Postpartum infection, pain and experiences with care among women treated for postpartum hemorrhage in three African countries: A cohort study of women managed with and without condom-catheter uterine balloon tamponade.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the risk of postpartum infection and increased pain associated with use of condom-catheter uterine balloon tamponade (UBT) among women diagnosed with postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) in three low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We also sought women's opinions on their overall experience of PPH care. METHODS: This prospective cohort study compared women diagnosed with PPH who received and did not receive UBT (UBT group and no-UBT group, respectively) at 18 secondary level hospitals in Uganda, Egypt, and Senegal that participated in a stepped wedge, cluster-randomized trial assessing UBT introduction. Key outcomes were reported pain (on a scale 0-10) in the immediate postpartum period and receipt of antibiotics within four weeks postpartum (a proxy for postpartum infection). Outcomes related to satisfaction with care and aspects women liked most and least about PPH care were also reported. RESULTS: Among women diagnosed with PPH, 58 were in the UBT group and 2188 in the no-UBT group. Self-reported, post-discharge antibiotic use within four weeks postpartum was similar in the UBT (3/58, 5.6%) and no-UBT groups (100/2188, 4.6%, risk ratio = 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45-3.35). A high postpartum pain score of 8-10 was more common among women in the UBT group (17/46, 37.0%) than in the no-UBT group (360/1805, 19.9%, relative risk ratio = 3.64, 95% CI:1.30-10.16). Most women were satisfied with their care (1935/2325, 83.2%). When asked what they liked least about care, the most common responses were that medications (580/1511, 38.4%) and medical supplies (503/1511, 33.3%) were unavailable. CONCLUSION: UBT did not increase the risk of postpartum infection among this population. Women who receive UBT may experience higher degrees of pain compared to women who do not receive UBT. Women's satisfaction with their care and stockouts of medications and other supplies deserve greater attention when introducing new technologies like UBT.

A cluster-randomized, non-inferiority trial comparing use of misoprostol for universal prophylaxis vs. secondary prevention of postpartum hemorrhage among community level births in Egypt.

BACKGROUND: Previous community-based research shows that secondary prevention of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) with misoprostol only given to women with above-average measured blood loss produces similar clinical outcomes compared to routine administration of misoprostol for prevention of PPH. Given the difficulty of routinely measuring blood loss for all deliveries, more operational models of secondary prevention are needed. METHODS: This cluster-randomized, non-inferiority trial included women giving birth with nurse-midwives at home or in Primary Health Units (PHUs) in rural Egypt. Two PPH management approaches were compared: 1) 600mcg oral misoprostol given to all women after delivery (i.e. primary prevention, current standard of care); 2) 800mcg sublingual misoprostol given only to women with 350-500 ml postpartum blood loss estimated using an underpad (i.e. secondary prevention). The primary outcome was mean change in pre- and post-delivery hemoglobin. Secondary outcomes included hemoglobin ≥2 g/dL and other PPH interventions. RESULTS: Misoprostol was administered after delivery to 100% (1555/1555) and 10.7% (117/1099) of women in primary and secondary prevention clusters, respectively. The mean drop in pre- to post-delivery hemoglobin was 0.37 (SD: 0.91) and 0.45 (SD: 0.76) among women in primary and secondary prevention clusters, respectively (difference adjusted for clustering = 0.01, one-sided 95% CI: < 0.27, p = 0.535). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes, including hemoglobin drop ≥2 g/dL, PPH diagnosis, transfer to higher level, or other interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Misoprostol for secondary prevention of PPH is comparable to universal prophylaxis and can be implemented using local materials, such as underpads. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02226588, date of registration 27 August 2014.

Intramuscular injection, intravenous infusion, and intravenous bolus of oxytocin in the third stage of labor for prevention of postpartum hemorrhage: a three-arm randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Oxytocin for postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) prophylaxis is commonly administered by either intramuscular (IM) injection or intravenous (IV) infusion with both routes recommended equally and little discussion of potential differences between the two. This trial assesses the effectiveness and safety of 10 IU oxytocin administered as IM injection versus IV infusion and IV bolus during the third stage of labor for PPH prophylaxis. METHODS: In two tertiary level Egyptian maternity hospitals, women delivering vaginally without exposure to pre-delivery uterotonics were randomized to one of three prophylactic oxytocin administration groups after delivery of the baby. Blood loss was measured 1 h after delivery, and side effects were recorded. Primary outcomes were mean postpartum blood loss and proportion of women with postpartum blood loss ≥500 ml in this open-label, three-arm, parallel, randomized controlled trial. RESULTS: Four thousand nine hundred thirteen eligible, consenting women were randomized. Compared to IM injection, mean blood loss was 5.9% less in the IV infusion arm (95% CI: -8.5, - 3.3) and 11.1% less in the IV bolus arm (95% CI: -14.7, - 7.8). Risk of postpartum blood loss ≥500 ml in the IV infusion arm was significantly less compared to IM injection (0.8% vs. 1.5%, RR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.27, 0.91). No side effects were reported in any arm. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous oxytocin is more effective than intramuscular injection for the prevention of PPH in the third stage of labor. Oxytocin delivered by IV bolus presents no safety concerns after vaginal delivery and should be considered a safe option for PPH prophylaxis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov # NCT01914419 , posted August 2, 2013.

A randomized trial comparing the pharmacology of magnesium sulfate when used to treat severe preeclampsia with serial intravenous boluses versus a continuous intravenous infusion.

