Prophylaxis for venous thromboembolic disease in pregnancy and the early postnatal period

[Diagnosis and therapy of cerebral venous and sinus thrombosis]

Although cerebral venous and sinus thrombosis (CVST) is a rare cerebrovascular disease, it is being diagnosed with increasing frequency due to increased clinical awareness, better imaging capabilities, and higher survival rates in patients with predisposing conditions. This article shows how the diagnosis can be made effectively and what therapeutic options exist in the acute phase and secondary prophylaxis.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for women at risk during pregnancy and the early postnatal period

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), although rare, is a major cause of maternal mortality and morbidity. Some women are at increased risk of VTE during pregnancy and the early postnatal period (e.g. caesarean section, family history of VTE, or thrombophilia), and so prophylaxis may be considered. As some methods of prophylaxis carry risks of adverse effects, and risk of VTE is often low, benefits of thromboprophylaxis may be outweighed by harms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy and the early postnatal period on the risk of venous thromboembolic disease and adverse effects in women at increased risk of VTE.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (18 October 2019). In addition, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for unpublished, planned and ongoing trial reports (18 October 2019).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing one method of thromboprophylaxis with placebo or no treatment, or two (or more) methods of thromboprophylaxis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and judged certainty of evidence for selected critical outcomes (using GRADE). We conducted fixed-effect meta-analysis and reported data (all dichotomous) as summary risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-nine trials (involving 3839 women), overall at moderate to high risk of bias were included. Trials were conducted across the antenatal, peripartum and postnatal periods, with most in high-income countries. Interventions included types and regimens of heparin (low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH)), hydroxyethyl starch (HES), and compression stockings or devices. Data were limited due to a small number of trials in comparisons and/or few or no events reported. All critical outcomes (assessed for comparisons of heparin versus no treatment/placebo, and LMWH versus UFH) were considered to have very low-certainty evidence, downgraded mainly for study limitations and imprecise effect estimates.  Maternal death was not reported in most studies. Antenatal (± postnatal) prophylaxis For the primary outcomes symptomatic thromboembolic events pulmonary embolism (PE) and/or deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and the critical outcome of adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment, the evidence was very uncertain.  Symptomatic thromboembolic events: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.08 to 1.98; 4 trials, 476 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.09 to 2.49; 4 trials, 404 women; very low-certainty evidence); Symptomatic PE: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.02 to 7.14; 3 trials, 187 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (no events; 3 trials, 287 women); Symptomatic DVT: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.04 to 3.10; 4 trials, 227 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (no events; 3 trials, 287 women); Adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.05 to 5.31; 1 trial, 139 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54; 2 trials, 226 women; very low-certainty evidence). Peripartum/postnatal prophylaxis Vaginal or caesarean birth When UFH and no treatment were compared, the effects on symptomatic thromboembolic events (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.36; 1 trial, 210 women; very low-certainty evidence), symptomatic PE (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.01 to 3.34; 1 trial, 210 women; very low-certainty evidence), and symptomatic DVT  (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.03 to 2.55; 1 trial, 210 women; very low-certainty evidence) were very uncertain.  Maternal death and adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment were not reported. Caesarean birth Symptomatic thromboembolic events: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.39 to 4.27; 4 trials, 840 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; 3 trials, 217 women; very low-certainty evidence); Symptomatic PE: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.25 to 4.87; 4 trials, 840 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (no events; 3 trials, 217 women);  Symptomatic DVT: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.24 to 6.94; 5 trials, 1140 women; very low-certainty evidence); LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; 3 trials, 217 women; very low-certainty evidence); Maternal death: - heparin versus placebo (no events, 1 trial, 300 women); Adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment: - heparin versus placebo (no events;  1 trial, 140 women). Postnatal prophylaxis No events were reported for LMWH versus no treatment/placebo for: symptomatic thromboembolic events, symptomatic PE and symptomatic DVT (all 2 trials, 58 women), or maternal death (1 trial, 24 women). Adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment were not reported. We were unable to conduct subgroup analyses due to lack of data. Sensitivity analysis including the nine studies at low risk of bias did not impact overall findings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is very uncertain about benefits and harms of VTE thromboprophylaxis in women during pregnancy and the early postnatal period at increased risk of VTE. Further high-quality very large-scale randomised trials are needed to determine effects of currently used treatments in women with different VTE risk factors. As sufficiently large definitive trials are unlikely to be funded, secondary data analyses based on high-quality registry data are important.

