Vaginal preparation with antiseptic solution before cesarean section for preventing postoperative infections

A comprehensive study on the risk factors and pathogen analysis of postoperative wound infections following caesarean section procedures

Postoperative wound infections (PWIs), a subtype of surgical site infections, are a significant concern for patients undergoing caesarean sections (C-sections). Understanding risk factors and pathogen profiles can greatly assist in early diagnosis and effective treatment. This study aimed to identify risk factors and analyse the pathogenic landscape contributing to PWIs in C-sections. A nested case-control study was carried out, utilising stringent criteria for case selection and control matching. Diagnostic criteria for surgical site infections included both clinical and microbiological parameters. Risk variables examined included patient age, Body Mass Index, duration of surgery and several other clinical indicators. Microbiological analysis was performed using the BD Phoenix-100 Automated Bacterial Identification System. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 26.0, and risk factors were evaluated through both univariate and multivariate analyses. A total of 50 patients, aged between 20 and 45 years (mean age 26.3 ± 5.6), developed PWIs following C-sections. The study revealed a temporal distribution and various clinical indicators of PWIs, including elevated white blood cell count and C-reactive protein levels. Gram-negative bacteria were found to be more prevalent at 57.4%. Notable pathogens included Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii. Antimicrobial resistance patterns were also identified, highlighting the need for a targeted antibiotic approach. Increased infection risks were linked to lack of prophylactic antibiotics, absence of preoperative povidone-iodine antisepsis, operations over an hour, anaemia, amniotic fluid contamination, diabetes, GTI, premature rupture of membranes and white blood cells counts above 10 × 109 /L. The study provides critical insights into the risk factors and microbial agents contributing to PWIs following C-sections. Our findings emphasise the importance of early diagnosis through clinical and laboratory parameters, as well as the need for constant surveillance and reassessment of antibiotic stewardship programs.

Vaginal preparation with antiseptic solution before cesarean section for preventing postoperative infections

BACKGROUND

Cesarean delivery is one of the most common surgical procedures performed by obstetricians. Infectious morbidity after cesarean delivery can have a tremendous impact on the postpartum woman's return to normal function and her ability to care for her baby. Despite the widespread use of prophylactic antibiotics, postoperative infectious morbidity still complicates cesarean deliveries. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2010 and subsequently updated in 2012, twice in 2014, in 2017 and 2018.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if cleansing the vagina with an antiseptic solution before a cesarean delivery decreases the risk of maternal infectious morbidities, including endometritis and wound complications. We also assessed the side effects of vaginal cleansing solutions to determine adverse events associated with the intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (7 July 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the impact of vaginal cleansing immediately before cesarean delivery with any type of antiseptic solution versus a placebo solution/standard of care on post-cesarean infectious morbidity. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion, but we did not identify any. We excluded trials that utilized vaginal preparation during labor or that did not use antibiotic surgical prophylaxis. We also excluded any trials using a cross-over design. We included trials published in abstract form only if sufficient information was present in the abstract on methods and outcomes to analyze.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least three of the review authors independently assessed eligibility of the studies. Two review authors were assigned to extract study characteristics, quality assessments, and data from eligible studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 trials, reporting results for 7038 women evaluating the effects of vaginal cleansing (17 using povidone-iodine, 3 chlorhexidine, 1 benzalkonium chloride) on post-cesarean infectious morbidity. Trials used vaginal preparations administered by sponge sticks, douches, or soaked gauze wipes. The control groups were typically no vaginal preparation (17 trials) or the use of a saline vaginal preparation (4 trials). One trial did not report on any outcomes of interest. Trials were performed in 10 different countries (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Thailand, Turkey, USA, Egypt, UK, Kenya and India). The overall risk of bias was low for areas of attrition, reporting, and other bias. About half of the trials had low risk of selection bias, with most of the remainder rated as unclear. Due to lack of blinding, we rated performance bias as high risk in nearly one-third of the trials, low risk in one-third, and unclear in one-third. Vaginal preparation with antiseptic solution immediately before cesarean delivery probably reduces the incidence of post-cesarean endometritis from 7.1% in control groups to 3.1% in vaginal cleansing groups (average risk ratio (aRR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.58; 20 trials, 6918 women; moderate-certainty evidence). This reduction in endometritis was seen for both iodine-based solutions and chlorhexidine-based solutions. Risks of postoperative fever and postoperative wound infection are also probably reduced by vaginal antiseptic preparation (fever: aRR 0.64, 0.50 to 0.82; 16 trials, 6163 women; and wound infection: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.77; 18 trials, 6385 women; both moderate-certainty evidence). Two trials found that there may be a lower risk of a composite outcome of wound complication or endometritis in women receiving preoperative vaginal preparation (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.82; 2 trials, 499 women; low-certainty evidence). No adverse effects were reported with either the povidone-iodine or chlorhexidine vaginal cleansing. Subgroup analysis suggested a greater effect with vaginal preparations for those women in labour versus those not in labour for four out of five outcomes examined (post-cesarean endometritis; postoperative fever; postoperative wound infection; composite wound complication or endometritis). This apparent difference needs to be investigated further in future trials. We did not observe any subgroup differences between women with ruptured membranes and women with intact membranes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Vaginal preparation with povidone-iodine or chlorhexidine solution compared to saline or not cleansing immediately before cesarean delivery probably reduces the risk of post-cesarean endometritis, postoperative fever, and postoperative wound infection. Subgroup analysis found that these benefits were typically present whether iodine-based or chlorhexidine-based solutions were used and when women were in labor before the cesarean. The suggested benefit in women in labor needs further investigation in future trials. There was moderate-certainty evidence using GRADE for all reported outcomes, with downgrading decisions based on limitations in study design or imprecision. As a simple intervention, providers may consider implementing preoperative vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine or chlorhexidine before performing cesarean deliveries. Future research on this intervention being incorporated into bundles of care plans for women receiving cesarean delivery will be needed.

