Management of preterm prelabour rupture of membranes: an audit. How do the results compare with clinical practice guidelines?

Unit policies regarding tocolysis after preterm premature rupture of membranes: association with latency, neonatal and 2-year outcomes (EPICE cohort)

After preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), antibiotics and antenatal steroids are effective evidence-based interventions, but the use of tocolysis is controversial. We investigated whether a unit policy of tocolysis use after PPROM is associated with prolonged gestation and improved outcomes for very preterm infants in units that systematically use these other evidence-based treatments. From the prospective, observational, population-based EPICE cohort study (all very preterm births in 19 regions from 11 European countries, 2011-2012), we included 607 women with a singleton pregnancy and PPROM at 24-29 weeks' gestation, of whom 101, 195 and 311 were respectively managed in 17, 32 and 45 units with no-use, restricted and liberal tocolysis policies for PPROM. The association between unit policies and outcomes (early-onset sepsis, survival at discharge, survival at discharge without severe morbidity and survival at two years without gross motor impairment) was investigated using three-level random-intercept logistic regression models, showing no differences in neonatal or two-year outcomes by unit policy. Moreover, there was no association between unit policies and prolongation of gestation in a multilevel survival analysis. Compared to a unit policy of no-use of tocolysis after PPROM, a liberal or restricted policy is not associated with improved obstetric, neonatal or two-year outcomes.

Planned home versus hospital care for preterm prelabour rupture of the membranes (PPROM) prior to 37 weeks' gestation

BACKGROUND

Preterm prelabour rupture of membranes (PPROM) is associated with increased risk of maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Women with PPROM have been predominantly managed in hospital. It is possible that selected women could be managed at home after a period of observation. The safety, cost and women's views about home management have not been established.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety, cost and women's views about planned home versus hospital care for women with PPROM.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 July 2013) and the reference lists of all the identified articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing planned home versus hospital management for women with PPROM before 37 weeks' gestation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed clinical trials for eligibility for inclusion, risk of bias, and carried out data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two trials (116 women) comparing planned home versus hospital management for PPROM. Overall, the number of included women in each trial was too small to allow adequate assessment of pre-specified outcomes. Investigators used strict inclusion criteria and in both studies relatively few of the women presenting with PPROM were eligible for inclusion. Women were monitored for 48 to 72 hours before randomisation. Perinatal mortality was reported in one trial and there was insufficient evidence to determine whether it differed between the two groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 20.05).  There was no evidence of differences between groups for serious neonatal morbidity, chorioamnionitis, gestational age at delivery, birthweight and admission to neonatal intensive care.There was no information on serious maternal morbidity or mortality. There was some evidence that women managed in hospital were more likely to be delivered by caesarean section (RR (random-effects) 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.15). However, results should be interpreted cautiously as there is moderate heterogeneity for this outcome (I² = 35%). Mothers randomised to care at home spent approximately 10 fewer days as inpatients (mean difference -9.60, 95% CI -14.59 to -4.61) and were more satisfied with their care. Furthermore, home care was associated with reduced costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review included two relatively small studies that did not have sufficient statistical power to detect meaningful differences between groups. Future large and adequately powered randomised controlled trials are required to measure differences between groups for relevant pre-specified outcomes. Special attention should be given to the assessment of maternal satisfaction with care and cost analysis as they will have social and economic implications in both developed and developing countries.

Planned home versus hospital care for preterm prelabour rupture of the membranes (PPROM) prior to 37 weeks' gestation

BACKGROUND

Preterm prelabour rupture of membranes (PPROM) is associated with increased risk of maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Women with PPROM have been predominantly managed in hospital. It is possible that selected women could be managed at home after a period of observation. The safety, cost and women's views about home management have not been established.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety, cost and women's views about planned home versus hospital care for women with PPROM.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (January 2010) and the reference lists of all the identified articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing planned home versus hospital management for women with PPROM before 37 weeks' gestation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed clinical trials for eligibility for inclusion, risk of bias, and carried out data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two trials (116 women) comparing planned home versus hospital management for PPROM. Overall, the number of included women in each trial was too small to allow adequate assessment of pre-specified outcomes. Investigators used strict inclusion criteria and in both studies relatively few of the women presenting with PPROM were eligible for inclusion. Women were monitored for 48 to 72 hours before randomisation. Perinatal mortality was reported in one trial and there was insufficient evidence to determine whether it differed between the two groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 20.05). There was no evidence of differences between groups for serious neonatal morbidity, chorioamnionitis, gestational age at delivery, birthweight and admission to neonatal intensive care.There was no information on serious maternal morbidity or mortality. There was some evidence that women managed in hospital were more likely to be delivered by caesarean section (RR (random-effects) 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.15). However, results should be interpreted cautiously as there is a moderate heterogeneity for this outcome (I(2) = 35%). Mothers randomised to care at home spent approximately 10 fewer days as inpatients (mean difference -9.60, 95% CI -14.59 to -4.61) and were more satisfied with their care. Furthermore, home care was associated with reduced costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review included two relatively small studies that did not have sufficient statistical power to detect meaningful differences between groups. Future large and adequately powered randomised controlled trials are required to measure differences between groups for relevant pre-specified outcomes. Special attention should be given to the assessment of maternal satisfaction with care and cost analysis as they will have social and economic implications in both developed and developing countries.

Newer approaches to the diagnosis of early onset neonatal sepsis

Accurate and timely diagnosis of early onset neonatal sepsis remains challenging to the clinician and the laboratory. A test with a rapid turnaround time with 100% sensitivity, rather than high specificity, which allows accurate diagnosis and appropriate antimicrobial treatment or which allows antibiotics to be safely withheld in non-infected infants, is desirable. Many potential markers (acute phase reactants, cell surface markers, cytokines) are not routinely available to the laboratory, and most likely combinations of markers will ensure greater diagnostic accuracy. In the future, molecular biology techniques offer the prospect of rapid identification of both pathogens and antimicrobial resistance markers.