Bonet Mercedes, Ota Erika, Chibueze Chioma E, Oladapo Olufemi T
UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, Geneva, Switzerland, CH-1211.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Nov 2;11(11):CD012136. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012136.pub2.
Bacterial infections occurring during labour, childbirth, and the puerperium may be associated with considerable maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. Antibiotic prophylaxis might reduce wound infection incidence after an episiotomy, particularly in situations associated with a higher risk of postpartum perineal infection, such as midline episiotomy, extension of the incision, or in settings where the baseline risk of infection after vaginal birth is high. However, available evidence is unclear concerning the role of prophylactic antibiotics in preventing infections after an episiotomy.
To assess whether routine antibiotic prophylaxis before or immediately after incision or repair of episiotomy for women with an uncomplicated vaginal birth, compared with either placebo or no antibiotic prophylaxis, prevents maternal infectious morbidities and improves outcomes.
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 24 July 2017, and screened reference lists of retrieved studies.
We considered randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised trials, and cluster-randomised trials that compared the use of routine antibiotic prophylaxis for incision or repair of an episiotomy for women with otherwise normal vaginal births, compared with either placebo or no antibiotic prophylaxis.
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data, and checked them for accuracy. We only found one quasi-randomised trial that met the inclusion criteria and was included in the analysis, therefore, we did not perform a meta-analysis.
We included one quasi-RCT (with data from 73 women) in the review. The trial, which was conducted in a public hospital in Brazil, compared oral chloramphenicol 500 mg four times daily for 72 hours after episiotomy repair (N = 34) and no treatment (N = 39). We assessed most of the domains at high risk of bias because women were randomised according to even and odd numbers, allocation concealment was based on protocol number, there was no treatment or placebo administered in the control group, we were unclear about the blinding of outcome assessments, and outcomes were incompletely reported. We considered the other domains to be at low risk of bias. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for very serious design limitations (related to lack of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding) and imprecision of effect estimates (small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals (CI) of effect estimates).We found very low-quality evidence, from one trial of 73 women, that there was no clear indication that prophylactic antibiotics reduced the incidence of episiotomy wound dehiscence with infection (risk ratio (RR) 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.28), or without infection (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.34). No cases of other puerperal infections (e.g. endometritis) were reported in either the antibiotic or control group.The trial did not report on any of the secondary outcomes of interest for this review, including severe maternal infectious morbidity, discomfort or pain at the episiotomy wound site, sexual function postpartum, adverse effects of antibiotics, costs of care, women's satisfaction with care, and individual antimicrobial resistance.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to assess the clinical benefits or harms of routine antibiotic prophylaxis for episiotomy repair after normal birth. The only trial included in this review had several methodological limitations, with very serious limitations in design, and imprecision of effect estimates. In addition, the trial tested an antibiotic with limited application in current clinical practice. There is a need for a careful and rigorous assessment of the comparative benefits and harms of prophylactic antibiotics on infection morbidity after episiotomy, in well-designed randomised controlled trials, using common antibiotics and regimens in current obstetric practice.
分娩期、产时及产褥期发生的细菌感染可能会导致孕产妇及围产儿出现较高的发病率和死亡率。抗生素预防可能会降低会阴切开术后伤口感染的发生率,尤其是在产后会阴感染风险较高的情况下,如正中会阴切开术、切口延长,或在阴道分娩后感染基线风险较高的环境中。然而,关于预防性抗生素在预防会阴切开术后感染中的作用,现有证据尚不清楚。
评估与安慰剂或不进行抗生素预防相比,对于顺产无并发症的女性,在会阴切开术切口或修复前或后立即进行常规抗生素预防是否能预防孕产妇感染性疾病并改善结局。
我们于2017年7月24日检索了Cochrane妊娠与分娩试验注册库、拉丁美洲和加勒比卫生科学数据库、ClinicalTrials.gov以及世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP),并筛选了检索到的研究的参考文献列表。
我们纳入了随机对照试验、半随机试验和整群随机试验,这些试验比较了对于顺产无并发症的女性,在会阴切开术切口或修复时使用常规抗生素预防与使用安慰剂或不进行抗生素预防的情况。
两位综述作者独立评估试验是否符合纳入标准及偏倚风险,提取数据并检查其准确性。我们仅发现一项符合纳入标准的半随机试验并将其纳入分析,因此,我们未进行Meta分析。
我们在综述中纳入了一项半随机对照试验(73名女性的数据)。该试验在巴西一家公立医院进行,比较了会阴切开术修复后口服氯霉素500mg每日4次共72小时(n = 34)与不治疗(n = 39)的情况。我们评估的大多数领域存在高偏倚风险,因为女性是根据奇数和偶数进行随机分组的,分配隐藏基于方案编号,对照组未给予治疗或安慰剂,我们不清楚结局评估是否设盲,且结局报告不完整。我们认为其他领域的偏倚风险较低。由于非常严重的设计局限性(与缺乏随机序列生成、分配隐藏和设盲有关)以及效应估计的不精确性(样本量小且效应估计的置信区间宽),我们对证据质量进行了降级。我们从一项纳入73名女性的试验中发现了质量极低的证据,表明没有明确迹象表明预防性抗生素能降低会阴切开术伤口感染裂开(风险比(RR)0.13,95%CI 0.01至2.28)或未感染(RR 0.82,95%CI 0.29至2.34)的发生率。抗生素组和对照组均未报告其他产褥期感染(如子宫内膜炎)病例。该试验未报告本综述关注的任何次要结局,包括严重孕产妇感染性疾病、会阴切开术伤口部位的不适或疼痛、产后性功能、抗生素的不良反应、护理费用、女性对护理的满意度以及个体抗菌药物耐药性。
没有足够的证据来评估顺产会后阴切开术修复进行常规抗生素预防的临床益处或危害。本综述纳入的唯一试验存在若干方法学局限性,设计方面存在非常严重的局限性,且效应估计不精确。此外,该试验所测试的抗生素在当前临床实践中的应用有限。需要在设计良好的随机对照试验中,使用当前产科实践中常用的抗生素和方案,对预防性抗生素在会阴切开术后感染发病率方面的相对益处和危害进行仔细而严格的评估。