Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2020; 37(06): 557-561
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1700861
SMFM Fellowship Series Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Intrauterine Pressure Catheter Use Is Associated with an Increased Risk of Postcesarean Surgical Site Infections

Stephen E. Gee
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Ohio State University Hospital, Columbus, Ohio
,
Marwan Ma'ayeh
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Ohio State University Hospital, Columbus, Ohio
,
Calvin Ward
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Ohio State University Hospital, Columbus, Ohio
,
Catalin Buhimschi
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Ohio State University Hospital, Columbus, Ohio
2   Abigail Wexner Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio
3   Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
,
Mark Klebanoff
4   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
,
Kara Rood
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Ohio State University Hospital, Columbus, Ohio
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

03 June 2019

23 September 2019

Publication Date:
22 November 2019 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to determine if intrapartum placement of an intrauterine pressure catheter (IUPC) is associated with an increased rate of surgical site infections in women undergoing a cesarean delivery.

Study Design This was a secondary analysis of the prospective observational Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Registry. We compared patients with and without IUPC use. A multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate for an association between IUPC use and postcesarean surgical site infections.

Results The study included 16,887 women: 7,441 with IUPC use and 9,446 without IUPC use. After adjustment for potential cofounders, IUPC use was associated with an increased risk of postcesarean infections compared with those without IUPC use (adjusted odds ratio: 1.28; 95% confidence interval: 1.10–1.50; p = 0.002).

Conclusion IUPC use is associated with an increased risk of postcesarean surgical site infections. This supports the judicious use of IUPC for limited clinical indications and provides a potential area of focus for reduction in postcesarean infections.

Keywords

intrauterine pressure catheter - cesarean - surgical site infection - SSI - postoperative
 