Institutional Protocols for Vaginal Preparation With Antiseptic Solution and Surgical Site Infection Rate in Women Undergoing Cesarean Delivery During Labor

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of institutional protocols for vaginal preparation with antiseptic solution and the surgical site infection rate in women undergoing cesarean delivery during labor.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial of adjunctive azithromycin prophylaxis for cesarean delivery performed in laboring patients with viable pregnancies. The primary outcome for this analysis was the rate of superficial or deep surgical site infection within 6 weeks postpartum, as per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria. Maternal secondary outcomes included a composite of endometritis, wound infection or other infections, postoperative maternal fever, length of hospital stay, and the rates of hospital readmission, unexpected office visits, and emergency department visits.

RESULTS

A total of 523 women delivered in institutions with vaginal antisepsis policies before cesarean delivery and 1,490 delivered in institutions without such policies. There was no difference in superficial and deep surgical site infection rates between women with and without vaginal preparation (5.5% vs 4.1%; odds ratio [OR] 1.38, 95% CI 0.87-2.17), even after adjusting for possible confounders (adjusted OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.43-1.73). The lack of significant benefit was noted in all other maternal secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Institutional policies for vaginal preparation before cesarean delivery were not associated with lower rates of surgical site infection in women undergoing cesarean delivery during labor.

Vaginal preparation with antiseptic solution before cesarean section for preventing postoperative infections