Inherited thrombophilia is significantly associated with severe preeclampsia

Methods to prevent the development of pathologies due to placental dysfunctions, such as gestational hypertension and preeclampsia, are the main approaches for obtaining the best maternal and fetal antepartum and postpartum prognosis. During 5 years of study (January, 2015 to December, 2019), the cases of pregnancy and puerperium complicated with pathology due to placental dysfunction were analyzed. The main objective was to determine the magnitude of the impact of thrombophilia on the development of an entity of gestational hypertension disorder. We compared the impact of thrombophilia and its associated complications in patients with gestational hypertension with moderate and severe preeclampsia. Thus, we found obesity, thrombophilia, and underlying cardiac pathology to be significant risk factors for severe preeclampsia. Regarding the comparative analysis of the risk factors and complications associated with patients with mild preeclampsia compared with those with severe preeclampsia, the presence in severe preeclampsia of thrombophilia, endocrine, liver, and cardiac pathology was higher and, a higher rate of complications was observed; complications included fetal death, intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), prematurity, fetal arrhythmia with acute fetal distress, HELLP syndrome, and placental abruption. Thrombophilia has a significant effect on the development of severe preeclampsia, and oligohydramnios as specific complication of mild preeclampsia. Factors indicating an increased risk of progression from mild preeclampsia to severe preeclampsia are in addition to inherited thrombophilia the underlying pathologies, namely cardiac, hepatic, and endocrine factors.

Prophylaxis for venous thromboembolic disease in pregnancy and the early postnatal period

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), although rare, is a major cause of maternal mortality and morbidity, and methods of prophylaxis are therefore often used for women considered to be at risk. This may include women who have given birth by caesarean section, those with a personal or family history of VTE and women with inherited or acquired thrombophilias (conditions that predispose people to thrombosis). Many methods of prophylaxis carry risks of adverse effects, and as the risk of VTE is often low, it is possible that the benefits of thromboprophylaxis may be outweighed by harms. Guidelines for clinical practice have been based on expert opinion rather than high-quality evidence from randomised trials.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of thromboprophylaxis in women who are pregnant or have recently given birth and are at increased risk of VTE on the incidence of VTE and adverse effects of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (27 November 2013). 

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing one method of thromboprophylaxis with placebo or no treatment, and randomised trials comparing two (or more) methods of thromboprophylaxis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors assessed trial eligibility and quality and extracted the data.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen trials, at an overall moderate risk of bias, met the inclusion criteria for the review. Only 16 trials, involving 2592 women, assessing a range of methods of thromboprophylaxis, contributed data to the review. Six trials compared methods of antenatal prophylaxis: heparin versus no treatment/placebo (two trials), and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) (four trials). Nine trials assessed prophylaxis after caesarean section: four compared heparin with placebo; three compared LMWH with UFH; one compared hydroxyethyl starch (HES) with UFH; and one compared five-day versus 10-day LMWH. One study examined prophylaxis with UFH in the postnatal period (including following vaginal births).For antenatal prophylaxis, none of the included trials reported on maternal mortality, and no differences were detected for the other primary outcomes of symptomatic thromboembolic events, symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) and symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) when LMWH or UFH was compared with no treatment/placebo or when LMWH was compared with UFH. The risk ratios (RR) for symptomatic thromboembolic events were: antenatal LMWH/UFH versus no heparin, RR 0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 2.99 (two trials, 56 women); and antenatal LMWH versus UFH, RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.09 to 2.49 (four trials, 404 women). No differences were shown when antenatal LMWH or UFH was compared with no treatment/placebo for any secondary outcomes. Antenatal LMWH was associated with fewer adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment (RR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54; two trials, 226 women), and fewer fetal losses (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.95; three trials, 343 women) when compared with UFH. In two trials, antenatal LMWH compared with UFH was associated with fewer bleeding episodes (defined in one trial of 121 women as bruises > 1 inch (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.36); and in one trial of 105 women as injection site haematomas of ≥ 2 cm, bleeding during delivery or other bleeding (RR 0.28; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.53)), however in a further trial of 117 women no difference between groups was shown for bleeding at delivery. The results for these secondary outcomes should be interpreted with caution, being derived from small trials that were not of high methodological quality.For post-caesarean/postnatal prophylaxis, only one trial comparing five-day versus 10-day LMWH after caesarean section reported on maternal mortality, observing no deaths. No differences were seen across any of the comparisons for the other primary outcomes (symptomatic thromboembolic events, symptomatic PE and symptomatic DVT). The RRs for symptomatic thromboembolic events were: post-caesarean LMWH/UFH versus no heparin, RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.39 to 4.27 (four trials, 840 women); post-caesarean LMWH versus UFH, RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99 (three trials, 217 women); post-caesarean five-day versus 10-day LMWH, RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.01 to 8.78 (one trial, 646 women); postnatal UFH versus no heparin, RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.36 (one trial, 210 women). For prophylaxis after caesarean section, in one trial (of 580 women), women receiving UFH and physiotherapy were more likely to have bleeding complications ('complications hémorragiques') than women receiving physiotherapy alone (RR 5.03; 95% CI 2.49 to 10.18). In two additional trials, that compared LMWH with placebo, no difference between groups in bleeding episodes (major bleeding; major bruising; bleeding/bruising reported at discharge) were detected. No other differences in secondary outcomes were shown when LMWH was compared with UFH post-caesarean, nor when post-caesarean HES was compared with UFH, post-caesarean five-day LMWH was compared with 10-day LMWH, or when UFH was compared to no heparin postnatally.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence on which to base recommendations for thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy and the early postnatal period, with the small number of differences detected in this review being largely derived from trials that were not of high methodological quality. Large scale, high-quality randomised trials of currently used interventions are warranted.

Antithrombotic therapy for improving maternal or infant health outcomes in women considered at risk of placental dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Pregnancy complications such as pre-eclampsia and eclampsia, intrauterine growth restriction and placental abruption are thought to have a common origin related to abnormalities in the development and function of the placenta.

OBJECTIVES

To compare, using the best available evidence, the benefits and harms of antenatal antithrombotic therapy to improve maternal or infant health outcomes in women considered at risk of placental dysfunction, when compared with other treatments, placebo or no treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (17 July 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing antenatal antithrombotic therapy (either alone or in combination with other agents) with placebo or no treatment, or any other treatment in the antenatal period to improve maternal or infant health outcomes in women considered at risk of placental dysfunction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors evaluated trials under consideration for appropriateness for inclusion and methodological quality without consideration of their results according to the prestated eligibility criteria. We used a fixed-effect meta-analysis for combining study data if the trials were judged to be sufficiently similar. We investigated heterogeneity by calculating I² statistic, and if this indicated a high level of heterogeneity among the trials included, we used a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search strategy identified 18 reports of 14 studies for consideration. The original review included five studies (484 women) which met the inclusion criteria, with a further five studies included in the updated review, involving an additional 655 women. The overall quality of the included trials was considered fair to good.Nine studies compared heparin (alone or in combination with dipyridamole or low-dose aspirin) with no treatment; and one compared trapidil (triazolopyrimidine).While this review identified the use of heparin to be associated with a statistically significant reduction in risk of perinatal mortality (six studies; 653 women; risk ratio (RR) 0.40; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.20 to 0.78), preterm birth before 34 (three studies; 494 women; RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.73) and 37 (five studies; 621 women; RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.90) weeks' gestation, and infant birthweight below the 10th centile for gestational age (seven studies; 710 infants; RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.61), there is a lack of reliable information available related to clinically relevant, serious adverse infant health outcomes, which have not been reported to date.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While treatment with heparin for women considered to be at particularly high risk of adverse pregnancy complications secondary to placental insufficiency was associated with a statistically significant reduction in risk of perinatal mortality, preterm birth before 34 and 37 weeks' gestation, and infant birthweight below the 10th centile for gestational age when compared with no treatment for women considered at increased risk of placental dysfunction, to date, important information about serious adverse infant and long-term childhood outcomes is unavailable.