  • References

  • 1 HealthyPeople 2020 . Available at: https://www.healthypeople.gov/ . Accessed October 13, 2019
    PubMed
  • 2 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK, Drake P. Births: final data for 2017. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2018; 67 (08) 1-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Olsen MA, Butler AM, Willers DM, Devkota P, Gross GA, Fraser VJ. Risk factors for surgical site infection after low transverse cesarean section. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008; 29 (06) 477-484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Schneid-Kofman N, Sheiner E, Levy A, Holcberg G. Risk factors for wound infection following cesarean deliveries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005; 90 (01) 10-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Opøien HK, Valbø A, Grinde-Andersen A, Walberg M. Post-cesarean surgical site infections according to CDC standards: rates and risk factors. A prospective cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007; 86 (09) 1097-1102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Olsen MA, Butler AM, Willers DM, Gross GA, Hamilton BH, Fraser VJ. Attributable costs of surgical site infection and endometritis after low transverse cesarean delivery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010; 31 (03) 276-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 La Rosa M, Jauk V, Saade GR. , et al; Cesarean Section Optimal Antibiotic Prophylaxis Trial Consortium. Incidence and risk factors for hospital readmission or unexpected visits in women undergoing unscheduled cesarean delivery. Am J Perinatol 2019; 36 (11) 1115-1119
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Wen T, Wright JD, Goffman D. , et al. Hypertensive postpartum admissions among women without a history of hypertension or preeclampsia. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133 (04) 712-719
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Harper LM, Shanks AL, Tuuli MG, Roehl KA, Cahill AG. The risks and benefits of internal monitors in laboring patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209 (01) 38.e1-38.e6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kawakita T, Reddy UM, Landy HJ, Iqbal SN, Huang CC, Grantz KL. Neonatal complications associated with use of fetal scalp electrode: a retrospective study. BJOG 2016; 123 (11) 1797-1803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Harger JH, English DH. Selection of patients for antibiotic prophylaxis in cesarean sections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981; 141 (07) 752-758
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Wagener MM, Rycheck RR, Yee RB, McVay JF, Buffenmyer CL, Harger JH. Septic dermatitis of the neonatal scalp and maternal endomyometritis with intrapartum internal fetal monitoring. Pediatrics 1984; 74 (01) 81-85
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Halem KV, Bakker JJ, Verhoeven CJ. , et al. Does use of an intrauterine catheter during labor increase risk of infection?. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012; 25 (04) 415-418
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Landon MB, Leindecker S, Spong CY. , et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. The MFMU Cesarean Registry: factors affecting the success of trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193 (3 Pt 2): 1016-1023
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. ; Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999; 20 (04) 250-278
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Rood KM, Buhimschi IA, Jurcisek JA. , et al. Skin microbiota in obese women at risk for surgical site infection after cesarean delivery. Sci Rep 2018; 8 (01) 8756
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Valent AM, DeArmond C, Houston JM. , et al. Effect of post-cesarean delivery oral cephalexin and metronidazole on surgical site infection among obese women: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017; 318 (11) 1026-1034
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Moulton LJ, Eric Jelovsek J, Lachiewicz M, Chagin K, Goje O. A model to predict risk of postpartum infection after caesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2018; 31 (18) 2409-2417
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Handwerker SM, Selick AM. Placental abruption after insertion of catheter tip intrauterine pressure transducers: a report of four cases. J Reprod Med 1995; 40 (12) 845-849
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lind BK. Complications caused by extramembranous placement of intrauterine pressure catheters. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180 (04) 1034-1035
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Matsuo K, Lynch MA, Kopelman JN, Atlas RO. Anaphylactoid syndrome of pregnancy immediately after intrauterine pressure catheter placement. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 198 (02) e8-e9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Harbison L, Bell L. Anaphylactoid syndrome after intrauterine pressure catheter placement. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115 (2 Pt 2): 407-408
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Mirza FG, Thaker HM, Flejter WL, D'Alton ME. Fetomaternal hemorrhage following placement of an intrauterine pressure catheter: report of a new association. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol 2015; 2015: 348279
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Madanes AE, David D, Cetrulo C. Major complications associated with intrauterine pressure monitoring. Obstet Gynecol 1982; 59 (03) 389-391
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Rood KM. Complications associated with insertion of intrauterine pressure catheters: an unusual case of uterine hypertonicity and uterine perforation resulting in fetal distress after insertion of an intrauterine pressure catheter. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol 2012; 2012: 517461
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Cave DG, Swingler GR, Skew PG. Hypoxic stillbirth due to entangled intrauterine catheter. BMJ 1979; 1 (6158): 233
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Haran G, Elbaz M, Fejgin MD, Biron-Shental T. A comparison of surface acquired uterine electromyography and intrauterine pressure catheter to assess uterine activity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206 (05) 412.e1-412.e5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Euliano TY, Nguyen MT, Darmanjian S, Busowski JD, Euliano N, Gregg AR. Monitoring uterine activity during labor: clinician interpretation of electrohysterography versus intrauterine pressure catheter and tocodynamometry. Am J Perinatol 2016; 33 (09) 831-838
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Jacod BC, Graatsma EM, Van Hagen E, Visser GH. A validation of electrohysterography for uterine activity monitoring during labour. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2010; 23 (01) 17-22
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Vlemminx MWC, Rabotti C, van der Hout-van der Jagt MB, Oei SG. Clinical use of electrohysterography during term labor: a systematic review on diagnostic value, advantages, and limitations. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2018; 73 (05) 303-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Vlemminx MWC, Thijssen KMJ, Bajlekov GI, Dieleman JP, Van Der Hout-Van Der Jagt MB, Oei SG. Could electrohysterography be the solution for external uterine monitoring in obese women?. J Perinatol 2018; 38 (05) 580-586
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Euliano TY, Nguyen MT, Darmanjian S. , et al. Monitoring uterine activity during labor: a comparison of 3 methods. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 208 (01) 66.e1-66.e6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Cedergren MI. Maternal morbid obesity and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103 (02) 219-224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Hood DD, Dewan DM. Anesthetic and obstetric outcome in morbidly obese parturients. Anesthesiology 1993; 79 (06) 1210-1218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Lu GC, Rouse DJ, DuBard M, Cliver S, Kimberlin D, Hauth JC. The effect of the increasing prevalence of maternal obesity on perinatal morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 185 (04) 845-849
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar