PregnancyNCT02152735
Intrauterine Cleaning After Placental Delivery at Cesarean Section: RCT
A study testing Cleaning the uterine cavity in people with Pregnancy, run by Michigan State University at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that omission of intrauterine cleaning during cesarean deliveries does not increase intraoperative and postoperative complications. METHODS: We plan to randomize 206 women undergoing primary and repeat cesarean deliveries to cleaning (n=103) versus no cleaning (n=103) of the uterine… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 50 years, women onlyHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Pregnancy
- What is being tested?
- Cleaning the uterine cavity
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 206 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Jul 2014to Nov 2015
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 50 years
- Women only
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Women with singleton or multiple pregnancies, vertex or breech presentation with intact membranes presenting to our labor and delivery unit for cesarean section will be evaluated for participation
Who cannot join
- Women will be excluded if any of the following criteria are encountered: preterm premature rupture of membranes, spontaneous rupture of membranes prior to cesarean section, chorioamnionitis, fetal demise, uncontrolled diabetes or an immunosuppressive disorder.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Sparrow Hospital/Michigan State University
Lansing, Michigan, 48912
About this study
Official title: Intrauterine Cleaning After Placental Delivery at Cesarean Section: a Randomized Controlled Trial
PURPOSE:
To test the hypothesis that omission of intrauterine cleaning during cesarean deliveries does not increase intraoperative and postoperative complications.
Read more
METHODS:
We plan to randomize 206 women undergoing primary and repeat cesarean deliveries to cleaning (n=103) versus no cleaning (n=103) of the uterine cavity following placental delivery. Women will be excluded if any of the following criteria are encountered: preterm premature rupture of membranes, spontaneous rupture of membranes prior to cesarean section, chorioamnionitis, fetal demise, uncontrolled diabetes or an immunosuppressive disorder. Primary outcome measure will be endo-myometritis after delivery. Secondary outcomes will include post partum hemorrhage, mean surgical time, retained products of conception, retained placenta, quantitative blood loss, length of hospital stay, return of gastrointestinal function, repeat surgery, and hospital readmission rates. Analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle.
GENERAL DESIGN All eligible patients who are scheduled for cesarean section at the Sparrow hospital/Michigan State University Resident OBGYN and Perinatology clinics will be evaluated for study inclusion. Patients meeting this study's inclusion criteria and lack exclusion criteria will be approached for consent and enrollment.
Read the detailed description
Background
Caesarean section is the most common major surgical procedure performed in obstetric practice. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) estimates that in 2011 alone, one in three women who gave birth in the United States did so by cesarean delivery. Compared to vaginal births, the increasing rate of caesarean births worldwide is a well known cause of maternal morbidity, including hemorrhage, anesthetic complications, shock, cardiac arrest, acute renal failure, assisted ventilation, venous thromboembolism and increased risk of major postpartum infection.
With increasing cesarean section rates and its associated complications, obstetricians are challenged to reduce perioperative and postoperative morbidity by adapting their surgical skills and techniques. Over the years, randomized clinical trials have tried to answer many questions surrounding the safety of several cesarean section techniques that impart maternal morbidity. For example, the optimal type of cesarean section skin incision, whether or not to create a bladder flap, one layer versus two later closure of the uterus, irrigating the abdominal cavity, closure versus non closure of the parietal peritoneum, and suture versus staples for skin closure at cesarean section.
Cleaning the uterine cavity following cesarean section is a routine practice by many obstetricians. To ensure that the entire placenta and membranes are removed after delivery of the placenta at cesarean, the uterine cavity is usually cleaned with one hand holding a dry sponge to remove any remaining membranes or placental tissue, while the other hand is placed on the fundus to stabilize the uterus. However, despite the lack of evidence to support a policy of routine intrauterine cleaning after placental delivery at cesarean section, the benefits of intrauterine cleaning as a routine practice during cesarean sections remains uncertain. Obstetricians who do not routinely clean the uterine cavity after placental delivery argue that this procedure is not performed routinely after vaginal deliveries, and thus is a justification not to do so during cesarean sections..
To date, there has been no study, including randomized clinical trials that has answered this very important question, hence the importance of this trial.