Postcesarean thromboprophylaxis with two different regimens of bemiparin

Objectives. To compare the effectiveness of postcesarean thromboprophylaxis with two different regimens of bemiparin. Material and Methods. The study included 646 women with cesarean delivery in our hospital within a 1-year period, randomly assigned to one of two groups for prophylaxis with 3500 IU bemiparin once daily for 5 days or 3500 IU bemiparin once daily for 10 days. Results. There was one case of pulmonary embolism (first day following cesarean). An additional risk factor was present in 98.52% of the women, most frequently emergency cesarean, anemia, or obesity. The only risk factors for thromboembolic disease significantly related to pulmonary thromboembolism were placental abruption and prematurity. There were no differences in thromboembolic events among the two thromboprophylaxis regimens. Conclusions. Cesarean-related thromboembolic events were reduced in our study population due to the thromboprophylactic measures taken. Thromboprophylaxis with 3500 IU bemiparin once daily for 5 days following cesarean was sufficient to avoid thromboembolic events.

Thromboembolism in the obese pregnant woman

We sought to quantify the added risk of thromboembolism in the obese parturient, evaluate risk factors for thromboembolism in the obese parturient, and provide suggestions as to when and in what form thromboembolism prophylaxis should be considered. Although recent guidelines from national colleges and advisory groups have attempted to guide the clinician in thromboprophylaxis in the obese parturient, the lack of adequate prospective series and trials has lead to some contrary recommendations. The arbitrary use of bed rest in the obese patient is a significant risk factor for venous thromboembolism without proven benefit. Despite a paucity of gold standard evidence, the prevalence of obesity and its associated risk of venous thromboembolism warrants careful consideration for the use of thromboprophylaxis in the obese pregnant population. This is especially important in the presence of additional thromboembolism risk factors.

The use of a scoring system to guide thromboprophylaxis in a high-risk pregnant population

Guidelines for thromboprophylaxis in pregnancy are usually based upon clinical observations and expert opinion. For optimal impact, their use must be attended by consistency in the advice given to women. In this observational study, we evaluated the performance of a scoring system, used as a guide for clinicians administering dalteparin to pregnant women at increased risk of venous thromboembolism. The work included 47 women treated with dalteparin prior to adoption of the scoring system and 58 women treated with dalteparin after its adoption. The indication for thromboprophylaxis was recorded in each case together with details of the regimen employed, obstetric, and haematological outcomes. The main outcome measure was to determine whether consistency improved after adoption of the scoring system. We also recorded the occurrence of any new venous thromboembolism, haemorrhage, the use of regional anaesthesia during labour, evidence of allergy, and thrombocytopenia. We found that use of the scoring system improved the consistency of advice and increased the mean duration of thromboprophylaxis. None of the subjects suffered venous thromboembolism after assessment using the scoring system. There was no increase in obstetric or anaesthetic morbidity when dalteparin was given antenatally period and no evidence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

