Induced Labor– Is There an Increased Risk of Perinatal Infection?

Objectives: To assess induced labor-associated perinatal infection risk at Hospital D.Estefânia from January to June of 2010 at Hospital de D. Estefânia’s delivery rooms, reviewing the indications for inducing labor as well as the techniques used. Material and Methods: Performing an historical prospective study searching the clinical processes as well as the mother and newborn’s computer database from January to June of 2010. An exposed and an unexposed group were created; the first group comprises pregnant women and their newborns whose labor was induced. The unexposed group is constituted by newborns and pregnant women whose labor was spontaneous. Labor induction was performed using intra-vaginal prostaglandins in women who didn’t start it spontaneously; perinatal infection was defined either clinically or using blood tests. The gestational age was ≥ 37 weeks for both groups. 19 variables were studied for both groups. Results: A total of 190 mother-newborn pairs were included: 55 in the exposed group and 135 in the unexposed group. 3 cases of perinatal infection were reported, two in the exposed group and one in the unexposed group. Preliminary data resulted in a perinatal infection rate of 3.6% in the exposed group and 0.7% in the unexposed group; preliminary data suggest that the risk of perinatal infection may be increased in up to 5-fold when labor is inducted. Conclusions: A larger series of patients and a multivariable analysis using logistic regression are both necessary in order to perform a more thorough assessment of labor induction’s role in perinatal infection risk. One must also try to distinguish labor inducing- and clinical practicesrelated factors.

Continuous Infusion of Piperacillin/Tazobactam in Septic Critically Ill Patients - a Multicenter Propensity Matched Analysis

The clinical efficacy of continuous infusion of piperacillin/tazobactam in critically ill patients with microbiologically documented infections is currently unknown. We conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study in 7 Portuguese intensive care units (ICU). We included 569 critically ill adult patients with a documented infection and treated with piperacillin/tazobactam admitted to one of the participating ICU between 2006 and 2010. We successfully matched 173 pairs of patients according to whether they received continuous or conventional intermittent dosing of piperacillin/tazobactam, using a propensity score to adjust for confounding variables. The majority of patients received 16g/day of piperacillin plus 2g/day of tazobactam. The 28-day mortality rate was 28.3% in both groups (p = 1.0). The ICU and in-hospital mortality were also similar either in those receiving continuous infusion or intermittent dosing (23.7% vs. 20.2%, p = 0.512 and 41.6% vs. 40.5%, p = 0.913, respectively). In the subgroup of patients with a Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II>42, the 28-day mortality rate was lower in the continuous infusion group (31.4% vs. 35.2%) although not reaching significance (p = 0.66). We concluded that the clinical efficacy of piperacillin/tazobactam in this heterogeneous group of critically ill patients infected with susceptible bacteria was independent of its mode of administration, either continuous infusion or intermittent dosing.