BACKGROUND

Cesarean delivery is one of the most common surgical procedures performed by obstetricians. Infectious morbidity after cesarean delivery can have a tremendous impact on the postpartum woman's return to normal function and her ability to care for her baby. Despite the widespread use of prophylactic antibiotics, postoperative infectious morbidity still complicates cesarean deliveries. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2010 and subsequently updated in 2012, and twice in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if cleansing the vagina with an antiseptic solution before a cesarean delivery decreases the risk of maternal infectious morbidities, including endometritis and wound complications. We also assessed the side effects of vaginal cleansing solutions to determine adverse events associated with the intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (10 July 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials and one quasi-randomized trial assessing the impact of vaginal cleansing immediately before cesarean delivery with any type of antiseptic solution versus a placebo solution/standard of care on post-cesarean infectious morbidity. Cluster-randomized trials were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. We excluded trials that utilized vaginal preparation during labor or that did not use antibiotic surgical prophylaxis. We also excluded any trials using a cross-over design.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least three of the review authors independently assessed eligibility of the studies. Two review authors were assigned to extract study characteristics, quality assessments, and data from eligible studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 trials reporting results for 3403 women evaluating the effects of vaginal cleansing (eight using povidone-iodine, two chlorhexidine, one benzalkonium chloride) on post-cesarean infectious morbidity. Additionally, some trials used vaginal preparations using sponge sticks, douches, or soaked gauze wipes. The control groups were typically no vaginal preparation (eight trials) or the use of a saline vaginal preparation (three trials). The risk of bias in the studies reduced our confidence in the results for endometritis outcomes.Vaginal preparation with antiseptic solution immediately before cesarean delivery probably reduces the incidence of post-cesarean endometritis from 8.7% in control groups to 3.8% in vaginal cleansing groups (average risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.63, 10 trials, 3283 women, moderate quality of evidence). Subgroup analysis could not rule out larger reductions in endometritis with antiseptics in women who were in labor or in women whose membranes had ruptured when antiseptics were used. Risks of postoperative fever and postoperative wound infection may be slightly lowered by antiseptic preparation, but the confidence intervals around the effects for both outcomes are consistent with a large reduction in risk and no difference between groups (fever: RR 0.87 (0.72 to 1.05; wound infection: RR 0.74 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.11), both moderate-quality evidence). Two trials reported a lower risk of a composite outcome of wound complication or endometritis in women receiving preoperative vaginal preparation (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.82, two trials, 499 women, moderate-quality evidence). No adverse effects were reported with either the povidone-iodine or chlorhexidine vaginal cleansing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Vaginal preparation with povidone-iodine or chlorhexidine solution compared to saline or not cleansing immediately before cesarean delivery probably reduces the risk of post-cesarean endometritis. Subgroup analysis could not rule out larger reductions in endometritis with antiseptics in women who were in labor or in women whose membranes had ruptured when antiseptics were used.The quality of the evidence using GRADE was moderate for all reported outcomes. We downgraded the outcome of post-cesarean endometritis and composite of wound complications or endometritis for risk of bias and postoperative fever and postoperative wound infections for wide CIs.As a simple, generally inexpensive intervention, providers may consider implementing preoperative vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine or chlorhexidine before performing cesarean deliveries.

Chlorhexidine vaginal preparation versus standard treatment at caesarean section to reduce endometritis and prevent sepsis-a feasibility study protocol (the PREPS trial)

BACKGROUND

Worldwide caesarean section (CS) delivery is the most common major operation. Approximately 25% of pregnant women undergo a CS in the UK for delivery of their babies. Sepsis and post-natal infection constitute significant maternal mortality and morbidity. Infection following a CS has a number of primary sources including endometritis occurring in 7-17% of women. Sepsis reduction and reduction in antibiotic use have been identified as a national and international priority. The overarching aim of this research is to reduce infectious morbidity from caesarean sections.

METHODS

This is a parallel group feasibility randomised controlled trial comparing vaginal cleansing using chlorhexidine gluconate versus no cleansing (standard practice) at CS to reduce infection. Women will be recruited from four National Health Service maternity units. Two hundred fifty women (125 in each arm) undergoing elective or emergency CS, who are aged 16 years and above, and at least 34 weeks pregnant will be randomised. Allocation to treatment will be on a 1:1 ratio. The study includes a qualitative aspect to develop women centred outcomes of wellbeing after delivery.

DISCUSSION

The success of the feasibility study will be assessed by criteria related to the feasibility measurements to ascertain if a larger study is feasible in its current format, needs modification or is unfeasible, and includes recruitment, adherence, follow-up and withdrawal measures.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The PREPS trial has been registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN 33435996).

Effect of intra-operative glove changing during cesarean section on post-operative complications: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To compare the rates of wound-related complications among women undergoing a cesarean section when the surgical team used intra-operative glove changing versus usual care.

METHODS

All women undergoing a cesarean section at a single, county hospital were randomized to usual care or intra-operative glove changing prior to abdominal closure. Participants were randomized at the time of decision for cesarean section; surgeons were not blinded to the randomization arm. The primary outcome was any wound-related complication, including wound hematoma, seroma, skin separation of at least 1 cm, wound infection, or other incisional abnormality requiring treatment within 8 weeks of surgery. To detect a reduction in the primary outcome from 17% in the control group to 9% in the intervention group with 80% power, a total of 554 women (277 per group) were required. Secondary outcomes included other infectious complications including endometritis and other superficial or deep soft tissue infections.

RESULTS

From August 2015 to November 2016, 277 women were randomized to usual care and 276 women were randomized to intra-operative glove changing. The two groups were well balanced in terms of demographic data, comorbid conditions and surgical characteristics. Intra-operative glove changing led to a significant decrease in composite wound complications from 13.6% in the control group to 6.4% in the intervention group (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

Intra-operative glove changing prior to abdominal closure during cesarean section significantly reduced the incidence of post-operative wound complications.

