of hysterectomy.

VERDICT:

A Mississippi defense verdict was returned.

Woman dies after uterine fibroid removal

A 39-year-old woman with a history of hypertension, diabetes, moderate obesity, and end-stage renal disease underwent myomectomy. A first-year resident assisted the attending anesthesiologist during the procedure. While the patient was under general anesthesia, her blood pressure (BP) dropped rapidly and remained at an abnormally low level for 45 minutes. Then the patient’s heart rate dropped to around 30 bpm and remained at that level for 15 minutes before her BP and heart rate were finally restored. The patient never regained consciousness and remained in an irreversible coma until she died 6 days later.

ESTATE’S CLAIM:

The anesthesiologist and resident negligently allowed the patient’s BP and heart rate to fall to dangerously low levels. Because the patient had hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, she required a higher BP to maintain adequate cerebral perfusion. The physicians precipitated the patient’s hypotension by giving her an excessive dose of morphine and bupivacaine via epidural catheter prior to induction of general anesthesia, and then failed to give her sufficient doses of vasopressors to increase her BP to safe levels. They failed to properly treat the condition in a timely manner, causing brain damage, and ultimately, death.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE:

The case was settled during mediation.

VERDICT:

A $900,000 Massachusetts settlement was reached.

Related Article:
Total abdominal hysterectomy the Mayo Clinic way

Ureter injured during hysterectomy

A 47-year-old woman’s right ureter was damaged during laparoscopic hysterectomy. During surgery, the gynecologist called in a urologist to repair the injury. The patient reported postsurgical complications including renal function impairment. A computed tomography scan showed a right ureter obstruction. When surgery confirmed complete obstruction of the ureter, she had a temporary nephrostomy drain placed. After 4 weeks, the patient returned to the operating room to have the right ureter implanted into the bladder. The patient reported occasional painful urination with increased urinary frequency and decreased right kidney size.

PATIENT’S CLAIM:

The gynecologist lacerated the ureter because he did not adequately identify and protect the ureter; this error represented a departure from the standard of care. The urologist failed to properly repair the injury. The patient sought recovery of $990,000 for past and future pain and suffering.

DEFENDANTS’ CLAIM:

The suit against the urologist and hospital was dropped, but continued against the gynecologist. The gynecologist claimed that the patient’s injury was a thermal burn, and is a known complication of the procedure.

VERDICT:

A $500,000 New York verdict was returned.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Removal of wrong ovary?

Several years earlier, a patient had undergone a hysterectomy but retained her ovaries and fallopian tubes. She reported recurrent pelvic pain, especially on the left side, to a gynecologic surgeon. Ultrasonography (US) results showed a small follicular cyst on the right ovary and a simple cyst on the left ovary. The patient consented to diagnostic laparoscopy with possible left salpingo-oophorectomy. During the procedure, the surgeon removed the right fallopian tube and ovary. After recovery, the patient continued to have left-sided pelvic pain. When she saw another surgeon a year later, US results showed that the left ovary and tube were still intact. The patient underwent left salpingo-oophorectomy.

PATIENT’S CLAIM:

The surgeon removed the wrong ovary and tube, a breach of the standard of care, and didn’t adequately explain his surgical actions.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE:

Standard of care was maintained. During surgery, the surgeon encountered severe adhesions on the patient’s left side and was unable to visualize her left ovary. He decided that what had appeared to be an ovary on US most likely was a fluid collection, and that the patient’s left ovary must have been removed at hysterectomy. The surgeon concluded that the hemorrhagic cyst on the right ovary and adhesions were causing the patient’s pain, and removed them. The patient had given him permission to perform laparoscopic surgery, but he did not have her consent to convert to laparotomy, which would have been necessary to confirm the absence of her left ovary.

VERDICT:

An Alabama defense verdict was returned.

Related Article:
Medical errors: Meeting ethical obligations and reducing liability with proper communication

Was wrong hysterectomy procedure chosen?

After being treated by her ObGyn for postmenopausal bleeding with medication and dilation and curettage, a 50-year-old woman underwent total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH). At an office visit 3 weeks postsurgery, she reported uncontrollable urination. The patient was admitted to a hospital, where cystogram results showed a vesico-vaginal fistula (VVF). She was treated with catheter drainage and referred to a urologist. The patient underwent 2 unsuccessful repair operations. A third repair, performed 10 months after the TAH, was successful.

PATIENT’S CLAIM:

The ObGyn should have performed laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) instead of TAH because the patient’s cervix would have remained intact and VVF would not have developed. Medical bills totaled $194,000.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE:

The standard of care did not require LSH. Had the ObGyn left the cervix intact, the patient could have continued bleeding with increased risk of cervical cancer. A bladder injury is a known complication of hysterectomy.

VERDICT:

A Mississippi defense verdict was returned.

Woman dies after uterine fibroid removal

A 39-year-old woman with a history of hypertension, diabetes, moderate obesity, and end-stage renal disease underwent myomectomy. A first-year resident assisted the attending anesthesiologist during the procedure. While the patient was under general anesthesia, her blood pressure (BP) dropped rapidly and remained at an abnormally low level for 45 minutes. Then the patient’s heart rate dropped to around 30 bpm and remained at that level for 15 minutes before her BP and heart rate were finally restored. The patient never regained consciousness and remained in an irreversible coma until she died 6 days later.

ESTATE’S CLAIM:

The anesthesiologist and resident negligently allowed the patient’s BP and heart rate to fall to dangerously low levels. Because the patient had hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, she required a higher BP to maintain adequate cerebral perfusion. The physicians precipitated the patient’s hypotension by giving her an excessive dose of morphine and bupivacaine via epidural catheter prior to induction of general anesthesia, and then failed to give her sufficient doses of vasopressors to increase her BP to safe levels. They failed to properly treat the condition in a timely manner, causing brain damage, and ultimately, death.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE:

The case was settled during mediation.

VERDICT:

A $900,000 Massachusetts settlement was reached.

Related Article:
Total abdominal hysterectomy the Mayo Clinic way

Ureter injured during hysterectomy

A 47-year-old woman’s right ureter was damaged during laparoscopic hysterectomy. During surgery, the gynecologist called in a urologist to repair the injury. The patient reported postsurgical complications including renal function impairment. A computed tomography scan showed a right ureter obstruction. When surgery confirmed complete obstruction of the ureter, she had a temporary nephrostomy drain placed. After 4 weeks, the patient returned to the operating room to have the right ureter implanted into the bladder. The patient reported occasional painful urination with increased urinary frequency and decreased right kidney size.

PATIENT’S CLAIM:

The gynecologist lacerated the ureter because he did not adequately identify and protect the ureter; this error represented a departure from the standard of care. The urologist failed to properly repair the injury. The patient sought recovery of $990,000 for past and future pain and suffering.

DEFENDANTS’ CLAIM:

The suit against the urologist and hospital was dropped, but continued against the gynecologist. The gynecologist claimed that the patient’s injury was a thermal burn, and is a known complication of the procedure.

VERDICT:

A $500,000 New York verdict was returned.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Related content on burnout:

• Is burnout on the rise and what are the signs ObGyns should be on the lookout for?
• ObGyn burnout: ACOG takes aim
• Strategies for maintaining resilience to the burnout threat

Related content on burnout:

• Is burnout on the rise and what are the signs ObGyns should be on the lookout for?
• ObGyn burnout: ACOG takes aim
• Strategies for maintaining resilience to the burnout threat

Related content on burnout:

• Is burnout on the rise and what are the signs ObGyns should be on the lookout for?
• ObGyn burnout: ACOG takes aim
• Strategies for maintaining resilience to the burnout threat

Faculty/Faculty Disclosure

Linda D. Bradley, MD

Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women’s

  Health Institute,

Cleveland Clinic,

Cleveland, Ohio, USA

Competing Interest and Financial Disclosures:  Dr. Bradley reports that she has received grant/research/clinical trial support from Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. She is a consultant and on the advisory board for Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Boston Scientific Corporation, and Smith & Nephew; she is on the advisory board for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; she is on the speakers' bureau for Smith & Nephew (Medtronic); she is on the scientific advisory panel for Karl Storz; and she is on the data safety and monitoring board for Gynesonics. 

Faculty/Faculty Disclosure

Linda D. Bradley, MD

Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women’s

  Health Institute,

Cleveland Clinic,

Cleveland, Ohio, USA

Competing Interest and Financial Disclosures:  Dr. Bradley reports that she has received grant/research/clinical trial support from Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. She is a consultant and on the advisory board for Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Boston Scientific Corporation, and Smith & Nephew; she is on the advisory board for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; she is on the speakers' bureau for Smith & Nephew (Medtronic); she is on the scientific advisory panel for Karl Storz; and she is on the data safety and monitoring board for Gynesonics. 

Faculty/Faculty Disclosure

Linda D. Bradley, MD

Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women’s

  Health Institute,

Cleveland Clinic,

Cleveland, Ohio, USA

Competing Interest and Financial Disclosures:  Dr. Bradley reports that she has received grant/research/clinical trial support from Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. She is a consultant and on the advisory board for Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Boston Scientific Corporation, and Smith & Nephew; she is on the advisory board for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; she is on the speakers' bureau for Smith & Nephew (Medtronic); she is on the scientific advisory panel for Karl Storz; and she is on the data safety and monitoring board for Gynesonics. 

Prioritize bone health, as osteoporotic fracture is a major source of morbidity and mortality among women. In this article: fracture risk with OC use in perimenopause, data that inform calcium’s role in cardiovascular disease, sarcopenia management, and an emerging treatment.

Most women’s health care providers are aware of recent changes and controversies regarding cervical cancer screening, mammography frequency, and whether a pelvic bimanual exam should be part of our annual well woman evaluation.¹ However, I believe one of the most important things we as clinicians can do is be frontline in promoting bone health. Osteoporotic fracture is a major source of morbidity and mortality.^2,3 Thus, promoting the maintenance of bone health is a priority in my own practice. It is also one of my many academic interests.

What follows is an update on bone health. In past years, this update has been entitled, “Update on osteoporosis,” but what we are trying to accomplish is fracture reduction. Thus, priorities for bone health consist of recognition of risk, lifestyle and dietary counseling, as well as the use of pharmacologic agents when appropriate. Certain research stands out as informative for your practice:

• a recent study on the risk of fracture with oral contraceptive (OC) use in perimenopause
• 3 just-published studies that inform our understanding of calcium’s role in cardiovascular health
• a review on sarcopenia management
• new data on romosozumab.

Oral contraceptive use in perimenopause

Scholes D, LaCroix AZ, Hubbard RA, et al. Oral contraceptive use and fracture risk around the menopausal transition. Menopause. 2016;23(2):166-174.

The use of OCs in women of older reproductive age has increased ever since the cutoff age of 35 years was eliminated.⁴ Lower doses have continued to be utilized in these "older" women with excellent control of irregular bleeding due to ovulatory dysfunction (and reduction in psychosocial symptoms as well).⁵

The effect of OC use on risk of fracture remains unclear, and use during later reproductive life may be increasing. To determine the association between OC use during later reproductive life and risk of fracture across the menopausal transition, Scholes and colleagues conducted a population-based case-controlled study in a Pacific Northwest HMO, Group Health Cooperative.

Details of the study

Scholes and colleagues enrolled 1,204 case women aged 45 to 59 years with incident fractures, and 2,275 control women. Potential cases with fracture codes in automated data were adjudicated by electronic health record review. Potential control women without fracture codes were selected concurrently, sampling based on age. Participants received a structured study interview. Using logistic regression, associations between OC use and fracture risk were calculated as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Participation was 69% for cases and 64% for controls. The study sample was 82% white; mean age was 54 years. The most common fracture site for cases was the wrist/forearm (32%). Adjusted fracture risk did not differ between cases and controls for OC use:

• in the 10 years before menopause (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74-1.11)
• after age 38 years (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78-1.14)
• over the duration, or
• for other OC exposures.

Related article:
2016 Update on female sexual dysfunction

Association between fractures and OC use near menopause

The current study does not show an association between fractures near the menopausal transition and OC use in the decade before menopause or after age 38 years. For women considering OC use at these times, fracture risk does not seem to be either reduced or increased.

These results, looking at fracture, seem to be further supported by trials conducted by Gambacciani and colleagues,6 in which researchers randomly assigned irregularly cycling perimenopausal women (aged 40-49 years) to 20 μg ethinyl estradiol OCs or calcium/placebo. Results showed that this low-dose OC use significantly increased bone density at the femoral neck, spine, and other sites relative to control women after 24 months. 

In the current Scholes study, the use of OCs in the decade before menopause or after age 38 did not reduce fracture risk in the years around the time of menopause. It is reassuring that their use was not associated with any increased fracture risk.

Calcium and calcium supplements: The data continue to grow

Anderson JJ, Kruszka B, Delaney JA, et al. Calcium intake from diet and supplements and the risk of coronary artery calcification and its progression among older adults: 10-year follow-up of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) [published online ahead of print October 11, 2016]. J Am Heart Assoc. pii: e003815.

Billington EO, Bristow SM, Gamble GD, et al. Acute effects of calcium supplements on blood pressure: randomised, crossover trial in postmenopausal women [published online ahead of print August 20, 2016]. Osteoporos Int. doi:10.1007/s00198-016-3744-y.

Crandall CJ, Aragaki AK, LeBoff MS, et al. Calcium plus vitamin D supplementation and height loss: findings from the Women's Health Initiative Calcium and Vitamin D clinical trial [published online ahead of print August 1, 2016]. Menopause. doi:10.1097 /GME.0000000000000704.

In 2001, a National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Development Panel on osteoporosis concluded that calcium intake is crucial to maintain bone mass and should be maintained at 1,000-1,500 mg/day in older adults. The panel acknowledged that the majority of older adults did not meet the recommended intake from dietary sources alone, and therefore would require calcium supplementation. Calcium supplements are one of the most commonly used dietary supplements, and population-based surveys have shown that they are used by the majority of older men and women in the United States.⁷ 

More recently results from large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of calcium supplements have been reported, leading to concerns about calcium efficacy for fracture risk and safety. Bolland and colleagues⁸ reported that calcium supplements increased the rate of cardiovascular events in healthy older women and suggested that their role in osteoporosis management be reconsidered. More recently, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended against calcium supplements for the primary prevention of fractures in noninstitutionalized postmenopausal women.⁹ 

The association between calcium intake and CVD events

Anderson and colleagues acknowledged that recent randomized data suggest that calcium supplements may be associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. Using a longitudinal cohort study, they assessed the association between calcium intake, from both foods and supplements, and atherosclerosis, as measured by coronary artery calcification (CAC).

Details of the study by Anderson and colleagues
The authors studied 5,448 adults free of clinically diagnosed CVD (52% female; age range, 45-84 years) from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Baseline total calcium intake was assessed from diet (using a food frequency questionnaire) and calcium supplements (by a medication inventory) and categorized into quintiles based on overall population distribution. Baseline CAC was measured by computed tomography (CT) scan, and CAC measurements were repeated in 2,742 participants approximately 10 years later. Women had higher calcium intakes than men. 

After adjustment for potential confounders, among 1,567 participants without baseline CAC, the relative risk (RR) of developing incident CAC over 10 years, by quintile 1 to 5 of calcium intake is included in the TABLE. After accounting for total calcium intake, calcium supplement use was associated with increased risk for incident CAC (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.07-1.39). No relation was found between baseline calcium intake and 10-year changes in CAC among those participants with baseline CAC less than zero.

They concluded that high total calcium intake was associated with a decreased risk of incident atherosclerosis over long-term follow-up, particularly if achieved without supplement use. However, calcium supplement use may increase the risk for incident CAC.

Related article:
Does the discontinuation of menopausal hormone therapy affect a woman’s cardiovascular risk?

Calcium supplements and blood pressure

Billington and colleagues acknowledged that calcium supplements appear to increase cardiovascular risk but that the mechanism is unknown. They had previously reported that blood pressure declines over the course of the day in older women.¹⁰

Details of the study by Billington and colleagues
In this new study the investigators examined the acute effects of calcium supplements on blood pressure in a randomized controlled crossover trial in 40 healthy postmenopausal women (mean age, 71 years; body mass index [BMI], 27.2 kg/m²). Women attended on 2 occasions, with visits separated by 7 or more days. At each visit, they received either 1 g of calcium as citrate or placebo. Blood pressure and serum calcium concentrations were measured immediately before and 2, 4, and 6 hours after each intervention.

Ionized and total calcium concentrations increased after calcium (P<.0001 vs placebo). Systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurements decreased after both calcium and placebo but significantly less so after calcium (P=.02). The reduction in SBP from baseline was smaller after calcium compared with placebo by 6 mm Hg at 4 hours (P=.036) and by 9 mm Hg at 6 hours (P=.002). The reduction in diastolic blood pressure was similar after calcium and placebo.

These findings indicate that the use of calcium supplements in postmenopausal women attenuates the postbreakfast reduction in SBP by 6 to 9 mm Hg. Whether these changes in blood pressure influence cardiovascular risk requires further study.

Association between calcium, vitamin D, and height loss

Crandall and colleagues looked at the association between calcium and vitamin D supplementation and height loss in 36,282 participants of the Women's Health Initiative Calcium and Vitamin D trial.

Details of the study by Crandall and colleagues

The authors performed a post hoc analysis of data from a double-blind randomized controlled trial of 1,000 mg of elemental calcium as calcium carbonate with 400 IU of vitamin D3 daily (CaD) or placebo in postmenopausal women at 40 US clinical centers. Height was measured annually (mean follow-up, 5.9 years) with a stadiometer.

Average height loss was 1.28 mm/yr among participants assigned to CaD, versus 1.26 mm/yr for women assigned to placebo (P=.35). A strong association (P<.001) was observed between age group and height loss. The study authors concluded that, compared with placebo, calcium and vitamin D supplementation used in this trial did not prevent height loss in healthy postmenopausal women.

Sarcopenia:  Still important, clinical approaches to easily detect it

Beaudart C, McCloskey E, Bruyére O, et al. Sarcopenia in daily practice:  assessment and management. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16(1):170.

In last year's update, I reviewed the article by He and colleagues¹¹ on the relationship between sarcopenia and body composition with osteoporosis. Sarcopenia, which is the age-related loss of muscle mass and strength, is important to address in patients. Body composition and muscle strength are directly correlated with bone density, and this is not surprising since bone and muscle share some common hormonal, genetic, nutritional, and lifestyle determinants.^12,13 Sarcopenia can be diagnosed via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan looking at lean muscle mass.

The term sarcopenia was first coined by Rosenberg and colleagues in 1989¹⁴ as a progressive loss of skeletal muscle mass with advancing age. Since then, the definition has expanded to incorporate the notion of impaired muscle strength or physical performance. Sarcopenia is associated with morbidity and mortality from linked physical disability, falls, fractures, poor quality of life, depression, and hospitalization.¹⁵

Current research is focusing on nutritional exercise/activity-based and other novel interventions for improving the quality and quantity of skeletal muscle in older people. Some studies demonstrated that resistance training combined with nutritional supplements can improve muscle function.¹⁶

Details of the study

Beaudart and colleagues propose some user-friendly and inexpensive methods that can be utilized to assess sarcopenia in real life settings. They acknowledge that in research settings or even specialist clinical settings, DXA or computed tomography (CT) scans are the best assessment of muscle mass.

Anthropometric measurements. In a primary care setting, anthropometric measurement, especially calf circumference and mid-upper arm muscle circumference, correlate with overall muscle mass and reflect both health and nutritional status and predict performance, health, and survival in older people.

However, with advancing age, changes in the distribution of fat and loss of skin elasticity are such that circumference incurs a loss of accuracy and precision in older people. Some studies suggest that an adjustment of anthropometric measurements for age, sex, or BMI results in a better correlation with DXA-measured lean mass.¹⁷ Anthropometric measurements are simple clinical prediction tools that can be easily applied for sarcopenia since they offer the most portable, commonly applicable, inexpensive, and noninvasive technique for assessing size, proportions, and composition of the human body. However, their validity is limited when applied to individuals because cutoff points to identify low muscle mass still need to be defined. Still, serial measurements in a patient over time may be valuable.

Related article:
2014 Update on osteoporosis

Handgrip strength, as measured with a dynamometer, appears to be the most widely used method for the measurement of muscle strength. In general, isometric handgrip strength shows a good correlation with leg strength and also with lower extremity power, and calf cross-sectional muscle area. The measurement is easy to perform, inexpensive and does not require a specialist-trained staff.

Standardized conditions for the test include seating the patient in a standard chair with her forearms resting flat on the chair arms. Clinicians should demonstrate the use of the dynamometer and show that gripping very tightly registers the best score. Six measurements should be taken, 3 with each arm. Ideally, patients should be encouraged to squeeze as hard and tightly as possible during 3 to 5 seconds for each of the 6 trials; usually the highest reading of the 6 measurements is reported as the final result. The Jamar dynamometer, or similar hydraulic dynamometer, is the gold standard for this measurement.

Gait speed measurement. The most widely used tool in clinical practice for the assessment of physical performance is the gait speed measurement. The test is highly acceptable for participants and health professionals in clinical settings. No special equipment is required; it needs only a flat floor devoid of obstacles. In the 4-meter gait speed test, men and women with a gait speed of less than 0.8 meters/sec are described as having a poor physical performance. The average extra time added to the consultation by measuring the 4-meter gait speed was only 95 seconds (SD, 20 seconds).

Romosozumab: An interesting new agent to look forward to

Cosman F, Crittenden DB, Adachi JD, et al. Romosozumab treatment in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(16):1532-1543.

Romosozumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds sclerostin, increasing bone formation and decreasing bone resorption. Cosman and colleagues enrolled 7,180 postmenopausal women with a T score of -2.5 to -3.5 at the total hip or femoral neck. Participants were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous injections of romosozumab 210 mg or placebo monthly for 12 months. Thereafter, women in each group received subcutaneous denosumab 60 mg for 12 months--administered every 6 months. The coprimary end points were the cumulative incidences of new vertebral fractures at 12 and 24 months. Secondary end points included clinical and nonvertebral fractures.

Details of the study

At 12 months, new vertebral fractures had occurred in 16 of 3,321 women (0.5%) in the romosozumab group, as compared with 59 of 3,322 (1.8%) in the placebo group (representing a 73% lower risk of fracture with romosozumab; P<.001). Clinical fractures had occurred in 58 of 3,589 women (1.6%) in the romosozumab group, as compared with 90 of 3,591 (2.5%) in the placebo group (a 36% lower fracture risk with romosozumab;  P = .008). Nonvertebral fractures had occurred in 56 of 3,589 women (1.6%) in the romosozumab group and in 75 of 3,591 (2.1%) in the placebo group (P = .10).

At 24 months, the rates of vertebral fractures were significantly lower in the romosozumab group than in the placebo group after each group made the transition to denosumab (0.6% [21 of 3,325 women] in the romosozumab group vs 2.5% [84 of 3,327 women] in the placebo group, a 75% lower risk with romosozumab; P<.001). Adverse events, including cardiovascular events, osteoarthritis, and cancer, appeared to be balanced between the groups. One atypical femoral fracture and 2 cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw were observed in the romosozumab group.

Lower risk of fracture

Thus, in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, romosozumab was associated with a lower risk of vertebral fracture than placebo at 12 months and, after the transition to denosumab, at 24 months. The lower risk of clinical fracture that was seen with romosozumab was evident at 1 year.

Of note, the effect of romosozumab on the risk of vertebral fracture was rapid, with only 2 additional vertebral fractures (of a total of 16 such fractures in the romosozumab group) occurring in the second 6 months of the first year of therapy. Because vertebral and clinical fractures are associated with increased morbidity and considerable  health care costs, a treatment that would reduce this risk rapidly could offer appropriate patients an important benefit.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Prioritize bone health, as osteoporotic fracture is a major source of morbidity and mortality among women. In this article: fracture risk with OC use in perimenopause, data that inform calcium’s role in cardiovascular disease, sarcopenia management, and an emerging treatment.

Most women’s health care providers are aware of recent changes and controversies regarding cervical cancer screening, mammography frequency, and whether a pelvic bimanual exam should be part of our annual well woman evaluation.¹ However, I believe one of the most important things we as clinicians can do is be frontline in promoting bone health. Osteoporotic fracture is a major source of morbidity and mortality.^2,3 Thus, promoting the maintenance of bone health is a priority in my own practice. It is also one of my many academic interests.

What follows is an update on bone health. In past years, this update has been entitled, “Update on osteoporosis,” but what we are trying to accomplish is fracture reduction. Thus, priorities for bone health consist of recognition of risk, lifestyle and dietary counseling, as well as the use of pharmacologic agents when appropriate. Certain research stands out as informative for your practice:

• a recent study on the risk of fracture with oral contraceptive (OC) use in perimenopause
• 3 just-published studies that inform our understanding of calcium’s role in cardiovascular health
• a review on sarcopenia management
• new data on romosozumab.

Oral contraceptive use in perimenopause

Scholes D, LaCroix AZ, Hubbard RA, et al. Oral contraceptive use and fracture risk around the menopausal transition. Menopause. 2016;23(2):166-174.

The use of OCs in women of older reproductive age has increased ever since the cutoff age of 35 years was eliminated.⁴ Lower doses have continued to be utilized in these "older" women with excellent control of irregular bleeding due to ovulatory dysfunction (and reduction in psychosocial symptoms as well).⁵

The effect of OC use on risk of fracture remains unclear, and use during later reproductive life may be increasing. To determine the association between OC use during later reproductive life and risk of fracture across the menopausal transition, Scholes and colleagues conducted a population-based case-controlled study in a Pacific Northwest HMO, Group Health Cooperative.

Details of the study

Scholes and colleagues enrolled 1,204 case women aged 45 to 59 years with incident fractures, and 2,275 control women. Potential cases with fracture codes in automated data were adjudicated by electronic health record review. Potential control women without fracture codes were selected concurrently, sampling based on age. Participants received a structured study interview. Using logistic regression, associations between OC use and fracture risk were calculated as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Participation was 69% for cases and 64% for controls. The study sample was 82% white; mean age was 54 years. The most common fracture site for cases was the wrist/forearm (32%). Adjusted fracture risk did not differ between cases and controls for OC use:

• in the 10 years before menopause (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74-1.11)
• after age 38 years (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78-1.14)
• over the duration, or
• for other OC exposures.

Related article:
2016 Update on female sexual dysfunction

Association between fractures and OC use near menopause

The current study does not show an association between fractures near the menopausal transition and OC use in the decade before menopause or after age 38 years. For women considering OC use at these times, fracture risk does not seem to be either reduced or increased.

These results, looking at fracture, seem to be further supported by trials conducted by Gambacciani and colleagues,6 in which researchers randomly assigned irregularly cycling perimenopausal women (aged 40-49 years) to 20 &#956;g ethinyl estradiol OCs or calcium/placebo. Results showed that this low-dose OC use significantly increased bone density at the femoral neck, spine, and other sites relative to control women after 24 months. 

In the current Scholes study, the use of OCs in the decade before menopause or after age 38 did not reduce fracture risk in the years around the time of menopause. It is reassuring that their use was not associated with any increased fracture risk.

Calcium and calcium supplements: The data continue to grow

Anderson JJ, Kruszka B, Delaney JA, et al. Calcium intake from diet and supplements and the risk of coronary artery calcification and its progression among older adults: 10-year follow-up of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) [published online ahead of print October 11, 2016]. J Am Heart Assoc. pii: e003815.

Billington EO, Bristow SM, Gamble GD, et al. Acute effects of calcium supplements on blood pressure: randomised, crossover trial in postmenopausal women [published online ahead of print August 20, 2016]. Osteoporos Int. doi:10.1007/s00198-016-3744-y.

Crandall CJ, Aragaki AK, LeBoff MS, et al. Calcium plus vitamin D supplementation and height loss: findings from the Women's Health Initiative Calcium and Vitamin D clinical trial [published online ahead of print August 1, 2016]. Menopause. doi:10.1097 /GME.0000000000000704.

In 2001, a National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Development Panel on osteoporosis concluded that calcium intake is crucial to maintain bone mass and should be maintained at 1,000-1,500 mg/day in older adults. The panel acknowledged that the majority of older adults did not meet the recommended intake from dietary sources alone, and therefore would require calcium supplementation. Calcium supplements are one of the most commonly used dietary supplements, and population-based surveys have shown that they are used by the majority of older men and women in the United States.⁷ 

More recently results from large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of calcium supplements have been reported, leading to concerns about calcium efficacy for fracture risk and safety. Bolland and colleagues⁸ reported that calcium supplements increased the rate of cardiovascular events in healthy older women and suggested that their role in osteoporosis management be reconsidered. More recently, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended against calcium supplements for the primary prevention of fractures in noninstitutionalized postmenopausal women.⁹ 

The association between calcium intake and CVD events

Anderson and colleagues acknowledged that recent randomized data suggest that calcium supplements may be associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. Using a longitudinal cohort study, they assessed the association between calcium intake, from both foods and supplements, and atherosclerosis, as measured by coronary artery calcification (CAC).

Details of the study by Anderson and colleagues
The authors studied 5,448 adults free of clinically diagnosed CVD (52% female; age range, 45-84 years) from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Baseline total calcium intake was assessed from diet (using a food frequency questionnaire) and calcium supplements (by a medication inventory) and categorized into quintiles based on overall population distribution. Baseline CAC was measured by computed tomography (CT) scan, and CAC measurements were repeated in 2,742 participants approximately 10 years later. Women had higher calcium intakes than men. 

After adjustment for potential confounders, among 1,567 participants without baseline CAC, the relative risk (RR) of developing incident CAC over 10 years, by quintile 1 to 5 of calcium intake is included in the TABLE. After accounting for total calcium intake, calcium supplement use was associated with increased risk for incident CAC (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.07-1.39). No relation was found between baseline calcium intake and 10-year changes in CAC among those participants with baseline CAC less than zero.

They concluded that high total calcium intake was associated with a decreased risk of incident atherosclerosis over long-term follow-up, particularly if achieved without supplement use. However, calcium supplement use may increase the risk for incident CAC.

Related article:
Does the discontinuation of menopausal hormone therapy affect a woman’s cardiovascular risk?

Calcium supplements and blood pressure

Billington and colleagues acknowledged that calcium supplements appear to increase cardiovascular risk but that the mechanism is unknown. They had previously reported that blood pressure declines over the course of the day in older women.¹⁰

Details of the study by Billington and colleagues
In this new study the investigators examined the acute effects of calcium supplements on blood pressure in a randomized controlled crossover trial in 40 healthy postmenopausal women (mean age, 71 years; body mass index [BMI], 27.2 kg/m²). Women attended on 2 occasions, with visits separated by 7 or more days. At each visit, they received either 1 g of calcium as citrate or placebo. Blood pressure and serum calcium concentrations were measured immediately before and 2, 4, and 6 hours after each intervention.

Ionized and total calcium concentrations increased after calcium (P<.0001 vs placebo). Systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurements decreased after both calcium and placebo but significantly less so after calcium (P=.02). The reduction in SBP from baseline was smaller after calcium compared with placebo by 6 mm Hg at 4 hours (P=.036) and by 9 mm Hg at 6 hours (P=.002). The reduction in diastolic blood pressure was similar after calcium and placebo.

These findings indicate that the use of calcium supplements in postmenopausal women attenuates the postbreakfast reduction in SBP by 6 to 9 mm Hg. Whether these changes in blood pressure influence cardiovascular risk requires further study.

Association between calcium, vitamin D, and height loss

Crandall and colleagues looked at the association between calcium and vitamin D supplementation and height loss in 36,282 participants of the Women's Health Initiative Calcium and Vitamin D trial.

Details of the study by Crandall and colleagues

The authors performed a post hoc analysis of data from a double-blind randomized controlled trial of 1,000 mg of elemental calcium as calcium carbonate with 400 IU of vitamin D3 daily (CaD) or placebo in postmenopausal women at 40 US clinical centers. Height was measured annually (mean follow-up, 5.9 years) with a stadiometer.

Average height loss was 1.28 mm/yr among participants assigned to CaD, versus 1.26 mm/yr for women assigned to placebo (P=.35). A strong association (P<.001) was observed between age group and height loss. The study authors concluded that, compared with placebo, calcium and vitamin D supplementation used in this trial did not prevent height loss in healthy postmenopausal women.

