Vista simple de metadatos

dc.contributorWILEY-BLACKWELLes_CL
dc.contributor.authorReveiz, Ludovic [Pan American Health Organization.USA]es_CL
dc.contributor.authorIllanes, Eduardo [Chile. Universidad Mayor. Facultad de Medicina]es_CL
dc.contributor.authorCosp, Xavier Bonfill [España. Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red]es_CL
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-07T13:04:12Z
dc.date.available2018-09-07T13:04:12Z
dc.date.issued2014es_CL
dc.identifier.citationChapman E, Reveiz L, Bonfill Cosp X. Antibiotic regimens for management of intra‐amniotic infection. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD010976. 10.1002/14651858.CD010976.es_CL
dc.identifier.issnISSN 1469-493Xes_CL
dc.identifier.issnESSN 1361-6137es_CL
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010976/epdf/fulles_CL
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org//10.1002/14651858.CD010976es_CL
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorio.umayor.cl/xmlui/handle/sibum/2634
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Chorioamnionitis is a common infection that affects both mother and infant. Infant complications associated with chorioamnionitis include early neonatal sepsis, pneumonia, and meningitis. Chorioamnionitis can also result in maternal morbidity such as pelvic infection and septic shock.Clinical chorioamnionitis is estimated to occur in 1% to 2% of term births and in 5% to 10% of preterm births; histologic chorioamnionitis is found in nearly 20% of term births and in 50% of preterm births. Women with chorioamnionitis have a two to three times higher risk for cesarean delivery and a three to four times greater risk for endomyometritis, wound infection, pelvic abscess, bacteremia, and postpartum hemorrhage. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of administering antibiotic regimens for intra-amniotic infection on maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality and on infection-related complications. SEARCH METHODS:.PERIHUEICO We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (1 October 2014), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and the WHO ICTRP (September 2014). We also searched reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included women who experienced intra-amniotic infection. Trials were included if they compared antibiotic treatment with placebo or no treatment (if applicable), treatment with different antibiotic regimens, or timing of antibiotic therapy (intrapartum and/or postpartum). Therefore, this review assesses trials evaluating intrapartum antibiotics, intrapartum and postpartum antibiotic regimens, and postpartum antibiotics. Diagnosis of intra-amniotic infection was based on standard criteria (clinical/test), and no limit was placed on gestational age. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and trial quality. Two review authors independently extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and included a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: Our prespecified primary outcomes were maternal and neonatal mortality, maternal and neonatal severe infection, and duration of maternal and neonatal hospital stay.We included 11 studies (involving 1296 women) and assessed them as having low to moderate risk of bias - mainly because allocation concealment methods were not adequately reported, most studies were open, and outcome reporting was incomplete. The quality of the evidence was low to very low for most outcomes, as per the GRADE approach. The following antibiotics were assessed in the included trials: ampicillin, ampicillin/sulbactam, gentamicin, clindamycin, and cefotetan. During labor: meta-analysis of two studies found no clear differences in rates of neonatal sepsis (163 neonates; risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 2.86; I² = 9%; low quality of evidence), treatment failure (endometritis) (163 participants; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.70; I² = 0%; low quality of evidence), and postpartum hemorrhage (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.56; I² = 0%; low quality of evidence) when two different dosages/regimens of gentamicin were assessed. No clear differences between groups were found for any reported maternal or neonatal outcomes. The review did not identify data for a comparison of antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo. Postpartum: meta-analysis of two studies that evaluated use of antibiotics versus placebo after vaginal delivery showed no significant differences between groups in rates of treatment failure or postpartum endometritis. No significant differences were found in rates of neonatal death and postpartum endometritis when use of antibiotics was compared with no treatment. Four trials assessing two different dosages/regimens of gentamicin or dual-agent therapy versus triple-agent therapy, or comparing antibiotics, found no significant differences in most reported neonatal or maternal outcomes; the duration of hospital stay showed a difference in favor of the group of women who received short-duration antibiotics (one study, 292 women; mean difference (MD) -0.90 days, 95% CI -1.64 to -0.16; moderate quality of evidence). Intrapartum versus postpartum: one small study (45 women) evaluating use of ampicillin/gentamicin during intrapartum versus immediate postpartum treatment found significant differences favoring the intrapartum group in the mean number of days of maternal postpartum hospital stay (one trial, 45 women; MD -1.00 days, 95% CI -1.94 to - 0.06; very low quality of evidence) and the mean number of neonatal hospital stay days (one trial, 45 neonates; MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.91 to -0.49; very low quality of evidence). Although no significant differences were found in the rate of maternal bacteremia or early neonatal sepsis, for the outcome of neonatal pneumonia or sepsis we observed a significant difference favoring intrapartum treatment (one trial, 45 neonates; RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.95; very low quality of evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review included 11 studies (having low to moderate risk of bias). The quality of the evidence was low to very low for most outcomes, as per the GRADE approach. Only one outcome (duration of hospital stay) was considered to provide moderate quality of evidence when antibiotics (short duration) were compared with antibiotics (long duration) during postpartum management of intra-amniotic infection. Our main reasons for downgrading the quality of evidence were limitations in study design or execution (risk of bias), imprecision, and inconsistency of results.Currently, limited evidence is available to reveal the most appropriate antimicrobial regimen for the treatment of patients with intra-amniotic infection; whether antibiotics should be continued during the postpartum period; and which antibiotic regimen or what treatment duration should be used. Also, no evidence was found on adverse effects of the intervention (not reported in any of the included studies). One small RCT showed that use of antibiotics during the intrapartum period is superior to their use during the postpartum period in reducing the number of days of maternal and neonatal hospital stay.es_CL
dc.description.sponsorshipEste trabajo fue financiado por: UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research (RHR), World Health Organizationes_CL
dc.format.extentREVISIÓNes_CL
dc.language.isoenes_CL
dc.publisherCIENCIASes_CL
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Chilees_CL
dc.subjectMEDICINA BASADA EN LA EVIDENCIAes_CL
dc.titleAntibiotic regimens for management of intra-amniotic infectiones_CL
dc.typeArtículo o Paperes_CL
umayor.indizadorCOTes_CL
umayor.politicas.sherpa/romeoLicencia color: AZUL (Puede archivar el post-print (ie la versión final posterior a la revisión por pares) o versión de editor/PDF)--Pre-print del autor: situación de archivo no está clara Post-print del autor: el autor no puede archivar la versión post-print (ie la versión final posterior a la revisión por pares) Versión de editor/PDF: el autor puede archivar la versión del editor/PDF. Condiciones generales: Aplica a Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, En el sitio web personal o institucional del autor, On institutional repository or funder's designated repository, including PubMed Central after 12 months embargo, La versión de editor/PDF debe utilizarse, La declaración establecida debe acompañar el depósito, Los autores conservan el copyright, Debe ir enlazado a la versión de editor// Disponible en: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/issn/1469-493X/es/es_CL
umayor.indexadoWOSes_CL
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/14651858.CD010976es_CL]
umayor.indicadores.wos-(cuartil)Q1es_CL
umayor.indicadores.scopus-(scimago-sjr)sin informaciónes_CL


Vista simple de metadatos



Modificado por: Sistema de Bibliotecas Universidad Mayor - SIBUM
DSpace software copyright © 2002-2018  DuraSpace