Intraoperative interventions for preventing surgical site infection: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) rates vary from 1% to 5% in the month following surgery. Due to the large number of surgical procedures conducted annually, the costs of these SSIs can be considerable in financial and social terms. Many interventions are used with the aim of reducing the risk of SSI in people undergoing surgery. These interventions can be broadly delivered at three stages: preoperatively, intraoperatively and postoperatively. The intraoperative interventions are largely focused on decontamination of skin using soap and antiseptics; the use of barriers to prevent movement of micro-organisms into incisions; and optimising the patient's own bodily functions to promote best recovery. Both decontamination and barrier methods can be aimed at people undergoing surgery and operating staff. Other interventions focused on SSI prevention may be aimed at the surgical environment and include methods of theatre cleansing and approaches to managing theatre traffic.

OBJECTIVES

To present an overview of Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness and safety of interventions, delivered during the intraoperative period, aimed at preventing SSIs in all populations undergoing surgery in an operating theatre.

METHODS

Published Cochrane systematic reviews reporting the effectiveness of interventions delivered during the intraoperative period in terms of SSI prevention were eligible for inclusion in this overview. We also identified Cochrane protocols and title registrations for future inclusion into the overview. We searched the Cochrane Library on 01 July 2017. Two review authors independently screened search results and undertook data extraction and 'Risk of bias' and certainty assessment. We used the ROBIS (risk of bias in systematic reviews) tool to assess the quality of included reviews, and we used GRADE methods to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. We summarised the characteristics of included reviews in the text and in additional tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 Cochrane Reviews in this overview: we judged 30 reviews as being at low risk of bias and two at unclear risk of bias. Thirteen reviews had not been updated in the past three years. Two reviews had no relevant data to extract. We extracted data from 30 reviews with 349 included trials, totaling 73,053 participants. Interventions assessed included gloving, use of disposable face masks, patient oxygenation protocols, use of skin antiseptics for hand washing and patient skin preparation, vaginal preparation, microbial sealants, methods of surgical incision, antibiotic prophylaxis and methods of skin closure. Overall, the GRADE certainty of evidence for outcomes was low or very low. Of the 77 comparisons providing evidence for the outcome of SSI, seven provided high- or moderate-certainty evidence, 39 provided low-certainty evidence and 31 very low-certainty evidence. Of the nine comparisons that provided evidence for the outcome of mortality, five provided low-certainty evidence and four very low-certainty evidence.There is high- or moderate-certainty evidence for the following outcomes for these intraoperative interventions. (1) Prophylactic intravenous antibiotics administered before caesarean incision reduce SSI risk compared with administration after cord clamping (10 trials, 5041 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.81; high-certainty evidence - assessed by review authors). (2) Preoperative antibiotics reduce SSI risk compared with placebo after breast cancer surgery (6 trials, 1708 participants; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.98; high-certainty evidence - assessed by overview authors). (3) Antibiotic prophylaxis probably reduce SSI risk in caesarean sections compared with no antibiotics (82 relevant trials, 14,407 participants; RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.46; moderate-certainty evidence; downgraded once for risk of bias - assessed by review authors). (4) Antibiotic prophylaxis probably reduces SSI risk for hernia repair compared with placebo or no treatment (17 trials, 7843 participants; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.84; moderate-certainty evidence; downgraded once for risk of bias - assessed by overview authors); (5) There is currently no clear difference in the risk of SSI between iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes compared with no adhesive drapes (2 trials, 1113 participants; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.60; moderate-certainty evidence; downgraded once for imprecision - assessed by review authors); (6) There is currently no clear difference in SSI risk between short-term compared with long-term duration antibiotics in colorectal surgery (7 trials; 1484 participants; RR 1.05 95% CI 0.78 to 1.40; moderate-certainty evidence; downgraded once for imprecision - assessed by overview authors). There was only one comparison showing negative effects associated with the intervention: adhesive drapes increase the risk of SSI compared with no drapes (5 trials; 3082 participants; RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.48; high-certainty evidence - rated by review authors).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This overview provides the most up-to-date evidence on use of intraoperative treatments for the prevention of SSIs from all currently published Cochrane Reviews. There is evidence that some interventions are useful in reducing SSI risk for people undergoing surgery, such as antibiotic prophylaxis for caesarean section and hernia repair, and also the timing of prophylactic intravenous antibiotics administered before caesarean incision. Also, there is evidence that adhesive drapes increase SSI risk. Evidence for the many other treatment choices is largely of low or very low certainty and no quality-of-life or cost-effectiveness data were reported. Future trials should elucidate the relative effects of some treatments. These studies should focus on increasing participant numbers, using robust methodology and being of sufficient duration to adequately assess SSI. Assessment of other outcomes such as mortality might also be investigated as part of non-experimental prospective follow-up of people with SSI of different severity, so the risk of death for different subgroups can be better understood.