Sarcopenia:  Still important, clinical approaches to easily detect it

Beaudart C, McCloskey E, Bruyére O, et al. Sarcopenia in daily practice:  assessment and management. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16(1):170.

In last year's update, I reviewed the article by He and colleagues¹¹ on the relationship between sarcopenia and body composition with osteoporosis. Sarcopenia, which is the age-related loss of muscle mass and strength, is important to address in patients. Body composition and muscle strength are directly correlated with bone density, and this is not surprising since bone and muscle share some common hormonal, genetic, nutritional, and lifestyle determinants.^12,13 Sarcopenia can be diagnosed via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan looking at lean muscle mass.

The term sarcopenia was first coined by Rosenberg and colleagues in 1989¹⁴ as a progressive loss of skeletal muscle mass with advancing age. Since then, the definition has expanded to incorporate the notion of impaired muscle strength or physical performance. Sarcopenia is associated with morbidity and mortality from linked physical disability, falls, fractures, poor quality of life, depression, and hospitalization.¹⁵

Current research is focusing on nutritional exercise/activity-based and other novel interventions for improving the quality and quantity of skeletal muscle in older people. Some studies demonstrated that resistance training combined with nutritional supplements can improve muscle function.¹⁶

Details of the study

Beaudart and colleagues propose some user-friendly and inexpensive methods that can be utilized to assess sarcopenia in real life settings. They acknowledge that in research settings or even specialist clinical settings, DXA or computed tomography (CT) scans are the best assessment of muscle mass.

Anthropometric measurements. In a primary care setting, anthropometric measurement, especially calf circumference and mid-upper arm muscle circumference, correlate with overall muscle mass and reflect both health and nutritional status and predict performance, health, and survival in older people.

However, with advancing age, changes in the distribution of fat and loss of skin elasticity are such that circumference incurs a loss of accuracy and precision in older people. Some studies suggest that an adjustment of anthropometric measurements for age, sex, or BMI results in a better correlation with DXA-measured lean mass.¹⁷ Anthropometric measurements are simple clinical prediction tools that can be easily applied for sarcopenia since they offer the most portable, commonly applicable, inexpensive, and noninvasive technique for assessing size, proportions, and composition of the human body. However, their validity is limited when applied to individuals because cutoff points to identify low muscle mass still need to be defined. Still, serial measurements in a patient over time may be valuable.

Related article:
2014 Update on osteoporosis

Handgrip strength, as measured with a dynamometer, appears to be the most widely used method for the measurement of muscle strength. In general, isometric handgrip strength shows a good correlation with leg strength and also with lower extremity power, and calf cross-sectional muscle area. The measurement is easy to perform, inexpensive and does not require a specialist-trained staff.

Standardized conditions for the test include seating the patient in a standard chair with her forearms resting flat on the chair arms. Clinicians should demonstrate the use of the dynamometer and show that gripping very tightly registers the best score. Six measurements should be taken, 3 with each arm. Ideally, patients should be encouraged to squeeze as hard and tightly as possible during 3 to 5 seconds for each of the 6 trials; usually the highest reading of the 6 measurements is reported as the final result. The Jamar dynamometer, or similar hydraulic dynamometer, is the gold standard for this measurement.

Gait speed measurement. The most widely used tool in clinical practice for the assessment of physical performance is the gait speed measurement. The test is highly acceptable for participants and health professionals in clinical settings. No special equipment is required; it needs only a flat floor devoid of obstacles. In the 4-meter gait speed test, men and women with a gait speed of less than 0.8 meters/sec are described as having a poor physical performance. The average extra time added to the consultation by measuring the 4-meter gait speed was only 95 seconds (SD, 20 seconds).

Romosozumab: An interesting new agent to look forward to

Cosman F, Crittenden DB, Adachi JD, et al. Romosozumab treatment in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(16):1532-1543.

Romosozumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds sclerostin, increasing bone formation and decreasing bone resorption. Cosman and colleagues enrolled 7,180 postmenopausal women with a T score of -2.5 to -3.5 at the total hip or femoral neck. Participants were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous injections of romosozumab 210 mg or placebo monthly for 12 months. Thereafter, women in each group received subcutaneous denosumab 60 mg for 12 months--administered every 6 months. The coprimary end points were the cumulative incidences of new vertebral fractures at 12 and 24 months. Secondary end points included clinical and nonvertebral fractures.

Details of the study

At 12 months, new vertebral fractures had occurred in 16 of 3,321 women (0.5%) in the romosozumab group, as compared with 59 of 3,322 (1.8%) in the placebo group (representing a 73% lower risk of fracture with romosozumab; P<.001). Clinical fractures had occurred in 58 of 3,589 women (1.6%) in the romosozumab group, as compared with 90 of 3,591 (2.5%) in the placebo group (a 36% lower fracture risk with romosozumab;  P = .008). Nonvertebral fractures had occurred in 56 of 3,589 women (1.6%) in the romosozumab group and in 75 of 3,591 (2.1%) in the placebo group (P = .10).

At 24 months, the rates of vertebral fractures were significantly lower in the romosozumab group than in the placebo group after each group made the transition to denosumab (0.6% [21 of 3,325 women] in the romosozumab group vs 2.5% [84 of 3,327 women] in the placebo group, a 75% lower risk with romosozumab; P<.001). Adverse events, including cardiovascular events, osteoarthritis, and cancer, appeared to be balanced between the groups. One atypical femoral fracture and 2 cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw were observed in the romosozumab group.

Lower risk of fracture

Thus, in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, romosozumab was associated with a lower risk of vertebral fracture than placebo at 12 months and, after the transition to denosumab, at 24 months. The lower risk of clinical fracture that was seen with romosozumab was evident at 1 year.

Of note, the effect of romosozumab on the risk of vertebral fracture was rapid, with only 2 additional vertebral fractures (of a total of 16 such fractures in the romosozumab group) occurring in the second 6 months of the first year of therapy. Because vertebral and clinical fractures are associated with increased morbidity and considerable  health care costs, a treatment that would reduce this risk rapidly could offer appropriate patients an important benefit.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Prioritize bone health, as osteoporotic fracture is a major source of morbidity and mortality among women. In this article: fracture risk with OC use in perimenopause, data that inform calcium’s role in cardiovascular disease, sarcopenia management, and an emerging treatment.

Most women’s health care providers are aware of recent changes and controversies regarding cervical cancer screening, mammography frequency, and whether a pelvic bimanual exam should be part of our annual well woman evaluation.¹ However, I believe one of the most important things we as clinicians can do is be frontline in promoting bone health. Osteoporotic fracture is a major source of morbidity and mortality.^2,3 Thus, promoting the maintenance of bone health is a priority in my own practice. It is also one of my many academic interests.

What follows is an update on bone health. In past years, this update has been entitled, “Update on osteoporosis,” but what we are trying to accomplish is fracture reduction. Thus, priorities for bone health consist of recognition of risk, lifestyle and dietary counseling, as well as the use of pharmacologic agents when appropriate. Certain research stands out as informative for your practice:

• a recent study on the risk of fracture with oral contraceptive (OC) use in perimenopause
• 3 just-published studies that inform our understanding of calcium’s role in cardiovascular health
• a review on sarcopenia management
• new data on romosozumab.

Oral contraceptive use in perimenopause

Scholes D, LaCroix AZ, Hubbard RA, et al. Oral contraceptive use and fracture risk around the menopausal transition. Menopause. 2016;23(2):166-174.

The use of OCs in women of older reproductive age has increased ever since the cutoff age of 35 years was eliminated.⁴ Lower doses have continued to be utilized in these "older" women with excellent control of irregular bleeding due to ovulatory dysfunction (and reduction in psychosocial symptoms as well).⁵

The effect of OC use on risk of fracture remains unclear, and use during later reproductive life may be increasing. To determine the association between OC use during later reproductive life and risk of fracture across the menopausal transition, Scholes and colleagues conducted a population-based case-controlled study in a Pacific Northwest HMO, Group Health Cooperative.

Details of the study

Scholes and colleagues enrolled 1,204 case women aged 45 to 59 years with incident fractures, and 2,275 control women. Potential cases with fracture codes in automated data were adjudicated by electronic health record review. Potential control women without fracture codes were selected concurrently, sampling based on age. Participants received a structured study interview. Using logistic regression, associations between OC use and fracture risk were calculated as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Participation was 69% for cases and 64% for controls. The study sample was 82% white; mean age was 54 years. The most common fracture site for cases was the wrist/forearm (32%). Adjusted fracture risk did not differ between cases and controls for OC use:

• in the 10 years before menopause (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74-1.11)
• after age 38 years (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78-1.14)
• over the duration, or
• for other OC exposures.

Related article:
2016 Update on female sexual dysfunction

Association between fractures and OC use near menopause

The current study does not show an association between fractures near the menopausal transition and OC use in the decade before menopause or after age 38 years. For women considering OC use at these times, fracture risk does not seem to be either reduced or increased.

These results, looking at fracture, seem to be further supported by trials conducted by Gambacciani and colleagues,6 in which researchers randomly assigned irregularly cycling perimenopausal women (aged 40-49 years) to 20 &#956;g ethinyl estradiol OCs or calcium/placebo. Results showed that this low-dose OC use significantly increased bone density at the femoral neck, spine, and other sites relative to control women after 24 months. 

In the current Scholes study, the use of OCs in the decade before menopause or after age 38 did not reduce fracture risk in the years around the time of menopause. It is reassuring that their use was not associated with any increased fracture risk.

Calcium and calcium supplements: The data continue to grow

Anderson JJ, Kruszka B, Delaney JA, et al. Calcium intake from diet and supplements and the risk of coronary artery calcification and its progression among older adults: 10-year follow-up of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) [published online ahead of print October 11, 2016]. J Am Heart Assoc. pii: e003815.

Billington EO, Bristow SM, Gamble GD, et al. Acute effects of calcium supplements on blood pressure: randomised, crossover trial in postmenopausal women [published online ahead of print August 20, 2016]. Osteoporos Int. doi:10.1007/s00198-016-3744-y.

Crandall CJ, Aragaki AK, LeBoff MS, et al. Calcium plus vitamin D supplementation and height loss: findings from the Women's Health Initiative Calcium and Vitamin D clinical trial [published online ahead of print August 1, 2016]. Menopause. doi:10.1097 /GME.0000000000000704.

In 2001, a National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Development Panel on osteoporosis concluded that calcium intake is crucial to maintain bone mass and should be maintained at 1,000-1,500 mg/day in older adults. The panel acknowledged that the majority of older adults did not meet the recommended intake from dietary sources alone, and therefore would require calcium supplementation. Calcium supplements are one of the most commonly used dietary supplements, and population-based surveys have shown that they are used by the majority of older men and women in the United States.⁷ 

More recently results from large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of calcium supplements have been reported, leading to concerns about calcium efficacy for fracture risk and safety. Bolland and colleagues⁸ reported that calcium supplements increased the rate of cardiovascular events in healthy older women and suggested that their role in osteoporosis management be reconsidered. More recently, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended against calcium supplements for the primary prevention of fractures in noninstitutionalized postmenopausal women.⁹ 

The association between calcium intake and CVD events

Anderson and colleagues acknowledged that recent randomized data suggest that calcium supplements may be associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. Using a longitudinal cohort study, they assessed the association between calcium intake, from both foods and supplements, and atherosclerosis, as measured by coronary artery calcification (CAC).

