Different regimens of penicillin antibiotics given to women routinely for preventing infection after caesarean section

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.

Different classes of antibiotics given to women routinely for preventing infection at caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Caesarean section increases the risk of postpartum infection for women and prophylactic antibiotics have been shown to reduce the incidence; however, there are adverse effects. It is important to identify the most effective class of antibiotics to use and those with the least adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To determine, from the best available evidence, the balance of benefits and harms between different classes of antibiotic given prophylactically to women undergoing caesarean section.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2014) and reference lists of retrieved papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing different classes of prophylactic antibiotics given to women undergoing caesarean section. We excluded trials that compared drugs with placebo or drugs within a specific class; these are assessed in other Cochrane reviews.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 35 studies of which 31 provided data on 7697 women. For the main comparison between cephalosporins versus penicillins, there were 30 studies of which 27 provided data on 7299 women. There was a lack of good quality data and important outcomes often included only small numbers of women.For the comparison of a single cephalosporin versus a single penicillin (Comparison 1 subgroup 1), we found no significant difference between these classes of antibiotics for our chosen most important seven outcomes namely: maternal sepsis - there were no women with sepsis in the two studies involving 346 women; maternal endometritis (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.52, nine studies, 3130 women, random effects, moderate quality of the evidence); maternal wound infection (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.81, nine studies, 1497 women, random effects, low quality of the evidence), maternal urinary tract infection (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.48, seven studies, 1120 women, low quality of the evidence) and maternal composite adverse effects (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.18 to 21.96, three studies, 1902 women, very low quality of the evidence). None of the included studies looked for infant sepsis nor infant oral thrush.This meant we could only conclude that the current evidence shows no overall difference between the different classes of antibiotics in terms of reducing maternal infections after caesarean sections. However, none of the studies reported on infections diagnosed after the initial postoperative hospital stay. We were unable to assess what impact, if any, the use of different classes of antibiotics might have on bacterial resistance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the best currently available evidence, cephalosporins and penicillins have similar efficacy at caesarean section when considering immediate postoperative infections. We have no data for outcomes on the baby, nor on late infections (up to 30 days) in the mother. Clinicians need to consider bacterial resistance and women's individual circumstances.