Objective:
The goal of this study is to employ a well designed randomized controlled clinical trial to compare the efficacy of cleaning versus not cleaning the uterine cavity after placental delivery at cesarean section. We hypothesize that omission of intrauterine cleaning during cesarean deliveries does not increase intraoperative and postoperative complications
Our primary outcome measure will be endomyometritis after delivery. Endomyometritis will be diagnosed by the presence of two or more of the following: abnormally tender uterus on examination, temperature more than 38.0°C at any time postoperatively, and unexplained maternal tachycardia more than 100 beats per minute (bpm). A diagnosis of endomyometritis will be criteria for initiating treatment with antibiotics. Secondary outcomes will include post partum hemorrhage, mean surgical time, retained products of conception, retained placenta, quantitative blood loss, length of hospital stay, return of gastrointestinal function, repeat surgery, and hospital readmission rates
Potential Contribution:
This study may show an optimal method for dealing with the uterine cavity after placental delivery. The results may show in the long run whether routine cleaning of the uterine cavity following placental delivery is beneficial or not.
METHODS:
Timeline: Once this study is approved we plan on recruiting patients for 18 months. Once our recruitment period is complete we will perform data collection and analysis for two months. We have an estimated end date 3-4 months after recruitment has completed.
Recruitment: All eligible patients for cesarean section at the Sparrow hospital/Michigan State University OBGYN resident Clinic and OBGYN patients of the Sparrow Perinatal Center will be evaluated for study inclusion. All patients meeting the study's inclusion criteria and lack exclusion criteria will be approached for consent and enrollment. Patients will be given a consent form to review at home prior to their admission for cesarean section. For unscheduled patients, consent will be sought following the physician's decision to proceed with cesarean section. Patients will have adequate time to consider enrollment and discuss options with their physician prior to cesarean section. All eligible patients who present to labor and delivery for cesarean section will be examined upon presentation.
After inclusion criteria have been met, the patient will be approached for consent to participate in the study. Patients will be given study information and the consent form to review. Consent will be documented by the patient's signature indicating understanding and agreement to participate in the study.
Procedures: Patients admitted for cesarean section and meeting inclusion criteria will be approached for consent. Consented patients will then be randomized into two groups.
Group 1: (Cleaning the uterine cavity): These participants will have their uterine cavities cleaned with a dry laparotomy sponge after delivery of the placenta. Per standard protocol, the uterus will be explored with one hand holding a sponge to remove any remaining membranes or placental tissue, while the other hand is placed on the fundus to stabilize the uterus.
Group 2: (Not cleaning the uterine cavity): These participants will have their uterine cavities left alone after complete delivery of the placenta. The placenta will be inspected after delivery to make sure it is complete, including the membranes.
Assignment will be performed by opening a sequentially numbered opaque envelope containing computer-randomized individual allocations. The envelope will be opened by the circulation nurse in the operating room and silently viewed by the surgeons prior to surgery. Instructions will be given to not verbalize the treatment arm revealed. The original randomization will be performed by research staff before the initiation of the study using a random number table generator, and the participants will be blinded to treatment once assigned. Information regarding basic demographic data, interventions during the cesarean delivery and postpartum course will be obtained from the participant's charts after discharge from the hospital. The protocol for labor management will be the same for both groups (for laboring patients), including continuous electronic fetal monitoring with the external Doppler device. Per standard operative management at Sparrow Hospital/Michigan State University, both groups will undergo inspection of the uterine incision, with or without closure of the vesicouterine peritoneum (bladder flap), abdominal peritoneum, or rectus muscles per attending preference. Both groups will undergo standard closure of the abdominal fascia, consisting of suturing with a running non locking delayed absorbable suture. Irrigation of the subcutaneous tissues superior to the closed fascia will be performed in both groups. Staples or absorbable suture will be used for skin closure. In addition, all participants will receive a standardized dose of 1-2 g cefazolin intravenously as antibiotic prophylaxis before the start of surgery. Participants with cefazolin allergy will receive 900 mg clindamycin.
Informed Consent: All eligible patients undergoing cesarean delivery at Sparrow hospital will be given study information and the consent form to review. Consent will be documented by the patient's signature indicating understanding and agreement to participate in the study.
Sources of Materials: Data to be abstracted from the participant's charts will include demographic information (age, race, socioeconomic status), obstetric characteristics (parity, gestational age, indication for cesarean section, membrane status at time of cesarean section, and post operative complications as listed above). To protect patient confidentiality, only individuals directly involved in the study will have access to identifiable private patient information.
Data Security: Patient confidentiality will be protected by making sure that only individuals involved in the study will have access to identifiable patient information. Collected information will be coded and stripped of identifiers.