Anticoagulant therapy for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Thromboembolic complications are much higher in pregnancy due to procoagulant changes. Heparin does not cross the placenta and the use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) is the current established practice in prophylaxis and treatment for thromboembolism in pregnancy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of anticoagulant therapies for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis in pregnancy. The anticoagulant drugs included are UFH, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and warfarin.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (March 2010) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any combination of warfarin, UFH, LMWH and placebo in pregnant women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used methods described in the Cochrane Handbooks for Systemic Reviews of Interventions for assessing the eligibility of studies identified by the search strategy. A minimum of two review authors independently assessed each study.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any eligible studies for inclusion in the review.We identified three potential studies; after assessing eligibility, we excluded all three as they did not meet the prespecified inclusion criteria. One study compared LMWH and UFH in pregnant women with previous thromboembolic events and, for most of these women, anticoagulants were used as thromboprophylaxis. There were only three women who had a thromboembolic event during the current pregnancy and it was unclear whether the anticoagulant was used as therapy or prophylaxis. We excluded one study because it included only women undergoing caesarean birth. The third study was not a randomised trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials on the effectiveness of anticoagulation for deep vein thrombosis in pregnancy. Further studies are required.

Antithrombotic therapy for improving maternal or infant health outcomes in women considered at risk of placental dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Pregnancy complications such as pre-eclampsia and eclampsia, intrauterine growth restriction and placental abruption are thought to have a common origin related to abnormalities in the development and function of the placenta.

OBJECTIVES

To compare, using the best available evidence, the benefits and harms of antenatal antithrombotic therapy to improve maternal or infant health outcomes in women considered at risk of placental dysfunction, when compared with other treatments, placebo or no treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (March 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing antenatal antithrombotic therapy (either alone or in combination with other agents) with placebo or no treatment, or any other treatment in the antenatal period to improve maternal or infant health outcomes in women considered at risk of placental dysfunction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors evaluated trials under consideration for appropriateness for inclusion and methodological quality without consideration of their results according to the prestated eligibility criteria. We used a fixed-effect meta-analysis for combining study data if the trials were judged to be sufficiently similar. We investigated heterogeneity by calculating I(2) statistic, and if this indicated a high level of heterogeneity among the trials included we used a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search strategy identified 14 reports of 10 studies for consideration, of which five met the inclusion criteria, involving 484 women. Four studies compared heparin (alone or in combination with dipyridamole) with no treatment; and one compared trapidil (triazolopyrimidine). While there were no statistically significant differences identified for the primary outcomes following heparin treatment, it was associated with a reduction in the risk of pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, and infant birthweight less than the 10th centile for gestational age.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review identified no significant differences for the primary outcomes perinatal mortality, preterm birth less than 34 weeks' gestation, and childhood neurodevelopmental handicap, although the number of studies and participants was small. While treatment with heparin appears promising with a reduction in pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, and infant birthweight less than the 10th centile for gestational age, the number of studies and participants included was small, and to date important information about serious adverse infant and long-term childhood outcomes is unavailable. Further research is required.

Antiphospholipid syndrome review

The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune disorder presenting with tissue injury in various organs attributed to large or small vessel thrombosis or, in some instances, possible nonthrombotic inflammatory mechanisms, associated with in vitro evidence of antibodies to certain proteins, or proteinphospholipid complexes. Although the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of APS may seem clear and straightforward from a distance, closer inspection reveals a more complex, incomplete, and uncertain image. This article reviews the evolution of APS from the first description of lupus anticoagulant to the current criteria used to guide clinical research, critiques laboratory methods used to identify autoantibodies, comments on prognosis and management, and summarizes insights into the pathophysiology of this elusive disorder.

Treatment of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Monotherapy with low-molecular-weight heparin is the recommended first-line approach in cancer patients with newly diagnosed VTE, and is usually continued for a minimum of 3-6 months. Other management issues that require further research include optimal duration of anticoagulant therapy, treatment of recurrent VTE, the role of vena cava filters, the effects of VTE and its treatment on quality of life, and the impact of anticoagulants on survival. Newer anticoagulants hold promise in providing more effective and convenient treatment of VTE for this high-risk population, but further studies are awaited.

Reducing stillbirths: prevention and management of medical disorders and infections during pregnancy

BACKGROUND

An estimated two-thirds of the world's 3.2 million stillbirths occur antenatally, prior to labour, and are often overlooked in policy and programs. Poorly recognised, untreated or inadequately treated maternal infections such as syphilis and malaria, and maternal conditions including hypertensive disorders, are known risk factors for stillbirth.