BACKGROUND: Magnesium sulfate is the preferred pharmacological intervention for the prevention and treatment of eclamptic seizures in pregnancy. Pain associated with intramuscular injections and the need for an electronic infusion pump for use intravenously represent significant barriers to broader utilization. We hypothesize that an alternative regimen based on serial intravenous (IV) boluses can produce serum concentrations comparable to those produced by a continuous infusion. METHODS: An open-label randomized trial was performed at two hospitals in Egypt. Women with severe preeclampsia were eligible and enrolled between January 2015 and February 2016. Two hundred subjects were randomized by random numbers generated centrally in distinct blocks and stratified by study site. They were assigned to a continuous infusion arm, (4 g loading dose with 1 g/hr. continuous infusion) or a serial IV bolus arm, (6 g loading dose with 2 g bolus every 2 h using a Springfusor® pump). Sparsely sampled magnesium serum concentrations were collected, nonlinear mixed effect modeling was conducted and Monte Carlo simulations were used to generate 200 simulated subjects in each treatment arm. The simulated populations were used to determine area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) as a measure of total drug exposure and compared. RESULTS: Simulated area under the magnesium serum concentration-time curve was significantly higher in the serial IV bolus arm than in the continuous infusion arm (1107 ± 461 mmol•min /L vs. 1010 ± 398 mmol•min /L, (P = 0.02)). Four percent of women in the serial bolus arm considered the treatment unacceptable or very unacceptable compared to 2% in the continuous infusion arm, (P = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Serial IV boluses achieve serum magnesium concentrations statistically significantly higher but clinically comparable to those achieved with a continuous infusion and offer a third option for the administration of MgSO4 to women with preeclampsia that may reduce barriers to utilization. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial no. NCT02091401, March 17, 2014.

A randomized controlled trial of 400-µg sublingual misoprostol versus manual vacuum aspiration for the treatment of incomplete abortion in two Egyptian hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety, efficacy, and acceptability of 400-µg sublingual misoprostol with that of manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) in 2 Egyptian hospitals. METHODS: Participating women were randomized to either MVA or misoprostol treatment for incomplete abortion. The primary outcome, complete uterine evacuation, was determined 1 week later, as were adverse effects, change in hemoglobin, acceptability, and satisfaction. RESULTS: Complete uterine evacuation was achieved in 98.3% of women who received misoprostol and 99.7% who underwent MVA (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-1.00). A decrease in hemoglobin of 2g/dL or more was comparably rare in the 2 groups (0.3% misoprostol vs 0.9% MVA; RR 0.34 [95% CI, 0.04-3.21]). Mean change in hemoglobin was also clinically similar (-0.5 g/dL misoprostol vs -0.4 g/dL MVA; P<0.01). Heavy bleeding was rare (2.4% misoprostol vs 1.6% MVA; RR 1.55 [95% CI, 0.51-4.68]) following treatment. Nearly all women (96.8% misoprostol vs 98.3% MVA) were satisfied with their treatment but those who received misoprostol were significantly more likely to prefer that method in the future (81.9% vs 62.8%; RR 1.30 [95% CI, 1.19-1.43]). CONCLUSION: The high efficacy, safety, and acceptability of 400-µg sublingual misoprostol indicate that it is analogous to surgery as a first-line treatment for incomplete abortion. Misoprostol might improve post-abortion care when resources are limited and surgical treatment is unavailable.

Treatment of post-partum haemorrhage with sublingual misoprostol versus oxytocin in women not exposed to oxytocin during labour: a double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Oxytocin, the standard of care for treatment of post-partum haemorrhage, is not available in all settings because of refrigeration requirements and the need for intravenous administration. Misoprostol, an effective uterotonic agent with several advantages for resource-poor settings, has been investigated as an alternative. This trial established whether sublingual misoprostol was similarly efficacious to intravenous oxytocin for treatment of post-partum haemorrhage in women not exposed to oxytocin during labour. METHODS: In this double-blind, non-inferiority trial, 9348 women not exposed to prophylactic oxytocin had blood loss measured after vaginal delivery at four hospitals in Ecuador, Egypt, and Vietnam (one secondary-level and three tertiary-level facilities). 978 (10%) women were diagnosed with primary post-partum haemorrhage and were randomly assigned to receive 800 microg misoprostol (n=488) or 40 IU intravenous oxytocin (n=490). Providers and women were masked to treatment assignment. Primary endpoints were cessation of active bleeding within 20 min and additional blood loss of 300 mL or more after treatment. Clinical equivalence of misoprostol would be accepted if the upper bound of the 97.5% CI fell below the predefined non-inferiority margin of 6%. All outcomes were assessed from the time of initial treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00116350. FINDINGS: All randomly assigned participants were analysed. Active bleeding was controlled within 20 min with study treatment alone for 440 (90%) women given misoprostol and 468 (96%) given oxytocin (relative risk [RR] 0.94, 95% CI 0.91-0.98; crude difference 5.3%, 95% CI 2.6-8.6). Additional blood loss of 300 mL or greater after treatment occurred for 147 (30%) of women receiving misoprostol and 83 (17%) receiving oxytocin (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.40-2.26). Shivering (229 [47%] vs 82 [17%]; RR 2.80, 95% CI 2.25-3.49) and fever (217 [44%] vs 27 [6%]; 8.07, 5.52-11.8) were significantly more common with misoprostol than with oxytocin. No women had hysterectomies or died. INTERPRETATION: In settings in which use of oxytocin is not feasible, misoprostol might be a suitable first-line treatment alternative for post-partum haemorrhage.