Study To Reduce Infection Prior to Elective Cesarean Deliveries (STRIPES): a randomized clinical trial of chlorhexidine

Evidence-based cesarean delivery: preoperative management (part 7)

Preoperative preparation for cesarean delivery is a multistep approach for which protocols should exist at each hospital system. These protocols should be guided by the findings of this review. The interventions reviewed and recommendations made for this review have a common goal of decreasing maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality related to cesarean delivery. The preoperative period starts before the patient's arrival to the hospital and ends immediately before skin incision. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends showering with either soap or an antiseptic solution at least the night before a procedure. Skin cleansing in addition to this has not been shown to further decrease rates of infection. Hair removal at the cesarean skin incision site is not necessary, but if preferred by the surgical team then clipping or depilatory creams should be used rather than shaving. Preoperative enema is not recommended. A clear liquid diet may be ingested up to 2 hours before and a light meal up to 6 hours before cesarean delivery. Consider giving a preoperative carbohydrate drink to nondiabetic patients up to 2 hours before planned cesarean delivery. Weight-based intravenous cefazolin is recommended 60 minutes before skin incision: 1-2 g intravenous for patients without obesity and 2 g for patients with obesity or weight ≥80 kg. Adjunctive azithromycin 500 mg intravenous is recommended for patients with labor or rupture of membranes. Preoperative gabapentin can be considered as a way to decrease pain scores with movement in the postoperative period. Tranexamic acid (1 g in 10-20 mL of saline or 10 mg/kg intravenous) is recommended prophylactically for patients at high risk of postpartum hemorrhage and can be considered in all patients. Routine use of mechanical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis is recommended preoperatively and is to be continued until the patient is ambulatory. Music and active warming of the patient, and adequate operating room temperature improves outcomes for the patient and neonate, respectively. Noise levels should allow clear communication between teams; however, a specific decibel level has not been defined in the data. Patient positioning with left lateral tilt decreases hypotensive episodes compared with right lateral tilt, which is not recommended. Manual displacers result in fewer hypotensive episodes than left lateral tilt. Both vaginal and skin preparation should be performed with either chlorhexidine (preferred) or povidone iodine. Placement of an indwelling urinary catheter is not necessary. Nonadhesive drapes are recommended. Cell salvage, although effective for high-risk patients, is not recommended for routine use. Maternal supplemental oxygen does not improve outcomes. A surgical safety checklist (including a timeout) is recommended for all cesarean deliveries.

Exploring the Limits of Artificial Intelligence for Referencing Scientific Articles

OBJECTIVE

 To evaluate the reliability of three artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots (ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Chatsonic) in generating accurate references from existing obstetric literature.

STUDY DESIGN

 Between mid-March and late April 2023, ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Chatsonic were prompted to provide references for specific obstetrical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2020. RCTs were considered for inclusion if they were mentioned in a previous article that primarily evaluated RCTs published by the top medical and obstetrics and gynecology journals with the highest impact factors in 2020 as well as RCTs published in a new journal focused on publishing obstetric RCTs. The selection of the three AI models was based on their popularity, performance in natural language processing, and public availability. Data collection involved prompting the AI chatbots to provide references according to a standardized protocol. The primary evaluation metric was the accuracy of each AI model in correctly citing references, including authors, publication title, journal name, and digital object identifier (DOI). Statistical analysis was performed using a permutation test to compare the performance of the AI models.

RESULTS

 Among the 44 RCTs analyzed, Google Bard demonstrated the highest accuracy, correctly citing 13.6% of the requested RCTs, whereas ChatGPT and Chatsonic exhibited lower accuracy rates of 2.4 and 0%, respectively. Google Bard often substantially outperformed Chatsonic and ChatGPT in correctly citing the studied reference components. The majority of references from all AI models studied were noted to provide DOIs for unrelated studies or DOIs that do not exist.

CONCLUSION

 To ensure the reliability of scientific information being disseminated, authors must exercise caution when utilizing AI for scientific writing and literature search. However, despite their limitations, collaborative partnerships between AI systems and researchers have the potential to drive synergistic advancements, leading to improved patient care and outcomes.

KEY POINTS

· AI chatbots often cite scientific articles incorrectly.. · AI chatbots can create false references.. · Responsible AI use in research is vital..