Statistical analysis: Analysis will be based on intention-to-treat. A Cox proportional hazard model will be used to estimate the hazards ratios between the two groups and will be adjusted for confounders. The proportional hazard assumption will be checked graphically by plotting the log-log of the survival probability and confirmed using Schoenfeld residuals. Comparison of other continuous variables will be done by independent t-test and categorical variables will be compared by the chi-squared test or Fisher exact test as appropriate. Interval data and non- parametric testing will be analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U test. The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) will be reported throughout. A significance level of 0.05 will be used when significance testing was necessary. Logistic regression will be used to analyze for potential confounding in the analysis of the primary outcome. The predetermined analysis will be to include in the model variables that appeared not to be randomly distributed during the randomization, as well as variables thought to be potential confounders clinically. Analyses will be performed using STATA version 13.0 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX).
Sample Size estimation:
After reviewing the literature, we considered a 20% reduction between groups to be clinically significant. We used a 20% difference and a type 1 error rate of 0.05 and a power of 0.90 for a two sided test. This will require randomization of 206 women (103 patients in each group) to obtain an adequate sample size.
Assessment of Risks and benefits Subject Characteristics: Pregnant women with a singleton or multiple pregnancies, vertex or breech presentation with intact membranes presenting to our labor and delivery unit for an elective cesarean section will be eligible for participation. We anticipate enrolling a minimum of 206 patients. Women will be excluded if any of the following criteria are encountered: preterm premature rupture of membranes, spontaneous rupture of membranes prior to cesarean section, chorioamnionitis, fetal demise, uncontrolled diabetes or an immunosuppressive disorder. The involvement of pregnant women in this study, a vulnerable population, is inevitable since cesarean section is a procedure performed only in this patient population. The study will be restricted to Sparrow Hospital/Michigan State University.
Benefits: The study is not designed to provide direct benefits to research participants. However, if the hypothesis is true, participants in the study group may enjoy the benefit. Since the anticipated risks to participants are minimal, the risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits. The knowledge gained from this study has the potential of significantly impacting obstetrical clinical practice. It will provide evidence that can be used in decision making and options presented to women at cesarean section. The results, if our hypothesis is true, will contribute to the long term goal of providing safe efficacious options during cesarean section, which will reduce morbidity, cost of health care and length of hospital stay.
Potential Risks: Just like all cesarean sections, patients are at risk of hemorrhage, chorioamnionitis, anesthetic complications, hemorrhagic shock, cardiac arrest, acute renal failure, assisted ventilation, venous thromboembolism and post operative infections. In this study, even though we will not be cleaning the uterine cavity, we will ensure that the placenta and membranes are removed in its entirety.
Protection against Risks: Major risks above and beyond those incurred with standard medical care are not anticipated with this protocol. Cesarean section is a common procedure in obstetrical practice. Not cleaning the uterine cavity during cesarean section is standard of care by some of the attendings here at Sparrow. Safety will be monitored by the investigators. In the case of an adverse event, it will be submitted to the Human research Protection Office (HRPO) here at Sparrow per standard HRPO reporting guidelines.
Data and Safety Monitoring Plan: Although the risks to study participants are expected to be minimal and no greater than those associated with routine cesarean sections, a number of measures are planned to ensure patient safety. Monitoring will involve the principal investigator who will monitor, document, and report to the Institutional Review Board, any adverse events among study participants.
Data and Safety and Monitoring - Dr Maude Guerin will serve as the consultant for this research study. She will be tasked with ensuring the overall safety of the subjects enrolled in the study. She will be responsible for interpreting results of the interim analysis and making decisions including stopping the study.
Interim analysis- Interim efficacy analysis will be conducted with endometritis as the primary outcome of interest. Analyses will be performed by the study statistician and presented to the DSMB. The board will make a recommendation regarding further conduct of the study. The principal investigator will not be informed of the results of the interim analysis unless the DSMB determines that some level of unblinding is necessary to make final decisions about the conduct of the study. Possible decisions include stopping the study because efficacy has been achieved or because futility, and modifying sample size.