Details of the study by Anderson and colleagues
The authors studied 5,448 adults free of clinically diagnosed CVD (52% female; age range, 45-84 years) from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Baseline total calcium intake was assessed from diet (using a food frequency questionnaire) and calcium supplements (by a medication inventory) and categorized into quintiles based on overall population distribution. Baseline CAC was measured by computed tomography (CT) scan, and CAC measurements were repeated in 2,742 participants approximately 10 years later. Women had higher calcium intakes than men. 

After adjustment for potential confounders, among 1,567 participants without baseline CAC, the relative risk (RR) of developing incident CAC over 10 years, by quintile 1 to 5 of calcium intake is included in the TABLE. After accounting for total calcium intake, calcium supplement use was associated with increased risk for incident CAC (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.07-1.39). No relation was found between baseline calcium intake and 10-year changes in CAC among those participants with baseline CAC less than zero.

They concluded that high total calcium intake was associated with a decreased risk of incident atherosclerosis over long-term follow-up, particularly if achieved without supplement use. However, calcium supplement use may increase the risk for incident CAC.

Related article:
Does the discontinuation of menopausal hormone therapy affect a woman’s cardiovascular risk?

Calcium supplements and blood pressure

Billington and colleagues acknowledged that calcium supplements appear to increase cardiovascular risk but that the mechanism is unknown. They had previously reported that blood pressure declines over the course of the day in older women.¹⁰

Details of the study by Billington and colleagues
In this new study the investigators examined the acute effects of calcium supplements on blood pressure in a randomized controlled crossover trial in 40 healthy postmenopausal women (mean age, 71 years; body mass index [BMI], 27.2 kg/m²). Women attended on 2 occasions, with visits separated by 7 or more days. At each visit, they received either 1 g of calcium as citrate or placebo. Blood pressure and serum calcium concentrations were measured immediately before and 2, 4, and 6 hours after each intervention.

Ionized and total calcium concentrations increased after calcium (P<.0001 vs placebo). Systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurements decreased after both calcium and placebo but significantly less so after calcium (P=.02). The reduction in SBP from baseline was smaller after calcium compared with placebo by 6 mm Hg at 4 hours (P=.036) and by 9 mm Hg at 6 hours (P=.002). The reduction in diastolic blood pressure was similar after calcium and placebo.

These findings indicate that the use of calcium supplements in postmenopausal women attenuates the postbreakfast reduction in SBP by 6 to 9 mm Hg. Whether these changes in blood pressure influence cardiovascular risk requires further study.

Association between calcium, vitamin D, and height loss

Crandall and colleagues looked at the association between calcium and vitamin D supplementation and height loss in 36,282 participants of the Women's Health Initiative Calcium and Vitamin D trial.

Details of the study by Crandall and colleagues

The authors performed a post hoc analysis of data from a double-blind randomized controlled trial of 1,000 mg of elemental calcium as calcium carbonate with 400 IU of vitamin D3 daily (CaD) or placebo in postmenopausal women at 40 US clinical centers. Height was measured annually (mean follow-up, 5.9 years) with a stadiometer.

Average height loss was 1.28 mm/yr among participants assigned to CaD, versus 1.26 mm/yr for women assigned to placebo (P=.35). A strong association (P<.001) was observed between age group and height loss. The study authors concluded that, compared with placebo, calcium and vitamin D supplementation used in this trial did not prevent height loss in healthy postmenopausal women.

Sarcopenia:  Still important, clinical approaches to easily detect it

Beaudart C, McCloskey E, Bruyére O, et al. Sarcopenia in daily practice:  assessment and management. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16(1):170.

In last year's update, I reviewed the article by He and colleagues¹¹ on the relationship between sarcopenia and body composition with osteoporosis. Sarcopenia, which is the age-related loss of muscle mass and strength, is important to address in patients. Body composition and muscle strength are directly correlated with bone density, and this is not surprising since bone and muscle share some common hormonal, genetic, nutritional, and lifestyle determinants.^12,13 Sarcopenia can be diagnosed via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan looking at lean muscle mass.

The term sarcopenia was first coined by Rosenberg and colleagues in 1989¹⁴ as a progressive loss of skeletal muscle mass with advancing age. Since then, the definition has expanded to incorporate the notion of impaired muscle strength or physical performance. Sarcopenia is associated with morbidity and mortality from linked physical disability, falls, fractures, poor quality of life, depression, and hospitalization.¹⁵

Current research is focusing on nutritional exercise/activity-based and other novel interventions for improving the quality and quantity of skeletal muscle in older people. Some studies demonstrated that resistance training combined with nutritional supplements can improve muscle function.¹⁶

Details of the study

Beaudart and colleagues propose some user-friendly and inexpensive methods that can be utilized to assess sarcopenia in real life settings. They acknowledge that in research settings or even specialist clinical settings, DXA or computed tomography (CT) scans are the best assessment of muscle mass.

Anthropometric measurements. In a primary care setting, anthropometric measurement, especially calf circumference and mid-upper arm muscle circumference, correlate with overall muscle mass and reflect both health and nutritional status and predict performance, health, and survival in older people.

However, with advancing age, changes in the distribution of fat and loss of skin elasticity are such that circumference incurs a loss of accuracy and precision in older people. Some studies suggest that an adjustment of anthropometric measurements for age, sex, or BMI results in a better correlation with DXA-measured lean mass.¹⁷ Anthropometric measurements are simple clinical prediction tools that can be easily applied for sarcopenia since they offer the most portable, commonly applicable, inexpensive, and noninvasive technique for assessing size, proportions, and composition of the human body. However, their validity is limited when applied to individuals because cutoff points to identify low muscle mass still need to be defined. Still, serial measurements in a patient over time may be valuable.

Related article:
2014 Update on osteoporosis

Handgrip strength, as measured with a dynamometer, appears to be the most widely used method for the measurement of muscle strength. In general, isometric handgrip strength shows a good correlation with leg strength and also with lower extremity power, and calf cross-sectional muscle area. The measurement is easy to perform, inexpensive and does not require a specialist-trained staff.

Standardized conditions for the test include seating the patient in a standard chair with her forearms resting flat on the chair arms. Clinicians should demonstrate the use of the dynamometer and show that gripping very tightly registers the best score. Six measurements should be taken, 3 with each arm. Ideally, patients should be encouraged to squeeze as hard and tightly as possible during 3 to 5 seconds for each of the 6 trials; usually the highest reading of the 6 measurements is reported as the final result. The Jamar dynamometer, or similar hydraulic dynamometer, is the gold standard for this measurement.

Gait speed measurement. The most widely used tool in clinical practice for the assessment of physical performance is the gait speed measurement. The test is highly acceptable for participants and health professionals in clinical settings. No special equipment is required; it needs only a flat floor devoid of obstacles. In the 4-meter gait speed test, men and women with a gait speed of less than 0.8 meters/sec are described as having a poor physical performance. The average extra time added to the consultation by measuring the 4-meter gait speed was only 95 seconds (SD, 20 seconds).

Romosozumab: An interesting new agent to look forward to

Cosman F, Crittenden DB, Adachi JD, et al. Romosozumab treatment in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(16):1532-1543.

Romosozumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds sclerostin, increasing bone formation and decreasing bone resorption. Cosman and colleagues enrolled 7,180 postmenopausal women with a T score of -2.5 to -3.5 at the total hip or femoral neck. Participants were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous injections of romosozumab 210 mg or placebo monthly for 12 months. Thereafter, women in each group received subcutaneous denosumab 60 mg for 12 months--administered every 6 months. The coprimary end points were the cumulative incidences of new vertebral fractures at 12 and 24 months. Secondary end points included clinical and nonvertebral fractures.

Details of the study

At 12 months, new vertebral fractures had occurred in 16 of 3,321 women (0.5%) in the romosozumab group, as compared with 59 of 3,322 (1.8%) in the placebo group (representing a 73% lower risk of fracture with romosozumab; P<.001). Clinical fractures had occurred in 58 of 3,589 women (1.6%) in the romosozumab group, as compared with 90 of 3,591 (2.5%) in the placebo group (a 36% lower fracture risk with romosozumab;  P = .008). Nonvertebral fractures had occurred in 56 of 3,589 women (1.6%) in the romosozumab group and in 75 of 3,591 (2.1%) in the placebo group (P = .10).

At 24 months, the rates of vertebral fractures were significantly lower in the romosozumab group than in the placebo group after each group made the transition to denosumab (0.6% [21 of 3,325 women] in the romosozumab group vs 2.5% [84 of 3,327 women] in the placebo group, a 75% lower risk with romosozumab; P<.001). Adverse events, including cardiovascular events, osteoarthritis, and cancer, appeared to be balanced between the groups. One atypical femoral fracture and 2 cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw were observed in the romosozumab group.

Lower risk of fracture

Thus, in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, romosozumab was associated with a lower risk of vertebral fracture than placebo at 12 months and, after the transition to denosumab, at 24 months. The lower risk of clinical fracture that was seen with romosozumab was evident at 1 year.

Of note, the effect of romosozumab on the risk of vertebral fracture was rapid, with only 2 additional vertebral fractures (of a total of 16 such fractures in the romosozumab group) occurring in the second 6 months of the first year of therapy. Because vertebral and clinical fractures are associated with increased morbidity and considerable  health care costs, a treatment that would reduce this risk rapidly could offer appropriate patients an important benefit.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

In part 1 of our review on preventing postcesarean infection, we critically evaluated methods of skin preparation and administration of prophylactic antibiotics. In part 2, we address preoperative cleansing of the vagina with an antiseptic solution, preoperative bathing with an antiseptic solution, methods of placental extraction, closure of the deep subcutaneous layer of the abdomen, and closure of the skin.

Related article:
Preventing infection after cesarean delivery: Evidence-based guidance

CASE: Should vaginal cleansing be performed prior to cesarean delivery?

An 18-year-old primigravid woman at 41 weeks’ gestation has been in labor for 16 hours, and now has an arrest of descent at 0 station. An intrauterine pressure catheter and scalp electrode have been in place for the same length of time. The patient has had 9 internal examinations during the period of membrane rupture. As you are preparing to scrub the patient’s abdomen, the third-year medical student asks, “When I was on the Gynecology Service, I saw the doctors wash the vagina with an antiseptic solution before they performed a vaginal hysterectomy. Should we also do that before we operate on this patient?”

Preoperative vaginal cleansing

A preoperative antiseptic vaginal scrub is often used as an additional step to help reduce postcesarean infection.

Does cleansing the vagina with povidone-iodine before surgery further reduce the risk of endometritis and wound infection?

Multiple studies have sought to determine if cleansing the vagina with an antiseptic solution further reduces the incidence of postcesarean infection beyond what can be achieved with systemic antibiotic prophylaxis. These studies typically have focused on 3 specific outcomes: endometritis, wound (surgical site) infection, and febrile morbidity. The term febrile morbidity is defined as a temperature ≥100.4°F (38°C) on any 2 postoperative days excluding the first 24 hours. However, many patients who meet the standard definition of febrile morbidity may not have a proven infection and will not require treatment with antibiotics. The more precise measures of outcome are distinctly symptomatic infections, such as endometritis and wound infection, although, as noted in the review of published studies below, some authors continue to use the term febrile morbidity as one measure of postoperative complications.

In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial (RCT) of 308 women having a nonemergent cesarean delivery, Starr and colleagues reported a decreased incidence of postoperative endometritis in women who received a 30-second vaginal scrub with povidone-iodine compared with women who received only an abdominal scrub (7.0% vs 14.5%, P<.05).¹ The groups did not differ in the frequency of wound infection (0.7% vs 1.2%, P = .4) or febrile morbidity (23.9% vs 28.3%, P = .4).¹

In another RCT, Haas and colleagues found that preoperative vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine compared with an abdominal scrub alone was associated with a decreased incidence of a composite measure of postoperative morbidity (6.5% vs 11.7%; relative risk [RR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26–1.11; P = .11).² The postoperative composite included fever, endometritis, sepsis, readmission, and wound infection.

Subsequently, Asghania and associates conducted a double-blind, nonrandomized study of 568 women having cesarean delivery who received an abdominal scrub plus a 30-second vaginal scrub with povidone-iodine or received an abdominal scrub alone.³ They documented a decreased incidence of postoperative endometritis in the women who received the combined scrub (1.4% vs 2.5%; P = .03, adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.03; 95% CI, 0.008–0.7). The authors observed no significant difference in febrile morbidity (4.9% vs 6.0%; P = .73) or wound infection (3.5% vs 3.2%; P = .5).³

Yildirim and colleagues conducted an RCT comparing rates of infection in 334 women who received an abdominal scrub plus vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine and 336 patients who had only a standard abdominal scrub.⁴ They documented a decreased incidence of endometritis in women who received the vaginal scrub (6.9% vs 11.6%; P = .04; RR for infection in the control group, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.03–2.76.) The authors found no difference in febrile morbidity (16.5% vs 18.2%; P = .61) or wound infection (1.8% vs 2.7%; P = .60). Of note, in excluding from the analysis women who had ruptured membranes or who were in labor, the investigators found no differences in outcome, indicating that the greatest impact of vaginal cleansing was in the highest risk patients.

In 2014, Haas and associates published a Cochrane review evaluating the effectiveness of preoperative vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine.⁵ The authors reviewed 7 studies that analyzed outcomes in 2,635 women. They concluded that vaginal preparation with povidone-iodine at the time of cesarean delivery significantly decreased postoperative endometritis when compared with the control group (4.3% vs 8.3%; RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25–0.81). They also noted that the most profound impact of vaginal cleansing was in women who were in labor before delivery (7.4% vs 13.0%; RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.34–0.95) and in women with ruptured membranes at the time of delivery (4.3% vs 17.9%; RR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10–0.55). The authors did not find a significant difference in postoperative wound infection or frequency of fever in women who received the vaginal scrub.

Related article:
STOP using instruments to assist with delivery of the head at cesarean

A notable exception to the beneficial outcomes reported above was the study by Reid et al.⁶ These authors randomly assigned 247 women having cesarean delivery to an abdominal scrub plus vaginal scrub with povidone-iodine and assigned 251 women to only an abdominal scrub. The authors were unable to document any significant difference between the groups with respect to frequency of fever, endometritis, and wound infection.

Other methods of vaginal preparation also have been studied. For example, Pitt and colleagues conducted a double-blind RCT of 224 women having cesarean delivery and compared preoperative metronidazole vaginal gel with placebo.⁷ Most of the patients in this trial also received systemic antibiotic prophylaxis after the umbilical cord was clamped. The authors demonstrated a decreased incidence of postcesarean endometritis in women who received the intravaginal antibiotic gel (7% vs 17%; RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19–0.92). There was no difference in febrile morbidity (13% vs 19%; P = .28) or wound infection (4% vs 3%, P = .50).

What the evidence says

Consider vaginal preparation with povidone-iodine at the time of cesarean delivery to reduce the risk of postpartum endometritis. Do not expect this intervention to significantly reduce the frequency of wound infection. Vaginal cleansing is of most benefit to women who have ruptured membranes or are in labor at the time of delivery (Level I Evidence, Level A Recommendation; TABLE). Whether vaginal preparation with chlorhexidine with 4% alcohol would have the same beneficial effect has not been studied in a systematic manner.

Placenta extraction, closure techniques

Evidence suggests that employing certain intraoperative approaches helps reduce the incidence of postcesarean infection.

What other measures help prevent infection following cesarean surgery?

One other measure known to decrease the risk of postcesarean endometritis is removing the placenta by exerting traction on the umbilical cord rather than extracting it manually. In one of the first descriptions of this intervention, Lasley and associates showed that, in high-risk patients who also received intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis after cord clamping, the rate of postoperative endometritis was 15% in the group that had spontaneous delivery of the placenta compared with 27% in women who had manual extraction (RR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.3–0.9; P = .02).⁸ A recent Cochrane review that included multiple subsequent reports confirmed this observation (Level I Evidence, Level A Recommendation; TABLE, page 2).⁹

Abdominal wall closure. Two other interventions are valuable in decreasing the frequency of deep and superficial wound infection. In patients whose subcutaneous layer is >2 cm thick, closure of the deep subcutaneous tissue significantly reduces the risk of wound seroma, hematoma, and infection.¹⁰ In addition, closure of the skin edges with a subcuticular suture, as opposed to surgical staples, significantly reduces the frequency of superficial wound complications (Level I Evidence, Level A Recommendation; TABLE, page 2).¹¹ Poliglecaprone 25, polyglactin 910, and polyglycolic acid suture, 3-0 or 4-0 gauge, are excellent suture choices for this closure.

Related article:
Does one particular cesarean technique confer better maternal and neonatal outcomes?

CASE
Planned cesarean delivery: Is preoperative antiseptic bathing warranted?

A 33-year-old woman (G2P1001) at 39 weeks’ gestation is scheduled for a repeat low transverse cesarean delivery. In addition to planning to implement the measures discussed above, her clinician is considering whether to recommend that the patient bathe with an antiseptic solution, such as chlorhexidine, the day before the procedure.

Preoperative antiseptic bathing

The concept of bathing with an antiseptic solution before surgery to prevent surgical site infections (SSIs) has been considered for many years. Intuitively, if the body’s resident and transient skin flora are decreased preoperatively with whole-body antiseptic washing, then the overall pathogen burden should be decreased and the risk of SSI also should be reduced. Historically, chlorhexidine preparations have been used as preoperative antiseptic solutions because they are so effective in reducing colony counts of skin flora, especially staphylococci.¹² Although preoperative antiseptic washing definitely reduces the concentration of skin bacteria, the data regarding reduction in SSI are inconsistent. Of particular note, there are no studies investigating the impact of preoperative antiseptic bathing in women having cesarean delivery.

Does preop bathing with an antiseptic reduce infection risk?

One of the first studies evaluating preoperative antiseptic washing was published by Cruse and Foord in 1980.¹³ In this 10-year prospective investigation, the authors demonstrated that patients who underwent preoperative washing with a hexachlorophene solution had fewer SSIs compared with those who washed with a nonmedicated soap and those who did not wash at all. Subsequent studies by Brady et al in 1990,¹⁴ Wilcox et al in 2003,¹⁵ and Colling et al in 2015¹⁶ all showed a decrease in the rate of SSIs with preoperative antiseptic washing, and the authors strongly supported this intervention. However, care must be taken when interpreting the results of these cohort investigations because in some cases antiseptic washing was not the only preoperative intervention. Thus, it is difficult to ascertain the true benefit of antiseptic washing alone.^14,15 Moreover, in one study, preoperative antiseptic washing did not decrease the overall incidence of SSIs, just those caused by Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA).¹⁶

Authors of 3 recent reviews have assessed the relationship between preoperative antiseptic washing and SSIs. Webster and Osborne analyzed 7 RCTs in a Cochrane review.¹⁷ All trials used 4% chlorhexidine gluconate as the antiseptic, and they included a total of 10,157 patients. The authors concluded that bathing with chlorhexidine did not significantly reduce SSIs compared with either placebo (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.8–1.04) or bar soap (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.57–1.84). Three additional studies in this review compared chlorhexidine bathing with no washing. One study showed a significant reduction of SSIs after the patients bathed with chlorhexidine (RR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.17–0.79); the other 2 studies demonstrated no significant difference in outcome.

Kamel and colleagues conducted a recent systematic review that included 20 randomized and nonrandomized studies (n = 9,520); while the authors concluded that showering with an antiseptic solution reduced skin flora, they could not confirm that it produced a significant reduction in infection.¹⁸ Finally, in a meta-analysis that included 16 randomized and nonrandomized studies with 17,932 patients, Chlebicki and associates concluded that there was no significant reduction in SSIs with whole-body bathing with chlorhexidine compared with bathing with soap or placebo or with no bathing (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.77–1.05; P = .19).¹⁹ A recent report from the World Health Organization confirmed these observations, although the report did not specifically focus on patients who had had a cesarean delivery.²⁰

What the evidence says

Although chlorhexidine bathing reduces skin flora, especially in the number of staphylococcal species, this effect does not necessarily translate into a reduction of SSIs. Therefore, we recommend against routine chlorhexidine bathing before cesarean delivery, although we acknowledge that there is no apparent harm associated with this practice, assuming that the patient is not allergic to the medicated soap (Level II Evidence, Level C Recommendation; TABLE, page 2).

Did you read Part 1 of this series?

Preventing infection after cesarean delivery: Evidence-based guidance, Part 1

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

In part 1 of our review on preventing postcesarean infection, we critically evaluated methods of skin preparation and administration of prophylactic antibiotics. In part 2, we address preoperative cleansing of the vagina with an antiseptic solution, preoperative bathing with an antiseptic solution, methods of placental extraction, closure of the deep subcutaneous layer of the abdomen, and closure of the skin.

Related article:
Preventing infection after cesarean delivery: Evidence-based guidance

CASE: Should vaginal cleansing be performed prior to cesarean delivery?

An 18-year-old primigravid woman at 41 weeks’ gestation has been in labor for 16 hours, and now has an arrest of descent at 0 station. An intrauterine pressure catheter and scalp electrode have been in place for the same length of time. The patient has had 9 internal examinations during the period of membrane rupture. As you are preparing to scrub the patient’s abdomen, the third-year medical student asks, “When I was on the Gynecology Service, I saw the doctors wash the vagina with an antiseptic solution before they performed a vaginal hysterectomy. Should we also do that before we operate on this patient?”

Preoperative vaginal cleansing

A preoperative antiseptic vaginal scrub is often used as an additional step to help reduce postcesarean infection.

Does cleansing the vagina with povidone-iodine before surgery further reduce the risk of endometritis and wound infection?

Multiple studies have sought to determine if cleansing the vagina with an antiseptic solution further reduces the incidence of postcesarean infection beyond what can be achieved with systemic antibiotic prophylaxis. These studies typically have focused on 3 specific outcomes: endometritis, wound (surgical site) infection, and febrile morbidity. The term febrile morbidity is defined as a temperature ≥100.4°F (38°C) on any 2 postoperative days excluding the first 24 hours. However, many patients who meet the standard definition of febrile morbidity may not have a proven infection and will not require treatment with antibiotics. The more precise measures of outcome are distinctly symptomatic infections, such as endometritis and wound infection, although, as noted in the review of published studies below, some authors continue to use the term febrile morbidity as one measure of postoperative complications.

In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial (RCT) of 308 women having a nonemergent cesarean delivery, Starr and colleagues reported a decreased incidence of postoperative endometritis in women who received a 30-second vaginal scrub with povidone-iodine compared with women who received only an abdominal scrub (7.0% vs 14.5%, P<.05).¹ The groups did not differ in the frequency of wound infection (0.7% vs 1.2%, P = .4) or febrile morbidity (23.9% vs 28.3%, P = .4).¹

In another RCT, Haas and colleagues found that preoperative vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine compared with an abdominal scrub alone was associated with a decreased incidence of a composite measure of postoperative morbidity (6.5% vs 11.7%; relative risk [RR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26–1.11; P = .11).² The postoperative composite included fever, endometritis, sepsis, readmission, and wound infection.

Subsequently, Asghania and associates conducted a double-blind, nonrandomized study of 568 women having cesarean delivery who received an abdominal scrub plus a 30-second vaginal scrub with povidone-iodine or received an abdominal scrub alone.³ They documented a decreased incidence of postoperative endometritis in the women who received the combined scrub (1.4% vs 2.5%; P = .03, adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.03; 95% CI, 0.008–0.7). The authors observed no significant difference in febrile morbidity (4.9% vs 6.0%; P = .73) or wound infection (3.5% vs 3.2%; P = .5).³

Yildirim and colleagues conducted an RCT comparing rates of infection in 334 women who received an abdominal scrub plus vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine and 336 patients who had only a standard abdominal scrub.⁴ They documented a decreased incidence of endometritis in women who received the vaginal scrub (6.9% vs 11.6%; P = .04; RR for infection in the control group, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.03–2.76.) The authors found no difference in febrile morbidity (16.5% vs 18.2%; P = .61) or wound infection (1.8% vs 2.7%; P = .60). Of note, in excluding from the analysis women who had ruptured membranes or who were in labor, the investigators found no differences in outcome, indicating that the greatest impact of vaginal cleansing was in the highest risk patients.

In 2014, Haas and associates published a Cochrane review evaluating the effectiveness of preoperative vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine.⁵ The authors reviewed 7 studies that analyzed outcomes in 2,635 women. They concluded that vaginal preparation with povidone-iodine at the time of cesarean delivery significantly decreased postoperative endometritis when compared with the control group (4.3% vs 8.3%; RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25–0.81). They also noted that the most profound impact of vaginal cleansing was in women who were in labor before delivery (7.4% vs 13.0%; RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.34–0.95) and in women with ruptured membranes at the time of delivery (4.3% vs 17.9%; RR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10–0.55). The authors did not find a significant difference in postoperative wound infection or frequency of fever in women who received the vaginal scrub.

Related article:
STOP using instruments to assist with delivery of the head at cesarean

A notable exception to the beneficial outcomes reported above was the study by Reid et al.⁶ These authors randomly assigned 247 women having cesarean delivery to an abdominal scrub plus vaginal scrub with povidone-iodine and assigned 251 women to only an abdominal scrub. The authors were unable to document any significant difference between the groups with respect to frequency of fever, endometritis, and wound infection.

Other methods of vaginal preparation also have been studied. For example, Pitt and colleagues conducted a double-blind RCT of 224 women having cesarean delivery and compared preoperative metronidazole vaginal gel with placebo.⁷ Most of the patients in this trial also received systemic antibiotic prophylaxis after the umbilical cord was clamped. The authors demonstrated a decreased incidence of postcesarean endometritis in women who received the intravaginal antibiotic gel (7% vs 17%; RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19–0.92). There was no difference in febrile morbidity (13% vs 19%; P = .28) or wound infection (4% vs 3%, P = .50).

What the evidence says

Consider vaginal preparation with povidone-iodine at the time of cesarean delivery to reduce the risk of postpartum endometritis. Do not expect this intervention to significantly reduce the frequency of wound infection. Vaginal cleansing is of most benefit to women who have ruptured membranes or are in labor at the time of delivery (Level I Evidence, Level A Recommendation; TABLE). Whether vaginal preparation with chlorhexidine with 4% alcohol would have the same beneficial effect has not been studied in a systematic manner.

Placenta extraction, closure techniques

Evidence suggests that employing certain intraoperative approaches helps reduce the incidence of postcesarean infection.

What other measures help prevent infection following cesarean surgery?

One other measure known to decrease the risk of postcesarean endometritis is removing the placenta by exerting traction on the umbilical cord rather than extracting it manually. In one of the first descriptions of this intervention, Lasley and associates showed that, in high-risk patients who also received intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis after cord clamping, the rate of postoperative endometritis was 15% in the group that had spontaneous delivery of the placenta compared with 27% in women who had manual extraction (RR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.3–0.9; P = .02).⁸ A recent Cochrane review that included multiple subsequent reports confirmed this observation (Level I Evidence, Level A Recommendation; TABLE, page 2).⁹

Abdominal wall closure. Two other interventions are valuable in decreasing the frequency of deep and superficial wound infection. In patients whose subcutaneous layer is >2 cm thick, closure of the deep subcutaneous tissue significantly reduces the risk of wound seroma, hematoma, and infection.¹⁰ In addition, closure of the skin edges with a subcuticular suture, as opposed to surgical staples, significantly reduces the frequency of superficial wound complications (Level I Evidence, Level A Recommendation; TABLE, page 2).¹¹ Poliglecaprone 25, polyglactin 910, and polyglycolic acid suture, 3-0 or 4-0 gauge, are excellent suture choices for this closure.

Related article:
Does one particular cesarean technique confer better maternal and neonatal outcomes?

CASE
Planned cesarean delivery: Is preoperative antiseptic bathing warranted?

A 33-year-old woman (G2P1001) at 39 weeks’ gestation is scheduled for a repeat low transverse cesarean delivery. In addition to planning to implement the measures discussed above, her clinician is considering whether to recommend that the patient bathe with an antiseptic solution, such as chlorhexidine, the day before the procedure.

Preoperative antiseptic bathing

The concept of bathing with an antiseptic solution before surgery to prevent surgical site infections (SSIs) has been considered for many years. Intuitively, if the body’s resident and transient skin flora are decreased preoperatively with whole-body antiseptic washing, then the overall pathogen burden should be decreased and the risk of SSI also should be reduced. Historically, chlorhexidine preparations have been used as preoperative antiseptic solutions because they are so effective in reducing colony counts of skin flora, especially staphylococci.¹² Although preoperative antiseptic washing definitely reduces the concentration of skin bacteria, the data regarding reduction in SSI are inconsistent. Of particular note, there are no studies investigating the impact of preoperative antiseptic bathing in women having cesarean delivery.

Does preop bathing with an antiseptic reduce infection risk?

One of the first studies evaluating preoperative antiseptic washing was published by Cruse and Foord in 1980.¹³ In this 10-year prospective investigation, the authors demonstrated that patients who underwent preoperative washing with a hexachlorophene solution had fewer SSIs compared with those who washed with a nonmedicated soap and those who did not wash at all. Subsequent studies by Brady et al in 1990,¹⁴ Wilcox et al in 2003,¹⁵ and Colling et al in 2015¹⁶ all showed a decrease in the rate of SSIs with preoperative antiseptic washing, and the authors strongly supported this intervention. However, care must be taken when interpreting the results of these cohort investigations because in some cases antiseptic washing was not the only preoperative intervention. Thus, it is difficult to ascertain the true benefit of antiseptic washing alone.^14,15 Moreover, in one study, preoperative antiseptic washing did not decrease the overall incidence of SSIs, just those caused by Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA).¹⁶

Authors of 3 recent reviews have assessed the relationship between preoperative antiseptic washing and SSIs. Webster and Osborne analyzed 7 RCTs in a Cochrane review.¹⁷ All trials used 4% chlorhexidine gluconate as the antiseptic, and they included a total of 10,157 patients. The authors concluded that bathing with chlorhexidine did not significantly reduce SSIs compared with either placebo (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.8–1.04) or bar soap (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.57–1.84). Three additional studies in this review compared chlorhexidine bathing with no washing. One study showed a significant reduction of SSIs after the patients bathed with chlorhexidine (RR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.17–0.79); the other 2 studies demonstrated no significant difference in outcome.

Kamel and colleagues conducted a recent systematic review that included 20 randomized and nonrandomized studies (n = 9,520); while the authors concluded that showering with an antiseptic solution reduced skin flora, they could not confirm that it produced a significant reduction in infection.¹⁸ Finally, in a meta-analysis that included 16 randomized and nonrandomized studies with 17,932 patients, Chlebicki and associates concluded that there was no significant reduction in SSIs with whole-body bathing with chlorhexidine compared with bathing with soap or placebo or with no bathing (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.77–1.05; P = .19).¹⁹ A recent report from the World Health Organization confirmed these observations, although the report did not specifically focus on patients who had had a cesarean delivery.²⁰

What the evidence says

Although chlorhexidine bathing reduces skin flora, especially in the number of staphylococcal species, this effect does not necessarily translate into a reduction of SSIs. Therefore, we recommend against routine chlorhexidine bathing before cesarean delivery, although we acknowledge that there is no apparent harm associated with this practice, assuming that the patient is not allergic to the medicated soap (Level II Evidence, Level C Recommendation; TABLE, page 2).

Did you read Part 1 of this series?

Preventing infection after cesarean delivery: Evidence-based guidance, Part 1

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

In part 1 of our review on preventing postcesarean infection, we critically evaluated methods of skin preparation and administration of prophylactic antibiotics. In part 2, we address preoperative cleansing of the vagina with an antiseptic solution, preoperative bathing with an antiseptic solution, methods of placental extraction, closure of the deep subcutaneous layer of the abdomen, and closure of the skin.

