Azithromycin vs erythromycin for the management of preterm premature rupture of membranes.

BACKGROUND: Preterm premature rupture of membranes complicates 2-3% of pregnancies. Many institutions have advocated for the use of azithromycin instead of erythromycin. This is secondary to national shortages of erythromycin, ease of administration, better side effect profile, and decreased cost of azithromycin as compared with erythromycin. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate whether there are differences in the latency from preterm premature rupture of membranes to delivery in patients treated with different dosing regimens of azithromycin vs erythromycin. STUDY DESIGN: This is a multicenter, retrospective cohort of women with singleton pregnancies with confirmed rupture of membranes between 230 and 336 weeks from January 2010 to June 2015. Patients were excluded if there was a contraindication to expectant management of preterm premature rupture of membranes. Patients received 1 of 4 antibiotic regimens: (1) azithromycin 1000 mg per os once (azithromycin 1 day group); (2) azithromycin 500 mg per os once, followed by azithromycin 250 mg per os daily for 4 days (azithromycin 5 day group); (3) azithromycin 500 mg intravenously for 2 days, followed by azithromycin 500 mg per os daily for 5 days (azithromycin 7 day group); or (4) erythromycin intravenously for 2 days followed by erythromycin per os for 5 days (erythromycin group). The choice of macrolide was based on institutional policy and/or availability of antibiotics at the time of admission. In addition, all patients received ampicillin intravenously for 2 days followed by amoxicillin per os for 5 days. Primary outcome was latency from diagnosis of rupture of membranes to delivery. Secondary outcomes included clinical and histopathological chorioamnionitis and neonatal outcomes. RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-three patients who met inclusion criteria were identified. Seventy-eight patients received azithromycin for 1 day, 191 patients received azithromycin for 5 days, 52 patients received azithromycin for 7 days, and 132 patients received erythromycin. Women who received the 5 day regimen were younger and less likely to be non-African American, have hypertension, have sexually transmitted infection, or experienced substance abuse. There was no statistical difference in median latency time of azithromycin 1 day (4.9 days, 95% confidence interval, 3.3-6.4), azithromycin 5 days (5.0, 95% confidence interval, 3.9-6.1), or azithromycin 7 days (4.9 days, 95% confidence interval, 2.8-7.0) when compared with erythromycin (5.1 days, 95% confidence interval, 3.9-6.4) after adjusting for demographic variables (P = .99). Clinical chorioamnionitis was not different between groups in the adjusted model. Respiratory distress syndrome was increased in the azithromycin 5 day group vs azithromycin 1 day vs erythromycin (44% vs. 29% and 29%, P = .005, respectively). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in latency to delivery, incidence of chorioamnionitis, or neonatal outcomes when comparing different dosing regimens of the azithromycin with erythromycin, with the exception of respiratory distress syndrome being more common in the 5 day azithromycin group. Azithromycin could be considered as an alternative to erythromycin in the expectant management of preterm premature rupture of membranes if erythromycin is unavailable or contraindicated. There appears to be no additional benefit to an extended course of azithromycin beyond the single-day dosing, but final recommendations on dosing strategies should rely on clinical trials.

An airtight approach to the inebriometer: from construction to application with volatile anesthetics.

The mechanism by which inhaled anesthetics work is not fully understood, although they have been extensively used. Much research has been done showing the likelihood that there is more than one pathway or mechanism of action. A long-term goal of our laboratory is to decipher these mechanisms using Drosophila melanogaster, an excellent model organism for this purpose. In order to do this, we have modified and constructed an apparatus called the inebriometer to quantitatively analyze the response of flies to inhaled anesthetics. While the inebriometer is not new to the fly community, our updated design provides a relatively low-labor, high-throughput means for performing screens in search of genes involved in the anesthetic mechanism. Here we describe our construction of an airtight inebriometer that we have designed for this purpose. We also provide data that validates this apparatus and establishes a procedure for its use.

Hybrid repair of thoracic aortic lesions for zone 0 and 1 in high-risk patients.

PURPOSE: Some patients with aortic arch or descending thoracic aorta pathologies are not suited for open repair because of comorbidities that may increase their risk of procedural complications or death. Endovascular approaches may also be difficult when there are inadequate proximal landing zones in the aortic arch. We report our experience using rerouting techniques with bypass, stenting of the branches, or a combination of both to create a landing area in zones 0 and 1 of the aortic arch. METHODS: Since November 2002, thoracic aortic endoluminal grafts were placed in 38 patients in whom the endograft was deployed in zone 0 (n = 27) or zone 1 (n = 11). A retrospective review is included. RESULTS: There were 11 women and 27 men with a mean age of 65.4 years (range 38-88). Aortic pathology included 12 Stanford type A dissections, 10 aortic arch aneurysms, 8 Stanford type B dissections, 3 descending thoracic aortic aneurysms, 2 aortobronchial fistulas, 1 innominate artery aneurysm and 2 aortic arch pseudoaneurysms. In zone 0, 21 had thoracic debranching with an ascending bypass, three patients had a remote-inflow and three patients had a chimney-stent with carotid-carotid bypass. In zone 1, five patients had a carotid-carotid bypass, one patient had an aortic to left common carotid artery (LCCA) bypass and five patients had chimney-stent on the LCCA. Fifty-eight percent of the patients were symptomatic and 26% emergent. Three patients required hemodialysis postoperatively (7.9%), 18 patients (47.4%) required prolonged mechanical ventilation for respiratory insufficiency. Paraplegia occurred in one patient (2.7%), and five patients suffered a cerebrovascular accident (13.1%). There were four early type I and two type II endoleaks. Overall 30-day mortality was 23.7%. CONCLUSIONS: The hybrid approach for repair of the aortic arch pathologies is feasible in patients unfit for open repair. We present the results of performing different techniques to treat the aortic arch with hybrid repair with antegrade or retrograde inflow, stenting of the branches or a combination of both. Long-term results are unknown, and larger series results and comparative studies are needed to determine safety and efficacy.