S'abonner

Implementing a bundle for evidence-based cesarean delivery may not be as beneficial as expected: a multicenter, pre- and post-study - 26/03/25

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.04.005 
Erin S. Huntley, DO a, , Benjamin J.F. Huntley, MD a, Miguel Bonilla Moreno, MD b, Ellen Crowe, MD a, Claudia Pedroza, PhD c, Hector Mendez-Figueroa, MD a, Baha M. Sibai, MD a, Suneet Chauhan, MD, Hon DSc a
a Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX 
b McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX 
c Center for Clinical Research and Evidence-Based Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX 

Corresponding author: Erin S. Huntley, DO.

Abstract

Background

Standardization of procedures improves outcomes. Though systematic reviews have summarized the evidence-based steps of cesarean delivery, their bundled implementation has not been investigated.

Objective

In this preimplementation and postimplementation trial, we sought to ascertain if bundled evidence-based steps of cesarean delivery, compared with the surgeon’s preference, improve outcomes.

Study Design

A Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies compliant, multicenter preimplementation and postimplementation trial at 4 teaching hospitals was conducted. The preimplementation period consisted of cesarean delivery done on the basis of the physicians’ preferences for 3 months; educational intervention (eg, didactics, badge cards, posters, video) occurred in the fourth month. Cesarean deliveries in the postimplementation period employed the bundled evidence-based steps. A preplanned 10% randomized audit of both groups assessed adherence and uptake of evidence-based steps. The primary outcome was composite maternal morbidity, which included estimated blood loss ≥1000 mL, blood transfusion, endometritis, postpartum fever, wound complications, sepsis, thrombosis, intensive care unit admission, hysterectomy, or death. The secondary outcome was composite neonatal morbidity, and some of its components were a 5-min Apgar score <7, positive pressure oxygen use, hypoglycemia, or sepsis. A priori Bayesian sample size calculation indicated 700 cesarean deliveries in each group were needed to demonstrate a 20% relative reduction (from 15% to 12%) of composite maternal morbidity with 75% certainty. Bayesian logistic regression with neutral priors was used to calculate the likelihood of net improvement in adjusted relative risk with 95% credible intervals.

Results

A total of 1425 consecutive cesarean deliveries (721 in preimplementation and 704 in postimplementation group) were examined. Audited data indicated that the baseline evidence-based steps utilization rate during the preimplementation period was 79%; after the implementation of bundled evidence-based steps of cesarean delivery, the audited adherence was 89%—an uptake of 10.0% of the evidence-based steps. In 4 aspects, the maternal characteristics differed significantly in the preimplementation and postimplementation periods: race/ethnicity, hypertensive disorder, and the relative contribution of the 4 centers to the cohorts and the gestational age at delivery, but the indications for cesarean delivery and whether its duration was less or greater than 60 minutes did not. The rates of composite maternal morbidity in the preimplementation and postimplementation groups were 26% and 22%, respectively (adjusted relative risk, 0.88 [95% credible intervals, 0.73–1.04]), with a 94 % Bayesian probability of a reduction in composite maternal morbidity. The composite maternal morbidity occurred in 37% of the preimplementation and 41% of the postimplementation group (adjusted relative risk, 1.12 [95% credible intervals, 0.98–1.39]), with a 95% Bayesian probability of worsening in composite maternal morbidity. When composite maternal morbidity was segregated by preterm (<37 weeks) and term (≥37 weeks) cesarean delivery, the improvement in maternal outcomes persisted; when composite maternal morbidity was segregated by gestational age subgroups, the potential for worsening neonatal outcomes persisted as well.

Conclusion

Standardization of the evidence-based bundled steps of cesarean delivery resulted in a modest reduction of the composite maternal outcome; however, a paradoxical increase in neonatal composite morbidity was noted. Although individual evidence-based steps may be of value while awaiting additional intervention trials, a formal bundling of such steps is currently not recommended.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Video


(9.39 Mo)

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Key words : Apgar score, Bayesian analysis, blood transfusion, composite morbidity, endometritis, evidence-based cesarean, evidence-based surgery, maternal-neonatal dyad, neonatal outcomes, postpartum hemorrhage, wound complication


Plan


 The authors report no conflict of interest.
 This study was supported by the Larry Gilstrap, MD, Center for Perinatal and Women’s Health at McGovern Medical School-UTHealth.
 Cite this article as: Huntley ES, Huntley BJF, Moreno MB, et al. Implementing a bundle for evidence-based cesarean delivery may not be as beneficial as expected: a multicenter, pre- and post-study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2025;232:404.e1-13.


© 2024  Publié par Elsevier Masson SAS.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 232 - N° 4

P. 404.e1-404.e13 - avril 2025 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Amniocentesis in pregnancies at or beyond 24 weeks: an international multicenter study
  • Roni Zemet, Mohamad Ali Maktabi, Alexandra Tinfow, Jessica L. Giordano, Thomas M. Heisler, Qi Yan, Roni Plaschkes, Jenny Stokes, Jennifer M. Walsh, Siobhán Corcoran, Erica Schindewolf, Kendra Miller, Asha N. Talati, Kristen A. Miller, Karin Blakemore, Kate Swanson, Jana Ramm, Ivonne Bedei, Teresa N. Sparks, Angie C. Jelin, Neeta L. Vora, Juliana S. Gebb, David A. Crosby, Michal Berkenstadt, Boaz Weisz, Ronald J. Wapner, Ignatia B. Van Den Veyver
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Genital herpes zoster—an unusual but important cause of acute nontraumatic vulvar ulcers
  • Joana Galvão, Marta Xavier, Joana Ventura Lourenço, Inês Gouveia, Mónica Melo, Ana Nogueira, Inês Nunes

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Elsevier s'engage à rendre ses eBooks accessibles et à se conformer aux lois applicables. Compte tenu de notre vaste bibliothèque de titres, il existe des cas où rendre un livre électronique entièrement accessible présente des défis uniques et l'inclusion de fonctionnalités complètes pourrait transformer sa nature au point de ne plus servir son objectif principal ou d'entraîner un fardeau disproportionné pour l'éditeur. Par conséquent, l'accessibilité de cet eBook peut être limitée. Voir plus

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.