- Conditions
- Pregnancy
- Being tested
- Cleaning the uterine cavity
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Cleaning the uterine cavityProcedure or surgery
These participants will have their uterine cavities cleaned with a dry laparotomy sponge after delivery of the placenta. Per standard protocol, the uterus will be explored with one hand holding a sponge to remove any remaining membranes or placental tissue, while the other hand is placed on the fundus to stabilize the uterus
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Cleaning the uterine cavity | Active comparator | Cleaning the uterine cavity: participants will have their uterine cavities cleaned with a dry laparotomy sponge after delivery of the placenta. Per standard protocol, the uterus will be explored with one hand holding a sponge to remove any remaining membranes or placental tissue, while the other hand is placed on the fundus to stabilize the uterus. Receives: Procedure: Cleaning the uterine cavity |
| Not cleaning the uterine cavity | No intervention | These participants will have their uterine cavities left alone after complete delivery of the placenta. The placenta will be inspected after delivery to make sure it is complete, including the membranes. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Endomyometritis after delivery
Endomyometritis will be diagnosed by the presence of two or more of the following: abnormally tender uterus on examination, temperature more than 38.0°C at any time postoperatively, and unexplained maternal tachycardia more than 100 beats per minute (bpm). A diagnosis of endomyometritis will be criteria for initiating treatment with antibiotics.
Measured: Within 6 weeks after delivery
Secondary outcomes (9)
Post partum hemorrhage
Measured: Within 6 weeks after delivery
Mean surgical time
Measured: Immediately post cesarean
Retained products of conception
Measured: Within 6 weeks post delivery
Retained placenta
Measured: Within 6 weeks post delivery
Quantitative blood loss
Measured: Within 6 weeks post delivery
Hospital length of stay
Measured: Participants will be followed for the duration of hospital stay, an expected average of 4 days postpartum
Return of gastrointestinal function
Measured: Participants will be followed for the duration to return of bowel function, an expected average of 2 days postpartum
Repeat surgery
Measured: Within 6 weeks post delivery
Hospital readmission rates.
Measured: Within 6 weeks post delivery
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted2 Jun 2014 (estimated)
- Study startJul 2014
- Primary completionJul 2015
- Study completionNov 2015
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (24)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for PregnancyStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 206 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Michigan State University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Denny Martin, Michigan State University
- Investigators
- Ahizechukwu C Eke, MD, MPH, Principal investigator, Dept of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Michigan State University/Sparrow Hospital, Lansing, MI 48912Martin Denny, DO, FACOOG, Principal investigator, Dept of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Michigan State University/Sparrow Hospital, Lansing, MI 48912Steven Roth, MD, FACOG, Study director, Dept of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Michigan State University/Sparrow Hospital, Lansing, MI 48912
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02152735
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- MSU IRB# 14-459
- Status last verified
- Nov 2015
- First submitted
- 22 May 2014
- Last updated
- 25 Nov 2015
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Publications
Berghella V, Baxter JK, Chauhan SP. Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Nov;193(5):1607-17. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.03.063.
PubMed 16260200Hamilton BE, Hoyert DL, Martin JA, Strobino DM, Guyer B. Annual summary of vital statistics: 2010-2011. Pediatrics. 2013 Mar;131(3):548-58. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-3769. Epub 2013 Feb 11.
PubMed 23400611Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS, Heaman M, Sauve R, Kramer MS; Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. CMAJ. 2007 Feb 13;176(4):455-60. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.060870.
PubMed 17296957Eisenach JC, Pan P, Smiley RM, Lavand'homme P, Landau R, Houle TT. Resolution of pain after childbirth. Anesthesiology. 2013 Jan;118(1):143-51. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318278ccfd.
PubMed 23249931Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, Osterman MJ, Kirmeyer S, Mathews TJ, Wilson EC. Births: final data for 2009. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2011 Nov 3;60(1):1-70.
PubMed 22670489O'Dwyer V, Hogan JL, Farah N, Kennelly MM, Fitzpatrick C, Turner MJ. Maternal mortality and the rising cesarean rate. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012 Feb;116(2):162-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.09.024. Epub 2011 Nov 26.
PubMed 22119498Mathai M, Hofmeyr GJ. Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jan 24;(1):CD004453. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004453.pub2.
PubMed 17253508Hofmeyr JG, Novikova N, Mathai M, Shah A. Techniques for cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Nov;201(5):431-44. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.03.018.
PubMed 19879392Hohlagschwandtner M, Ruecklinger E, Husslein P, Joura EA. Is the formation of a bladder flap at cesarean necessary? A randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Dec;98(6):1089-92. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(01)01570-8.
PubMed 11755558Tuuli MG, Odibo AO, Fogertey P, Roehl K, Stamilio D, Macones GA. Utility of the bladder flap at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Apr;119(4):815-21. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31824c0e12.
PubMed 22395144CAESAR study collaborative group. Caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised factorial trial (CAESAR). BJOG. 2010 Oct;117(11):1366-76. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02686.x.
