Perioperative Supplemental Oxygen and Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: Subanalysis of a Trial, Systematic Review, and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative supplemental oxygen may reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting by mitigating hypoxic stress on the gastrointestinal tract. The authors therefore tested the hypothesis that supplemental oxygen reduces nausea and vomiting in adults recovering from colorectal surgery at the Cleveland Clinic between January 28, 2013, and March 11, 2016. METHODS: Initially, the authors conducted an unplanned subanalysis of a previous trial that evaluated the effect of 80% versus 30% intraoperative inspired oxygen on surgical site infection. Specifically, they assessed the effect of 80% versus 30% oxygen concentration on the incidence of postoperative nausea and/or vomiting. Thereafter, the authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of supplemental oxygen on postoperative nausea and vomiting. RESULTS: The authors' underlying analysis included 5,057 colorectal surgeries on 4,001 patients. For 2,554 surgeries, assignment was to 80% oxygen, and in 2,503 surgeries, to 30%. Postoperative nausea and vomiting was 852 of 2,554 (33%) in 80% oxygen and 814 of 2,503 (33%) in 30% oxygen. The estimated relative risk (95% CI) of 80% versus 30% oxygen on postoperative nausea and vomiting was 1.04 (0.96 to 1.12) in a generalized estimating equation model adjusting for within-patient correlation for patients with multiple surgeries, P = 0.355. Furthermore, supplemental oxygen did not reduce antiemetic use (P = 0.911) or the severity of nausea and vomiting (P = 0.924). The authors' meta-analysis included 10 qualifying trials (6,749 patients) and did not find a difference in postoperative nausea and vomiting: relative risk, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.86 to 1.08], P = 0.55, I2 = 52%. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting did not differ in patients assigned to 80% or 30% inspired oxygen. A meta-analysis of available trials similarly indicated that supplemental intraoperative oxygen does not reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting. Therefore, supplemental oxygen should not be given in the expectation that it will reduce nausea and vomiting.

Effect of intraoperative subhypnotic infusion of propofol on postoperative nausea and vomiting: A retrospective analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To measure the possible association between subhypnotic propofol infusion during general balanced anesthesia and the incidence of PONV. DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Analysis Using Propensity Score Matching. SETTING: Postanesthesia care unit and inpatient unit. PATIENTS: Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-IV, undergoing non-cardiac surgery lasting >2 h were included. Patients were excluded if transferred to the intensive care unit after surgery or received ketamine. Initially 70,976 patients were screened, and a cohort of 51,707 eligible adult patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery under general balanced anesthesia between 2015 and 2019 were included. Using a propensity score matching, 3185 patients who received subhypnotic propofol during general balanced anesthesia were matched with 5826 patients who did not receive subhypnotic propofol in a 1:2 ratio. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV during PACU stay. The secondary outcome was the incidence of PONV within the first 24 h after surgery. Exploratory outcomes were time-to-extubation and length of hospital stay. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 9011 patients were included (3185 patients who received propofol infusion, and 5826 patients who did not receive propofol infusion) after propensity score matching. The adjusted odds ratio for PONV incidence was 1.03 (95% CI: 0.90, 1.18; p = 0.635) in PACU, and 1.05 (95% CI: 0.90, 1.23; P = 0.50) within 24 h after surgery. The length of hospital stay was 6 h shorter (ratio of means (95% CI) of 0.92, 0.89, 0.94), p < 0.001) and time-to-extubation was 2 min longer (ratio of means 1.24 (1.20, 1.28), p < 0.001) in patients receiving subhypnotic propofol infusion. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that subhypnotic propofol infusion during general balanced anesthesia is not associated with a reduction in the incidence of PONV during PACU stay and within the first 24 h after surgery. However, it is associated with decreased LOS and increased time-to-extubation, but differences in neither outcome were clinically important.

Risks for Recurrent Vulvovaginal Candidiasis Caused by Non-Albicans Candida Versus Candida Albicans.

Background: Vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) is the second most common vulvovaginitis (VV). About 20% of women will experience recurrent infections in their lifetime with non-albicans Candida (NAC) species being one of the causative agents. Although studies have looked at risk factors for recurrent VVC they are limited in scope. In this study, we explore whether risks of recurrent VVC are increased with NAC infections compared to Candida albicans infections. Methods: Through an institutional review board-approved retrospective chart review, we identified 174 women with positive yeast cultures and followed their charts to assess recurrent visits and treatments. We also assessed several baseline variables such as race, age, body mass index (BMI), obstetric history, probiotic use, contraceptive use, mycological therapy, steroid use, hormone replacement therapy, menopausal status, and medical comorbidities. Results: Women with NAC VV were more likely to have multiple visits for recurring infections compared to women who had C. albicans VV (66% vs. 34%). The women with multiple recurrences were younger, had a lower BMI, had lower parity, and endorsed higher use of probiotics. Conclusion: Women with positive NAC cultures were more likely to have multiple visits to their physicians for VV complaints. Identifying the causative species using vaginal fungal cultures can more accurately guide therapy and lead to better outcomes for these patients.

Preincision adjunctive prophylaxis for cesarean deliveries a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically review the relative effectiveness of preincision cefazolin with or without adjunctive prophylaxis (macrolides or metronidazole) vs cefazolin alone in decreasing the incidence of postcesarean delivery surgical site infections. DATA SOURCES: We performed a systematic search on PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from October 25, 2020, to November 25, 2020, to identify studies comparing cefazolin with adjunctive macrolides or metronidazole with cefazolin alone. The reference lists were reviewed, and a manual search of articles published after the last database search was performed. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Overall, 3 randomized controlled trials and 1 prospective observational study of reproductive-age women undergoing cesarean deliveries were included in the study. We excluded studies of women who were immunocompromised (eg, patients who were HIV positive) or women with a diagnosis of chorioamnionitis before cesarean delivery. All patients received first-line cefazolin (either cefazolin 1 g or 2 g). We compared preincision cefazolin alone with preincision cefazolin plus adjunctive therapy (500 mg, oral or intravenous formulations of azithromycin, metronidazole, or clarithromycin). METHODS: A total of 6 review authors independently assessed the risk of bias for each study, using the Cochrane Risk of Bias criteria. Synthesis and further appraisal were done using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation levels and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists appraisal guidelines. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Treatment effects were evaluated using meta-analysis, and pooled relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were generated using random-effects models using the Review Manager 5 software (version 5.4.1). RESULTS: Overall, 3 randomized controlled trials and 1 prospective observational study representing 2613 women met the criteria for inclusion. Significant reductions in surgical site infections (relative risk, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.63; 3 randomized controlled trials) and the duration of hospital stay (weighted mean difference, -1.46; 95% confidence interval, -2.21 to -0.71; 2 randomized controlled trials) were observed with preincision cefazolin and adjunctive prophylaxis compared with cefazolin alone. No significant difference was observed in maternal febrile morbidity (relative risk, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-1.25; 2 randomized controlled trials). CONCLUSION: Our findings have provided evidence for the use of preincision adjunctive extended-spectrum prophylaxis with cefazolin over cefazolin alone. However, future investigations are required to establish the relative efficacies of different adjunctive antibiotic options.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Obstetrician and Gynecologist Workforce Distribution on Vaccine Deployment and Predicting Women's Healthcare Shortages.

Background Obstetricians and gynecologists, who serve a vital role in providing women's healthcare in the United States, are at risk of COVID-19 exposure via asymptomatic patients and deliveries. This study analyzes state-level geographical distribution of COVID-19 cases and age distribution of Obstetricians and gynecologists (OB/GYNs) to project which US regions will experience a more significant COVID-19 patient burden and provides a guide for vaccine distribution in the OB/GYN workforce. Methods The Association of American Medical Colleges' state-level workforce data is combined with COVID-19 case data reported by Johns Hopkins University. All data and code are available at https://github.com/cxr244/covid-obgyn. Results Our findings illustrate that OB/GYNs in the Midwestern region of the US experience the highest number of COVID-19 patients per OB/GYN over 60 years of age: North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Idaho have the highest burden of COVID-19 patients per OB/GYN, warranting vaccine distribution priority. Additionally, states with the highest proportion of OB/GYNs over the age of 60 like Florida (38%), New Mexico (37%), Alabama (36%), California (36%), and New Jersey (34%), should be strongly considered for priority vaccine allocation, to mitigate predicted OB/GYN workforce shortages.  Conclusion When planning and executing vaccine allocation, especially in the early stages of distribution, it is critical to evaluate which communities can benefit the greatest from the limited number of vaccines. A strategy of distribution of COVID-19 vaccines to older physicians with a more significant COVID-19 burden can minimize shortages of providers within these states and ensure adequate access to women's healthcare within the communities they serve.

Optimizing mother-baby wellness during the 2019 coronavirus disease pandemic: A case for telemedicine.

BACKGROUND: The 2019 coronavirus disease pandemic poses unique challenges to healthcare delivery. To limit the exposure of providers and patients to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention encourages providers to use telehealth platforms whenever possible. Given the maternal mortality crisis in the United States and the compounding 2019 coronavirus disease public health emergency, continued access to quality preconception, prenatal, intrapartum, and postpartum care are essential to the health and well-being of mother and baby. OBJECTIVE: This commentary explores unique opportunities to optimize virtual obstetric care for low-risk and high-risk mothers at each stage of pregnancy. METHODS: In this review paper, we present evidence-based literature and tools from first-hand experience implementing telemedicine in obstetric care clinics during the pandemic. RESULTS: Using the best evidence-based practices with telemedicine, health care providers can deliver care in the safest, most respectful, and appropriate way possible while providing the critical support necessary in pregnancy. In reviewing the literature, several studies endorse the implementation of specific tools outlined in this article, to facilitate the implementation of telemedicine. From a quality improvement standpoint, evidence-based telemedicine provides a solution for overburdened healthcare systems, greater confidentiality for obstetric services, and a personalized avenue for health care providers to meet maternal health needs in the pandemic. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, continued access to quality prenatal, intrapartum, and postpartum care are essential to the health and well-being of mother and baby.

Critical care in obstetrics: a strategy for addressing maternal mortality.

The acute rise in maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States is in part because of an increasingly medically complex obstetrical population. An estimated 1% to 3% of all obstetrical patients require intensive care, making timely delivery and availability of critical care imperative. The shifting landscape in obstetrical acuity places a burden on obstetrical providers, many of whom have limited experience in identifying and responding to critical illness. The levels of maternal care definitions by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine designate hospitals based on the availability of obstetrical resources and highlight the need for critical care resources and expertise. The growing need for critical care skills in the evolving contemporary obstetrical landscape serves as an opportunity to redefine the concept of delivery of care for high-risk obstetrical patients. We summarized the key tenets in the prevention of maternal morbidity and mortality, including the use of evidence-based tools for risk stratification and timely referral of patients to facilities with appropriate resources; innovative pathways for hospitals to provide critical care consultations on labor and delivery; and training of obstetrical providers in high-yield critical care skills, such as point-of-care ultrasonography. These critical care-focused interventions are key in addressing an increasingly complex obstetrical patient population while providing an educational foundation for the training of future obstetrical providers.

Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Management of Tubo-ovarian Abscess: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the success rate, complications, and hospital length-of-stay of 3 modalities of minimally invasive management of tubo-ovarian abscesses (TOAs): laparoscopy, ultrasound-guided drainage, and computed tomography-guided drainage. DATA SOURCES: Electronic-based search in PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, using the following Medical Subject Heading terms: "minimally invasive surgical procedures," "drainage," "abscess," "tubo-ovarian," "ovarian diseases," and "fallopian tube diseases." METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Of the 831 articles in the initial results, 10 studies were eligible for inclusion in our systematic review. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: A total of 975 patients were included in our study; 107 (11%) had laparoscopic drainage procedures, and 406 (42%) had image-guided (ultrasound or computed tomography) drainage of TOAs. Image-guided TOA drainage had higher success rates (90%-100%) than laparoscopic drainage (89%-96%) and the use of antibiotic treatment alone (65%-83%). Patients treated with image-guided drainage had no complications (for up to 6 months of follow-up) and shorter lengths of hospital stay (0-3 days on average) compared with laparoscopic drainage (5-12 days) or conservative management with antibiotics alone (7-9 days). CONCLUSION: Although conservative management of TOAs with antibiotics alone remains first-line, our review indicates that better outcomes in the management of TOA were achieved by minimally invasive approach compared with conservative treatment with antibiotics only. Of the minimally invasive techniques, image-guided drainage of TOAs provided the highest success rates, the fewest complications, and the shortest hospital stays compared with laparoscopy. The low magnitude of evidence in the included studies calls for further randomized trials. This systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Review (register, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO;CRD 42020170345).