Preoperative Application of Chlorhexidine to Reduce Infection with Cesarean Delivery after Labor (PRACTICAL): A Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

 To evaluate whether use of both preoperative 2% chlorhexidine gluconate abdominal cloth and 4% chlorhexidine gluconate vaginal scrub is effective in reducing surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients undergoing cesarean delivery after labor.

STUDY DESIGN

 This is a single-center, randomized clinical trial in which patients were randomized 1:1 to receive 2% chlorhexidine gluconate cloth applied to the abdomen in addition to the application of 4% chlorhexidine gluconate vaginal scrub versus standard of care. The primary outcome was rate of SSIs, including endometritis, by 6 weeks postdelivery. The secondary outcomes were other wound complications (erythema at the operative site, skin separation, drainage, fever, hematoma, seroma) by 6 weeks postdelivery, hospital readmission for wound complications, and day of discharge after cesarean delivery.

RESULTS

 A total of 319 patients between September 2018 and February 2021 met eligibility criteria: 160 were randomized to the chlorhexidine gluconate abdominal cloth and vaginal scrub group and 159 were randomized to the standard of care group. The groups did not have significant differences in maternal demographic characteristics. Of the 302 (95%) individuals included in primary analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in SSI and endometritis rate by 6 weeks postdelivery (6.6% in chlorhexidine vs. 5.3% standard of care, p = 0.65). Secondary outcomes were also similar among the two groups.

CONCLUSION

 The combination of preoperative 2% chlorhexidine gluconate abdominal cloth and 4% chlorhexidine gluconate vaginal scrub does not appear to reduce the risk of SSI with cesarean delivery after trial of labor when compared with standard of care.

KEY POINTS

· Preoperative chlorhexidine abdominal cloth/vaginal scrub does not decrease SSI in cesarean after labor.. · Preoperative chlorhexidine abdominal cloth/vaginal scrub does not decrease other wound complications in cesarean after labor.. · There was no difference in discharge day, 2-week or 6-week SSI rates..

Best products for skin antisepsis

BACKGROUND

Skin antiseptics are used for several purposes before surgical procedures, for bathing high-risk patients as a means of reducing central line-associated infections and other health care associated infections.

METHODS

A PubMed search was performed to update the evidence on skin antiseptic products and practices.

RESULTS

Current guidelines for prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs) recommend preoperative baths or showers with a plain or antimicrobial soap prior to surgery, but do not make recommendations on the timing of baths, the total number of baths needed, or about the use of chlorhexidine gluconate (CGH)-impregnated cloths. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that pre-operative surgical hand antisepsis using an antimicrobial soap or alcohol-based hand rub yields similar SSI rates. Other studies have reported that using an alcohol-based hand rub caused less skin irritation, was easier to use, and required shorter scrub times than using antimicrobial soap. Current SSI prevention guidelines recommend using an alcohol-containing antiseptic for surgical site infection. Commonly used products contain isopropanol combined with either CHG or with povidone-iodine. Surgical site preparation protocols for shoulder surgery in men may need to include coverage for anaerobes. Several studies suggest the need to monitor and improve surgical site preparation techniques. Daily bathing of intensive care unit (ICU) patients with a CHG-containing soap reduces the incidence of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs). Evidence for a similar effect in non-ICU patients is mixed. Despite widespread CHG bathing of ICU patients, numerous barriers to its effective implementation exist. Measuring CHG levels on the skin is useful for identifying gaps in coverage and suboptimal skin concentrations. Using alcohol-based products with at least 2% CHG for skin preparation prior to central line insertion reduces CLABSIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Progress has been made on skin antisepsis products and protocols, but improvements in technique are still needed.