METHODS

We undertook a systematic review of the evidence for 16 antenatal interventions with the potential to prevent stillbirths. We searched a range of sources including PubMed and the Cochrane Library. For interventions with prior Cochrane reviews, we conducted additional meta-analyses including eligible newer randomised controlled trials following the Cochrane protocol. We focused on interventions deliverable at the community level in low-/middle-income countries, where the burden of stillbirths is greatest.

RESULTS

Few of the studies we included reported stillbirth as an outcome; most that did were underpowered to assess this outcome. While Cochrane reviews or meta-analyses were available for many interventions, few focused on stillbirth or perinatal mortality as outcomes, and evidence was frequently conflicting. Several interventions showed clear evidence of impact on stillbirths, including heparin therapy for certain maternal indications; syphilis screening and treatment; and insecticide-treated bed nets for prevention of malaria. Other interventions, such as management of obstetric intrahepatic cholestasis, maternal anti-helminthic treatment, and intermittent preventive treatment of malaria, showed promising impact on stillbirth rates but require confirmatory studies. Several interventions reduced known risk factors for stillbirth (e.g., anti-hypertensive drugs for chronic hypertension), yet failed to show statistically significant impact on stillbirth or perinatal mortality rates. Periodontal disease emerged as a clear risk factor for stillbirth but no interventions have reduced stillbirth rates.

CONCLUSION

Evidence for some newly recognised risk factors for stillbirth, including periodontal disease, suggests the need for large, appropriately designed randomised trials to test whether intervention can minimise these risks and prevent stillbirths. Existing evidence strongly supports infection control measures, including syphilis screening and treatment and malaria prophylaxis in endemic areas, for preventing antepartum stillbirths. These interventions should be incorporated into antenatal care programs based on attributable risks and burden of disease.

Where do we go now with low molecular weight heparin use in obstetric care?

The use of low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) in obstetric care has grown considerably since their introduction into clinical practice in the early 1990s. However, because of the physiological changes of pregnancy, the predictable pharmacokinetic profile of LMWH is lost and some uncertainty exists around the optimal dosing regimen for LMWH in obstetric care. Two recent United Kingdom prospective surveys of the management of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) suggest that despite recommendations from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) for a twice daily LMWH regimen, a once daily regimen is acceptable for the treatment of venous thromboembolism; and that accepted thromboprophylactic doses licensed for non-pregnant individuals may not be applicable during the second and third trimester for VTE thromboprophylaxis. Accepting that randomized clinical studies are difficult in obstetric care, future advances could be made through population-based multi-center studies, coupled with pharmacokinetic modeling studies, which have the potential to determine the optimal dosing regimen for the various obstetric indications.

Techniques for caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Rates of caesarean section (CS) have been rising globally. It is important to use the most effective and safe technique.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of complete methods of caesarean section; and to summarise the findings of reviews of individual aspects of caesarean section technique.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (August 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 3) and reference lists of identified papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of intention to perform caesarean section using different techniques.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

'Joel-Cohen based' compared with Pfannenstiel CS was associated with: less blood loss, (five trials, 481 women; weighted mean difference (WMD) -64.45 ml; 95% confidence interval (CI) -91.34 to -37.56 ml); shorter operating time (five trials, 581 women; WMD -18.65; 95% CI -24.84 to -12.45 minutes); postoperatively, reduced time to oral intake (five trials, 481 women; WMD -3.92; 95% CI -7.13 to -0.71 hours); less fever (eight trials, 1412 women; relative risk (RR) 0.47; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.81); shorter duration of postoperative pain (two comparisons from one trial, 172 women; WMD -14.18 hours; 95% CI -18.31 to -10.04 hours); fewer analgesic injections (two trials, 151 women; WMD -0.92; 95% CI -1.20 to -0.63); and shorter time from skin incision to birth of the baby (five trials, 575 women; WMD -3.84 minutes; 95% CI -5.41 to -2.27 minutes). Serious complications and blood transfusions were too few for analysis.Misgav-Ladach compared with the traditional method (lower midline abdominal incision) was associated with reduced: blood loss (339 women; WMD -93.00; 95% CI -132.72 to -53.28 ml); operating time (339 women; WMD-7.30; 95% CI -8.32 to -6.28 minutes); time to mobilisation (339 women; WMD -16.06; 95% CI -18.22 to -13.90 hours); and length of postoperative stay for the mother (339 women; WMD -0.82; 95% CI -1.08 to -0.56 days). Misgav-Ladach compared with modified Misgav-Ladach methods was associated with a longer time from skin incision to birth of the baby (116 women; WMD 2.10; 95% CI 1.10 to 3.10 minutes).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

'Joel-Cohen based' methods have advantages compared to Pfannenstiel and to traditional (lower midline) CS techniques, which could translate to savings for the health system. However, these trials do not provide information on mortality and serious or long-term morbidity such as morbidly adherent placenta and scar rupture.

A review of the methodological features of systematic reviews in maternal medicine

BACKGROUND

In maternal medicine, research evidence is scattered making it difficult to access information for clinical decision making. Systematic reviews of good methodological quality are essential to provide valid inferences and to produce usable evidence summaries to guide management. This review assesses the methodological features of existing systematic reviews in maternal medicine, comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews in maternal medicine.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Database of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) were searched for relevant reviews published between 2001 and 2006. We selected those reviews in which a minimum of two databases were searched and the primary outcome was related to the maternal condition. The selected reviews were assessed for information on framing of question, literature search and methods of review.

RESULTS

Out of 2846 citations, 68 reviews were selected. Among these, 39 (57%) were Cochrane reviews. Most of the reviews (50/68, 74%) evaluated therapeutic interventions. Overall, 54/68 (79%) addressed a focussed question. Although 64/68 (94%) reviews had a detailed search description, only 17/68 (25%) searched without language restriction. 32/68 (47%) attempted to include unpublished data and 11/68 (16%) assessed for the risk of missing studies quantitatively. The reviews had deficiencies in the assessment of validity of studies and exploration for heterogeneity. When compared to Cochrane reviews, other reviews were significantly inferior in specifying questions (OR 20.3, 95% CI 1.1-381.3, p = 0.04), framing focussed questions (OR 30.9, 95% CI 3.7- 256.2, p = 0.001), use of unpublished data (OR 5.6, 95% CI 1.9-16.4, p = 0.002), assessment for heterogeneity (OR 38.1, 95%CI 2.1, 688.2, p = 0.01) and use of meta-analyses (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.3-10.8, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

This study identifies areas which have a strong influence on maternal morbidity and mortality but lack good quality systematic reviews. Overall quality of the existing systematic reviews was variable. Cochrane reviews were of better quality as compared to other reviews. There is a need for good quality systematic reviews to inform practice in maternal medicine.

Risk of venous thromboembolic disease in women

OBJECTIVES

To review the scientific evidence on the risk and prevention of venous thromboembolic disease (VTD) associated with specific clinical factors in women.

STUDY DESIGN

Qualitative systematic review.

DATA SOURCE

MEDLINE, Cochrane library, clinical practice guidelines, and referenced articles from these sources.

RESULTS

Gender is not an independent risk factor of VTD. Absolute risks associated with each circumstance (per 1000 women-year) were: pregnancy, 1.23; puerperium, 3.2; pregnancy in thrombophilic, 40; pregnancy and background of previous VTD, 110; use of third generation contraceptives, 0.3; postcoital pill, no risk; hormone replacement therapy, 0.2-5.9; tamoxifen, 3.6-12; and raloxifene, 9.5. The quality of the evidence on risk was classified as good or excellent. Evidence on prevention was scarce. Screening for thrombophilia prior to the prescription of contraceptives is not cost-effective as a strategy for prophylaxis. Use of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in high-risk pregnancies is supported by medium quality studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There is good quality evidence on the magnitude of VTD risk associated with specific clinical factors in women. No studies on the utility of preventive measures have been performed for most of these circumstances. There is no evidence about the risk associated with the combination of several risk factors.