Stephanie L Pierce1, Courtney M Bisson2, Molly E Dubois2, Sarah B Grimes2, Mikaela S Katz2, Mary M Weed2, Sabrina N Wyatt2, Erin K Eckart3, Jennifer D Peck3, Rodney K Edwards2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, Oklahoma City, OK. Electronic address: stephanieboespierce@gmail.com. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, Oklahoma City, OK. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Oklahoma Health Science Center, Hudson College of Public Health, Oklahoma City, OK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A recent large clinical trial demonstrated an approximately 50% decrease in the rate of postoperative infection in women who were laboring and/or had rupture of membranes for >4 hours and who received azithromycin in addition to standard preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis at the time of cesarean delivery. Given these results, our institution made a policy change in May 2017 to add azithromycin to standard preoperative prophylaxis for all cesarean deliveries. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of adding azithromycin to preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis for cesarean delivery. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a before-and-after cohort study of women delivered via cesarean delivery at our institution. The preimplementation group included women who delivered from March 1, 2016, to February 28, 2017, (before an institutional practice change of adding azithromycin to standard preoperative prophylaxis), and the postimplementation group included women who delivered from September 1, 2017, to August 31, 2018 (allowing a 6-month period for uptake of the practice change). The primary outcome was a composite of postoperative infections (endometritis, wound infection, other maternal infections). Unadjusted and adjusted risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using a modified Poisson regression model. RESULTS: In the preimplementation (n=1171) and postimplementation (n=1168) groups, the incidence rates of the composite outcomes were 4.7% and 5.3%, respectively (P=.49). Both unadjusted (relative risk, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.62) and adjusted (adjusted relative risk, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.52) comparisons were not significantly different. In addition, results were statistically nonsignificant, but in the direction of lower rates of infection, in the after cohort for women in labor and/or with rupture of membranes for ≥4 hours (relative risk, 0.88 [95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.39]; adjusted relative risk, 0.82 [95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.30]) and for women with clinical chorioamnionitis (relative risk, 0.37 [95% confidence interval, 0.08-1.67]; data too sparse for adjusted analysis). In the subgroup of women who were not in labor, the after cohort had a statistically nonsignificant increased risk of the composite outcome in both unadjusted (relative risk, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-2.72) and adjusted (adjusted relative risk, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-2.65]) comparisons. CONCLUSION: In clinical practice, the addition of azithromycin to standard preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis for cesarean delivery may have an effect size smaller than seen in the large clinical trial prompting this practice change. Extrapolation of this regimen to women not in labor may be ineffective.
BACKGROUND: A recent large clinical trial demonstrated an approximately 50% decrease in the rate of postoperative infection in women who were laboring and/or had rupture of membranes for >4 hours and who received azithromycin in addition to standard preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis at the time of cesarean delivery. Given these results, our institution made a policy change in May 2017 to add azithromycin to standard preoperative prophylaxis for all cesarean deliveries. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of adding azithromycin to preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis for cesarean delivery. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a before-and-after cohort study of women delivered via cesarean delivery at our institution. The preimplementation group included women who delivered from March 1, 2016, to February 28, 2017, (before an institutional practice change of adding azithromycin to standard preoperative prophylaxis), and the postimplementation group included women who delivered from September 1, 2017, to August 31, 2018 (allowing a 6-month period for uptake of the practice change). The primary outcome was a composite of postoperative infections (endometritis, wound infection, other maternal infections). Unadjusted and adjusted risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using a modified Poisson regression model. RESULTS: In the preimplementation (n=1171) and postimplementation (n=1168) groups, the incidence rates of the composite outcomes were 4.7% and 5.3%, respectively (P=.49). Both unadjusted (relative risk, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.62) and adjusted (adjusted relative risk, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.52) comparisons were not significantly different. In addition, results were statistically nonsignificant, but in the direction of lower rates of infection, in the after cohort for women in labor and/or with rupture of membranes for ≥4 hours (relative risk, 0.88 [95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.39]; adjusted relative risk, 0.82 [95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.30]) and for women with clinical chorioamnionitis (relative risk, 0.37 [95% confidence interval, 0.08-1.67]; data too sparse for adjusted analysis). In the subgroup of women who were not in labor, the after cohort had a statistically nonsignificant increased risk of the composite outcome in both unadjusted (relative risk, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-2.72) and adjusted (adjusted relative risk, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-2.65]) comparisons. CONCLUSION: In clinical practice, the addition of azithromycin to standard preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis for cesarean delivery may have an effect size smaller than seen in the large clinical trial prompting this practice change. Extrapolation of this regimen to women not in labor may be ineffective.
Authors: Alan T N Tita; John Owen; Alan M Stamm; Anne Grimes; John C Hauth; William W Andrews Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Dana Figueroa; Victoria Chapman Jauk; Jeff M Szychowski; Rachel Garner; Joseph R Biggio; William W Andrews; John Hauth; Alan T N Tita Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 7.661