Continuous versus disrupted subcutaneous tissue closure in cesarean section: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To compare rates of surgical-site infections following continuous, as compared with interrupted, subcutaneous tissue closure technique during cesarean delivery (CD).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study during 2008-2018. The study group included women who underwent either elective or emergent CD with continuous subcutaneous tissue closure, while the control group comprised those with interrupted subcutaneous tissue closure. We excluded women with suspected infectious morbidity before CD. The primary outcome was surgical-site infection (SSI) rate.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 6281 women. We performed continuous subcutaneous tissue closure in 37.4% (1867/4988) of scheduled CD, and 45.8% (592/1293) of emergent CD. The rate of SSI was significantly lower following continuous than interrupted subcutaneous tissue closure, in both elective CD (2.7% versus 4.5%, respectively, P = 0.031) and emergent CD (3.2% versus 5.4%, respectively, P = 0.036) in nulliparous and multiparous women. Similarly, secondary outcomes such as re-admission rates, postoperative maternal fever, and need for antibiotic treatment were significantly lower following continuous subcutaneous closure.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous subcutaneous closure technique during CD yields a lower rate of surgical-site complications compared with the interrupted technique.

The Utility of Chlorhexidine Cloth Use for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infections in Total Hip Arthroplasty and Surgical as well as Basic Science Applications: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Skin antisepsis, such as ready-to-use, no-rinse, 2% chlorhexidine-impregnated cloths, is one of the fundamental cornerstones for reducing periprosthetic infections after primary lower extremity total joint arthroplasties. This systematic review presents background material concerning the problem and methods to deal with and then describes the use of chlorhexidine cloth prophylaxis related to various surgical applications. The authors found an almost universal benefit of the cloths. In the meta-analysis, the total pooled effect showed a reduction in infection rates. The use of chlorhexidine cloths is appropriate for prophylaxis for knee arthroplasty, hip arthroplasty, and a variety of other surgeries.

Number and quality of randomized controlled trials in obstetrics published in the top general medical and obstetrics and gynecology journals

BACKGROUND

There has been an increasing number of randomized controlled trials published in obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine to reduce biases of treatment effect and to provide insights on the cause-effect of the relationship between treatment and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify obstetrical randomized controlled trials published in top weekly general medical journals and monthly obstetrics and gynecology journals, to assess their quality in reporting and identify factors associated with publication in different journals.

STUDY DESIGN

The 4 weekly medical journals with the highest 2019 impact factor (New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, The Journal of the American Medical Association, and British Medical Journal), the top 4 monthly obstetrics and gynecology journals with obstetrics-related research (American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology), and the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Maternal-Fetal Medicine were searched for obstetrical randomized controlled trials in the years 2018 to 2020. The primary outcome was the number of obstetrical randomized controlled trials published in the obstetrics and gynecology journals vs the weekly medical journals and the percentage of trials published, overall and per journal. The secondary outcomes included the proportion of positive vs negative trials overall and per journal and the assessment of the study characteristics of published trials, including quality assessment criteria.

RESULTS

Of the 4024 original research articles published in the 9 journals during the 3-year study period, 1221 (30.3%) were randomized controlled trials, with 137 (11.2%) randomized controlled trials being in obstetrics (46 in 2018, 47 in 2019, and 44 studies in 2020). Furthermore, 33 (24.1%) were published in weekly medical journals, and 104 (75.9%) were published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. The percentage of obstetrical randomized controlled trials published ranged from 1.5% to 9.6% per journal. Overall, 34.3% of obstetrical trials were statistically significant or "positive" for the primary outcome. Notably, 24.8% of the trials were retrospectively registered after the enrollment of the first study patient. Trials published in the 4 weekly medical journals enrolled significantly more patients (1801 vs 180; P<.001), received more often funding from the federal government (78.8% vs 35.6%; P<.001), and were more likely to be multicenter (90.9% vs 42.3%; P<.001), non-United States based (69.7% vs 49.0%; P=.03), and double blinded (45.5% vs 18.3%; P=.003) than trials published in the obstetrics and gynecology journals. There was no difference in study type (noninferiority vs superiority) and trial quality characteristics, including pretrial registration, ethics approval statement, informed consent statement, and adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines statement between studies published in weekly medical journals and studies published in obstetrics and gynecology journals.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 45 trials in obstetrics are being published every year in the highest impact journals, with one-fourth being in the weekly medical journals and the remainder in the obstetrics and gynecology journals. Only about a third of published obstetrical trials are positive. Trials published in weekly medical journals are larger, more likely to be funded by the government, multicenter, international, and double blinded. Quality metrics are similar between weekly medical journals and obstetrics and gynecology journals.