Related article:
Preventing infection after cesarean delivery: Evidence-based guidance

CASE: Should vaginal cleansing be performed prior to cesarean delivery?

An 18-year-old primigravid woman at 41 weeks’ gestation has been in labor for 16 hours, and now has an arrest of descent at 0 station. An intrauterine pressure catheter and scalp electrode have been in place for the same length of time. The patient has had 9 internal examinations during the period of membrane rupture. As you are preparing to scrub the patient’s abdomen, the third-year medical student asks, “When I was on the Gynecology Service, I saw the doctors wash the vagina with an antiseptic solution before they performed a vaginal hysterectomy. Should we also do that before we operate on this patient?”

Preoperative vaginal cleansing

A preoperative antiseptic vaginal scrub is often used as an additional step to help reduce postcesarean infection.

Does cleansing the vagina with povidone-iodine before surgery further reduce the risk of endometritis and wound infection?

Multiple studies have sought to determine if cleansing the vagina with an antiseptic solution further reduces the incidence of postcesarean infection beyond what can be achieved with systemic antibiotic prophylaxis. These studies typically have focused on 3 specific outcomes: endometritis, wound (surgical site) infection, and febrile morbidity. The term febrile morbidity is defined as a temperature ≥100.4°F (38°C) on any 2 postoperative days excluding the first 24 hours. However, many patients who meet the standard definition of febrile morbidity may not have a proven infection and will not require treatment with antibiotics. The more precise measures of outcome are distinctly symptomatic infections, such as endometritis and wound infection, although, as noted in the review of published studies below, some authors continue to use the term febrile morbidity as one measure of postoperative complications.

In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial (RCT) of 308 women having a nonemergent cesarean delivery, Starr and colleagues reported a decreased incidence of postoperative endometritis in women who received a 30-second vaginal scrub with povidone-iodine compared with women who received only an abdominal scrub (7.0% vs 14.5%, P<.05).¹ The groups did not differ in the frequency of wound infection (0.7% vs 1.2%, P = .4) or febrile morbidity (23.9% vs 28.3%, P = .4).¹

In another RCT, Haas and colleagues found that preoperative vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine compared with an abdominal scrub alone was associated with a decreased incidence of a composite measure of postoperative morbidity (6.5% vs 11.7%; relative risk [RR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26–1.11; P = .11).² The postoperative composite included fever, endometritis, sepsis, readmission, and wound infection.

Subsequently, Asghania and associates conducted a double-blind, nonrandomized study of 568 women having cesarean delivery who received an abdominal scrub plus a 30-second vaginal scrub with povidone-iodine or received an abdominal scrub alone.³ They documented a decreased incidence of postoperative endometritis in the women who received the combined scrub (1.4% vs 2.5%; P = .03, adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.03; 95% CI, 0.008–0.7). The authors observed no significant difference in febrile morbidity (4.9% vs 6.0%; P = .73) or wound infection (3.5% vs 3.2%; P = .5).³

Yildirim and colleagues conducted an RCT comparing rates of infection in 334 women who received an abdominal scrub plus vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine and 336 patients who had only a standard abdominal scrub.⁴ They documented a decreased incidence of endometritis in women who received the vaginal scrub (6.9% vs 11.6%; P = .04; RR for infection in the control group, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.03–2.76.) The authors found no difference in febrile morbidity (16.5% vs 18.2%; P = .61) or wound infection (1.8% vs 2.7%; P = .60). Of note, in excluding from the analysis women who had ruptured membranes or who were in labor, the investigators found no differences in outcome, indicating that the greatest impact of vaginal cleansing was in the highest risk patients.

In 2014, Haas and associates published a Cochrane review evaluating the effectiveness of preoperative vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine.⁵ The authors reviewed 7 studies that analyzed outcomes in 2,635 women. They concluded that vaginal preparation with povidone-iodine at the time of cesarean delivery significantly decreased postoperative endometritis when compared with the control group (4.3% vs 8.3%; RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25–0.81). They also noted that the most profound impact of vaginal cleansing was in women who were in labor before delivery (7.4% vs 13.0%; RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.34–0.95) and in women with ruptured membranes at the time of delivery (4.3% vs 17.9%; RR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10–0.55). The authors did not find a significant difference in postoperative wound infection or frequency of fever in women who received the vaginal scrub.

Related article:
STOP using instruments to assist with delivery of the head at cesarean

A notable exception to the beneficial outcomes reported above was the study by Reid et al.⁶ These authors randomly assigned 247 women having cesarean delivery to an abdominal scrub plus vaginal scrub with povidone-iodine and assigned 251 women to only an abdominal scrub. The authors were unable to document any significant difference between the groups with respect to frequency of fever, endometritis, and wound infection.

Other methods of vaginal preparation also have been studied. For example, Pitt and colleagues conducted a double-blind RCT of 224 women having cesarean delivery and compared preoperative metronidazole vaginal gel with placebo.⁷ Most of the patients in this trial also received systemic antibiotic prophylaxis after the umbilical cord was clamped. The authors demonstrated a decreased incidence of postcesarean endometritis in women who received the intravaginal antibiotic gel (7% vs 17%; RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19–0.92). There was no difference in febrile morbidity (13% vs 19%; P = .28) or wound infection (4% vs 3%, P = .50).

What the evidence says

Consider vaginal preparation with povidone-iodine at the time of cesarean delivery to reduce the risk of postpartum endometritis. Do not expect this intervention to significantly reduce the frequency of wound infection. Vaginal cleansing is of most benefit to women who have ruptured membranes or are in labor at the time of delivery (Level I Evidence, Level A Recommendation; TABLE). Whether vaginal preparation with chlorhexidine with 4% alcohol would have the same beneficial effect has not been studied in a systematic manner.

Placenta extraction, closure techniques

Evidence suggests that employing certain intraoperative approaches helps reduce the incidence of postcesarean infection.

What other measures help prevent infection following cesarean surgery?

One other measure known to decrease the risk of postcesarean endometritis is removing the placenta by exerting traction on the umbilical cord rather than extracting it manually. In one of the first descriptions of this intervention, Lasley and associates showed that, in high-risk patients who also received intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis after cord clamping, the rate of postoperative endometritis was 15% in the group that had spontaneous delivery of the placenta compared with 27% in women who had manual extraction (RR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.3–0.9; P = .02).⁸ A recent Cochrane review that included multiple subsequent reports confirmed this observation (Level I Evidence, Level A Recommendation; TABLE, page 2).⁹

Abdominal wall closure. Two other interventions are valuable in decreasing the frequency of deep and superficial wound infection. In patients whose subcutaneous layer is >2 cm thick, closure of the deep subcutaneous tissue significantly reduces the risk of wound seroma, hematoma, and infection.¹⁰ In addition, closure of the skin edges with a subcuticular suture, as opposed to surgical staples, significantly reduces the frequency of superficial wound complications (Level I Evidence, Level A Recommendation; TABLE, page 2).¹¹ Poliglecaprone 25, polyglactin 910, and polyglycolic acid suture, 3-0 or 4-0 gauge, are excellent suture choices for this closure.

Related article:
Does one particular cesarean technique confer better maternal and neonatal outcomes?

CASE
Planned cesarean delivery: Is preoperative antiseptic bathing warranted?

A 33-year-old woman (G2P1001) at 39 weeks’ gestation is scheduled for a repeat low transverse cesarean delivery. In addition to planning to implement the measures discussed above, her clinician is considering whether to recommend that the patient bathe with an antiseptic solution, such as chlorhexidine, the day before the procedure.

Preoperative antiseptic bathing

The concept of bathing with an antiseptic solution before surgery to prevent surgical site infections (SSIs) has been considered for many years. Intuitively, if the body’s resident and transient skin flora are decreased preoperatively with whole-body antiseptic washing, then the overall pathogen burden should be decreased and the risk of SSI also should be reduced. Historically, chlorhexidine preparations have been used as preoperative antiseptic solutions because they are so effective in reducing colony counts of skin flora, especially staphylococci.¹² Although preoperative antiseptic washing definitely reduces the concentration of skin bacteria, the data regarding reduction in SSI are inconsistent. Of particular note, there are no studies investigating the impact of preoperative antiseptic bathing in women having cesarean delivery.

Does preop bathing with an antiseptic reduce infection risk?

One of the first studies evaluating preoperative antiseptic washing was published by Cruse and Foord in 1980.¹³ In this 10-year prospective investigation, the authors demonstrated that patients who underwent preoperative washing with a hexachlorophene solution had fewer SSIs compared with those who washed with a nonmedicated soap and those who did not wash at all. Subsequent studies by Brady et al in 1990,¹⁴ Wilcox et al in 2003,¹⁵ and Colling et al in 2015¹⁶ all showed a decrease in the rate of SSIs with preoperative antiseptic washing, and the authors strongly supported this intervention. However, care must be taken when interpreting the results of these cohort investigations because in some cases antiseptic washing was not the only preoperative intervention. Thus, it is difficult to ascertain the true benefit of antiseptic washing alone.^14,15 Moreover, in one study, preoperative antiseptic washing did not decrease the overall incidence of SSIs, just those caused by Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA).¹⁶

Authors of 3 recent reviews have assessed the relationship between preoperative antiseptic washing and SSIs. Webster and Osborne analyzed 7 RCTs in a Cochrane review.¹⁷ All trials used 4% chlorhexidine gluconate as the antiseptic, and they included a total of 10,157 patients. The authors concluded that bathing with chlorhexidine did not significantly reduce SSIs compared with either placebo (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.8–1.04) or bar soap (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.57–1.84). Three additional studies in this review compared chlorhexidine bathing with no washing. One study showed a significant reduction of SSIs after the patients bathed with chlorhexidine (RR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.17–0.79); the other 2 studies demonstrated no significant difference in outcome.

Kamel and colleagues conducted a recent systematic review that included 20 randomized and nonrandomized studies (n = 9,520); while the authors concluded that showering with an antiseptic solution reduced skin flora, they could not confirm that it produced a significant reduction in infection.¹⁸ Finally, in a meta-analysis that included 16 randomized and nonrandomized studies with 17,932 patients, Chlebicki and associates concluded that there was no significant reduction in SSIs with whole-body bathing with chlorhexidine compared with bathing with soap or placebo or with no bathing (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.77–1.05; P = .19).¹⁹ A recent report from the World Health Organization confirmed these observations, although the report did not specifically focus on patients who had had a cesarean delivery.²⁰

What the evidence says

Although chlorhexidine bathing reduces skin flora, especially in the number of staphylococcal species, this effect does not necessarily translate into a reduction of SSIs. Therefore, we recommend against routine chlorhexidine bathing before cesarean delivery, although we acknowledge that there is no apparent harm associated with this practice, assuming that the patient is not allergic to the medicated soap (Level II Evidence, Level C Recommendation; TABLE, page 2).

Did you read Part 1 of this series?

Preventing infection after cesarean delivery: Evidence-based guidance, Part 1

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.