Productivity cost due to postpartum ill health: A cross-sectional study in Sri Lanka

Objective

Even though postpartum morbidity continues to cause high disease burden in maternal morbidity and mortality across the globe, the literature pertaining to resultant productivity loss is scarce. Hence, the present study aimed at determining the productivity loss and associated cost of episodes of postpartum ill health.

Methods

A cross sectional study was conducted in two Medical Officer of Heath areas in the Anuradhapura district, Sri Lanka in 2011, among 407 women residing in Anuradhapura district with an infant aged between 8 to 24 weeks. Validated interviewer administered questionnaires, including the IMMPACT productivity cost tool, were used to collect data on self-reported episodes of postpartum ill health. The productivity loss was calculated as the sum of days lost due to partial and total incapacitation. The adjusted productivity loss for coping strategies was calculated. Productivity cost, both total and adjusted, were calculated based on the mean daily per capita income of the study sample.

Results

Of the 407 participants, 161(39.6%) reported at least one episode of postpartum illness. Hospitalisations were reported by 27 (16.8%) of all symptomatic postpartum women. Common symptoms of postpartum ill health were pain/infection at either episiotomy or surgical site (n = 44, 27.3%), lower abdominal pain (n = 40, 24.8%) and backache (n = 27, 16.8%). The mean productivity loss per episode of ill health was 15 days (SD = 7.8 days) and the mean productivity loss per episode after adjusting for coping strategies was 7.9 days (SD = 4.4 days). The mean productivity cost per an episode was US$ 34.2(95%CI US$ 26.7–41.6) and the mean productivity cost per an episode after adjusting for coping strategies was US$ 18.0 (95%CI US$ 14.1–22.0)

Conclusions

The prevalence of self-reported postpartum ill health, associated productivity loss and cost were high in the study sample and the main contributors were preventable conditions including pain and infection. Thus, effective pain management and proper infection prevention and control measures are important in reducing the burden of postpartum illness and resultant productivity cost.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Preoperative Antisepsis with Combination Chlorhexidine and Povidone-Iodine

Importance  Effective preoperative antisepsis is recognized to prevent surgical site infection (SSI), although the definitive method is unclear. Many have compared chlorhexidine (CHG) with povidone-iodine (PVI), but there is emerging evidence for combination usage. Objective  To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate if combination skin preparation (1) reduces colonization at the operative site and (2) prevents SSI compared with single-agent use. Data Sources  A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials was performed. Study Selection  Comparative, human trials considering the combination use of CHG and PVI, as preoperative antisepsis, to single-agent CHG or PVI use were included. Studies were excluded from meta-analysis if the use or absence of alcohol was inconsistent between study arms. Data Extraction and Synthesis  The study was performed using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary outcome for meta-analysis was surgical site infection. The secondary outcome was colonization at the operative site. Results  Eighteen publications with a combination of CHG and PVI use were identified. Of these, 12/14 inferred promise for combination usage, including four trials eligible for meta-analysis. Only one trial reported SSI as its outcome. The remaining three considered bacterial colonization. Combination preparation had a pooled odds ratio for complete decolonization of 5.62 (95% confidence interval 3.2 to 9.7, p  < 0.00001). There was no evidence of heterogeneity (Cochran's Q 2.1, 2 df , p  = 0.35). Conclusions and Relevance  There is emerging, albeit low-quality, evidence in favor of combination CHG and PVI preoperative antisepsis. Further rigorous investigation is indicated.

Routes of administration of antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing infection after caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Post-caesarean section infection is a cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. Administration of antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended for preventing infection after caesarean delivery. The route of administration of antibiotic prophylaxis should be effective, safe and convenient. Currently, there is a lack of synthesised evidence regarding the benefits and harms of different routes of antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing infection after caesarean section.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to assess the benefits and harms of different routes of prophylactic antibiotics given for preventing infectious morbidity in women undergoing caesarean section.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (6 January 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least two alternative routes of antibiotic prophylaxis for caesarean section (both elective and emergency). Cross-over trials and quasi-RCTs were not eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from the included studies. These steps were checked by a third review author.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 studies (1354 women). The risk of bias was unclear or high in most of the included studies.All of the included trials involved women undergoing caesarean section whether elective or non-elective. Intravenous antibiotics versus antibiotic irrigation (nine studies, 1274 women) Nine studies (1274 women) compared the administration of intravenous antibiotics with antibiotic irrigation. There were no clear differences between groups in terms of this review's maternal primary outcomes: endometritis (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.29; eight studies (966 women) (low-quality evidence)); wound infection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.43; seven studies (859 women) (very low-quality evidence)). The outcome of infant sepsis was not reported in the included studies.In terms of this review's maternal secondary outcomes, there were no clear differences between intravenous antibiotic or irrigation antibiotic groups in terms of postpartum febrile morbidity (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.60; three studies (264 women) (very low-quality evidence)); or urinary tract infection (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.15; five studies (660 women) (very low-quality evidence)). In terms of adverse effects of the treatment on the women, no drug allergic reactions were reported in three studies (284 women) (very low-quality evidence), and there were no cases of serious infectious complications reported (very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between groups in terms of maternal length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) 0.28 days, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.79 days, (random-effects analysis), four studies (512 women). No data were reported for the number of women readmitted to hospital. For the baby, there were no data reported in relation to oral thrush, infant length of hospital stay or immediate adverse effects of the antibiotics on the infant. Intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis versus oral antibiotic prophylaxis (one study, 80 women) One study (80 women) compared an intravenous versus an oral route of administration of prophylactic antibiotics, but did not report any of this review's primary or secondary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no clear difference between irrigation and intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing the risk of post-caesarean endometritis. For other outcomes, there is insufficient evidence regarding which route of administration of prophylactic antibiotics is most effective at preventing post-caesarean infections. The quality of evidence was very low to low, mainly due to limitations in study design and imprecision. Furthermore, most of the included studies were underpowered (small sample sizes with few events). Therefore, we advise caution in the interpretation and generalisability of the results.For future research, there is a need for well-designed, properly-conducted, and clearly-reported RCTs. Such studies should evaluate the more recently available antibiotics, elaborating on the various available routes of administration, and exploring potential neonatal side effects of such interventions.

Vaginal preparation with antiseptic solution before cesarean section for preventing postoperative infections

BACKGROUND

Cesarean delivery is one of the most common surgical procedures performed by obstetricians. Infectious morbidity after cesarean delivery can have a tremendous impact on the postpartum woman's return to normal function and her ability to care for her baby. Despite the widespread use of prophylactic antibiotics, postoperative infectious morbidity still complicates cesarean deliveries.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if cleansing the vagina with an antiseptic solution before a cesarean delivery decreases the risk of maternal infectious morbidities, including endometritis and wound complications.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (10 December 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials assessing the impact of vaginal cleansing immediately before cesarean delivery with any type of antiseptic solution versus a placebo solution/standard of care on post-cesarean infectious morbidity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently assessed eligibility and quality of the studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven trials randomizing 2816 women (2635 analyzed) evaluated the effects of vaginal cleansing (all with povidone-iodine) on post-cesarean infectious morbidity. The risk of bias was generally low, with the quality of most of the studies being high. Vaginal preparation immediately before cesarean delivery significantly reduced the incidence of post-cesarean endometritis from 8.3% in control groups to 4.3% in vaginal cleansing groups (average risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.81, seven trials, 2635 women). The risk reduction was particularly strong for women who were already in labor at the time of the cesarean delivery (7.4% in the vaginal cleansing group versus 13.0% in the control group; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.95, three trials, 523 women) and for women with ruptured membranes (4.3% in the vaginal cleansing group versus 17.9% in the control group; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.55, three trials, 272 women). No other outcomes realized statistically significant differences between the vaginal cleansing and control groups. No adverse effects were reported with the povidone-iodine vaginal cleansing.The quality of the evidence using GRADE was low for post-cesarean endometritis, moderate for postoperative fever, and low for wound infection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Vaginal preparation with povidone-iodine solution immediately before cesarean delivery reduces the risk of postoperative endometritis. This benefit is particularly realized for women undergoing cesarean delivery, who are already in labor or who have ruptured membranes. As a simple, generally inexpensive intervention, providers should consider implementing preoperative vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine before performing cesarean deliveries.