Impact of prior use of topical hemostatic agents on trial of labor after cesarean: Insights from a multicenter cohort study.
VBAC
cesarean delivery
maternal morbidity
topical hemostatic agent
trial of labor
uterine rupture
uterine scar disruption
Journal
International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics
ISSN: 1879-3479
Titre abrégé: Int J Gynaecol Obstet
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0210174
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2024
Apr 2024
Historique:
revised:
15
08
2023
received:
22
06
2023
accepted:
17
08
2023
medline:
18
3
2024
pubmed:
7
9
2023
entrez:
7
9
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the association between a topical hemostatic agent used at the time of cesarean delivery and uterine scar disruption (rupture or dehiscence) at the subsequent trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC). A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted (2005-2021). Parturients with a singleton pregnancy in whom a topical hemostatic agent was placed during the primary cesarean delivery were compared with patients in whom no such agent was placed. We assessed the uterine scar disruption rate after the subsequent TOLAC and the rate of adverse maternal outcomes. Univariate analyses were followed by multivariate analysis (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]; 95% confidence interval [CI]). During the study period, 7199 women underwent a trial of labor and were eligible for the study; 430 (6.0%) had prior use of a hemostatic agent, 6769 (94.0%) did not. In univariate analysis, a history of topical hemostatic agent use was not found to be significantly associated with uterine scar rupture, dehiscence, or failed trial of labor. This was also confirmed on multivariate analysis for uterine rupture (aOR 1.91, 95% CI 0.66-5.54; P = 0.23), dehiscence of uterine scar (aOR 1.62, 95% CI 0.56-4.68; P = 0.37), and TOLAC failure (aOR 1.08, 95% CI 0.79-1.48; P = 0.61). A history of hemostatic agent use is not associated with an increased risk for uterine scar disruption after subsequent TOLAC. Further prospective studies in other settings are needed to strengthen these findings.
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
203-210Informations de copyright
© 2023 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Références
Menacker F, Hamilton BE. Recent trends in cesarean delivery in the United States. NCHS Data Brief. 2010;35:1-8. Accessed December 25, 2022. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/5694
Vogel JP, Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, et al. Use of the Robson classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: a secondary analysis of two WHO multicountry surveys. Lancet Glob Health. 2015;3(5):e260-e270. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70094-X
Hammad IA, Chauhan SP, Magann EF, Abuhamad AZ. Peripartum complications with cesarean delivery: a review of maternal-fetal medicine units network publications. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014;27(5):463-474. doi:10.3109/14767058.2013.818970
Alsheef MA, Alabbad AM, Albassam RA, et al. Pregnancy and venous thromboembolism: risk factors, trends, management, and mortality. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020:1-6. doi:10.1155/2020/4071892
Rageth JC, Juzi C, Grossenbacher H. Delivery after previous cesarean: a risk evaluation. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;93(3):332-337. doi:10.1016/S0029-7844(98)00446-3
Oyelese Y, Ananth CV. Postpartum hemorrhage: epidemiology, risk factors, and causes. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2010;53(1):147-156. doi:10.1097/GRF.0B013E3181CC406D
Morales KJ, Gordon MC, Bates GW. Postcesarean delivery adhesions associated with delayed delivery of infant. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196(5):461.e1-461.e6. doi:10.1016/J.AJOG.2006.12.017
Tulandi T, Agdi M, Zarei A, Miner L, Sikirica V. Adhesion development and morbidity after repeat cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(1):56.e1-56.e6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2009.04.039
Phipps MG, Watabe B, Clemons JL, Weitzen S, Myers DL. Risk factors for bladder injury during cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(1):156-160. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000149150.93552.78
Knight M, Kurinczuk JJ, Spark P, Brocklehurst P. Cesarean delivery and peripartum hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(1):97-105. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000296658.83240.6D
Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(3):179-193. doi:10.1016/J.AJOG.2014.01.026
Curtin SC, Gregory KD, Korst LM, Uddin SFG. Maternal morbidity for vaginal and cesarean deliveries, according to previous cesarean history: new data from the birth certificate, 2013. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2015;64(4):1-13.
Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, et al. Patterns of use of hemostatic agents in patients undergoing major surgery. J Surg Res. 2014;186(1):458-466. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2013.07.042
Erenberg M, Rotem R, Segal D, et al. Adhesion barriers and topical hemostatic agents are risk factors for post-cesarean section infections. Surgery. 2021;170(4):1120-1124. doi:10.1016/J.SURG.2021.03.048
Portilla D, Hernández-Giraldo C, Moreno B, et al. A local hemostatic agent for the management of postpartum hemorrhage due to placenta previa and placenta accreta: a cross-sectional study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;288(3):543-549. doi:10.1007/S00404-013-2812-1
Miller DT, Roque DM, Santin AD. Use of Monsel solution to treat obstetrical hemorrhage: a review and comparison to other topical hemostatic agents. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(6):725-735. doi:10.1016/J.AJOG.2014.12.029
Abraham C. Postoperative outcomes of oxidized regenerated cellulose use in women undergoing cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(supplement 1):27S. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000483351.63594.97
Fagotti A, Costantini B, Fanfani F, et al. Risk of postoperative pelvic abscess in major gynecologic oncology surgery: one-year single-institution experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(9):2452-2458. doi:10.1245/S10434-010-1059-3/FIGURES/2
Shipp TD, Zelop C, Cohen A, Repke JT, Lieberman E. Post-cesarean delivery fever and uterine rupture in a subsequent trial of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101(1):136-139. doi:10.1016/S0029-7844(02)02319-0
Salman L, Hiersch L, Shmueli A, Krispin E, Wiznitzer A, Gabbay-Benziv R. Complicated primary cesarean delivery increases the risk for uterine rupture at subsequent trial of labor after cesarean. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;298(2):273-277. doi:10.1007/S00404-018-4801-X/TABLES/2
Peled T, Ashwal E, Rotem R, Sela HY, Grisaru-Granovsky S, Rottenstreich M. Unintended lower-segment hysterotomy extension at cesarean delivery and the risk for uterine rupture during a subsequent trial of labor. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2023;162:957-963. doi:10.1002/IJGO.14785
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and Committee on Gynecologic Practice. Topical hemostatic agents at time of obstetric and gynecologic surgery: ACOG Committee opinion summary, number 812. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136(4):870-871. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000004105
Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(1):3-8. doi:10.1056/NEJM200107053450101
Soltsman S, Perlitz Y, Ben Ami M, Ben Shlomo I. Uterine rupture after previous low segment transverse cesarean is rarely catastrophic. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018;31(6):708-712. doi:10.1080/14767058.2017.1297401
Nahum-Yerushalmy A, Walfisch A, Lipschuetz M, Rosenbloom JI, Kabiri D, Hochler H. Uterine rupture risk in a trial of labor after cesarean section with and without previous vaginal births. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022;305(6):1633-1639. doi:10.1007/S00404-021-06368-1/TABLES/2
Atia O, Rotem R, Reichman O, et al. Number of prior vaginal deliveries and trial of labor after cesarean success. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021;256:189-193. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.11.009
Wysham WZ, Roque DR, Soper JT. Use of topical hemostatic agents in gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2014;69(9):557-563. doi:10.1097/OGX.0000000000000106
Anderson CK, Medlin E, Ferriss AF, et al. Association between gelatin-thrombin matrix use and abscesses in women undergoing pelvic surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124(3):589-595. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000406
Gibbs L, Kakis A, Weinstein P, Conte JE. Bone wax as a risk factor for surgical-site infection following Neurospinal surgery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25(4):346-348. doi:10.1086/502403
Yaniv RT, Gluska H, Center MM, Daykan Y, Maor GS, Schonman R. Peripartum infection at cesarean delivery may be related to uterine rupture during a subsequent trial of labor. 2022. doi:10.21203/RS.3.RS-1639623/V1
Mohammadifard M, Naseh G, Oskooi RK, Sharifzadeh G, Eshraghi S. Comparison of the sonographic findings in laparoscopic cholecystostomy with and without hemostatic agent on 45-day follow-up of patients attending hospital. J Family Med Prim Care. 2019;8(5):1678-1684. doi:10.4103/JFMPC.JFMPC_92_19
Behbehani S, Tulandi T. Oxidized regenerated cellulose imitating pelvic abscess. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(2 Pt 2):447-449. doi:10.1097/AOG.0B013E318276CE3F
Zhang F, Bonidie MJ, Ventrelli SM, Furlan A. Intraovarian oxidized cellulose (Surgicel) mimicking acute ovarian pathology after recent pelvic surgery. Radiol Case Rep. 2015;10(4):39-41. doi:10.1016/J.RADCR.2015.08.002
Regmi A, Ojha N, Singh M, Ghimire A, Kharel N. Risk factors associated with surgical site infection following cesarean section in tertiary care hospital, Nepal. Int J Reprod Med. 2022;2022:1-11. doi:10.1155/2022/4442453
Zuarez-Easton S, Zafran N, Garmi G, Salim R. Postcesarean wound infection: prevalence, impact, prevention, and management challenges. Int J Womens Health. 2017;9:81-88. doi:10.2147/IJWH.S98876