PubMed 20840692CORONIS Collaborative Group; Abalos E, Addo V, Brocklehurst P, El Sheikh M, Farrell B, Gray S, Hardy P, Juszczak E, Mathews JE, Masood SN, Oyarzun E, Oyieke J, Sharma JB, Spark P. Caesarean section surgical techniques (CORONIS): a fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013 Jul 20;382(9888):234-48. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60441-9. Epub 2013 May 28.
PubMed 23721753Harrigill KM, Miller HS, Haynes DE. The effect of intraabdominal irrigation at cesarean delivery on maternal morbidity: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jan;101(1):80-5. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(02)02466-3.
PubMed 12517650Viney R, Isaacs C, Chelmow D. Intra-abdominal irrigation at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jun;119(6):1106-11. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182460d09.
PubMed 22617574Komoto Y, Shimoya K, Shimizu T, Kimura T, Hayashi S, Temma-Asano K, Kanagawa T, Fukuda H, Murata Y. Prospective study of non-closure or closure of the peritoneum at cesarean delivery in 124 women: Impact of prior peritoneal closure at primary cesarean on the interval time between first cesarean section and the next pregnancy and significant adhesion at second cesarean. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2006 Aug;32(4):396-402. doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2006.00420.x.
PubMed 16882265
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 25 Nov 2015. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Intrauterine Cleaning After Placental Delivery at Cesarean Section: a Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02152735
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- MSU IRB# 14-459
- Conditions
- Pregnancy
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 206 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Michigan State UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Jul 2014
- Primary completion
- Jul 2015 (actual)
- Study completion
- Nov 2015 (actual)
- First posted
- 2 Jun 2014 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
PURPOSE:
To test the hypothesis that omission of intrauterine cleaning during cesarean deliveries does not increase intraoperative and postoperative complications.
METHODS:
We plan to randomize 206 women undergoing primary and repeat cesarean deliveries to cleaning (n=103) versus no cleaning (n=103) of the uterine cavity following placental delivery. Women will be excluded if any of the following criteria are encountered: preterm premature rupture of membranes, spontaneous rupture of membranes prior to cesarean section, chorioamnionitis, fetal demise, uncontrolled diabetes or an immunosuppressive disorder. Primary outcome measure will be endo-myometritis after delivery. Secondary outcomes will include post partum hemorrhage, mean surgical time, retained products of conception, retained placenta, quantitative blood loss, length of hospital stay, return of gastrointestinal function, repeat surgery, and hospital readmission rates. Analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle.
GENERAL DESIGN All eligible patients who are scheduled for cesarean section at the Sparrow hospital/Michigan State University Resident OBGYN and Perinatology clinics will be evaluated for study inclusion. Patients meeting this study's inclusion criteria and lack exclusion criteria will be approached for consent and enrollment.
Detailed description
Background
Caesarean section is the most common major surgical procedure performed in obstetric practice. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) estimates that in 2011 alone, one in three women who gave birth in the United States did so by cesarean delivery. Compared to vaginal births, the increasing rate of caesarean births worldwide is a well known cause of maternal morbidity, including hemorrhage, anesthetic complications, shock, cardiac arrest, acute renal failure, assisted ventilation, venous thromboembolism and increased risk of major postpartum infection.
With increasing cesarean section rates and its associated complications, obstetricians are challenged to reduce perioperative and postoperative morbidity by adapting their surgical skills and techniques. Over the years, randomized clinical trials have tried to answer many questions surrounding the safety of several cesarean section techniques that impart maternal morbidity. For example, the optimal type of cesarean section skin incision, whether or not to create a bladder flap, one layer versus two later closure of the uterus, irrigating the abdominal cavity, closure versus non closure of the parietal peritoneum, and suture versus staples for skin closure at cesarean section.
Cleaning the uterine cavity following cesarean section is a routine practice by many obstetricians. To ensure that the entire placenta and membranes are removed after delivery of the placenta at cesarean, the uterine cavity is usually cleaned with one hand holding a dry sponge to remove any remaining membranes or placental tissue, while the other hand is placed on the fundus to stabilize the uterus. However, despite the lack of evidence to support a policy of routine intrauterine cleaning after placental delivery at cesarean section, the benefits of intrauterine cleaning as a routine practice during cesarean sections remains uncertain. Obstetricians who do not routinely clean the uterine cavity after placental delivery argue that this procedure is not performed routinely after vaginal deliveries, and thus is a justification not to do so during cesarean sections..
To date, there has been no study, including randomized clinical trials that has answered this very important question, hence the importance of this trial.
Objective:
The goal of this study is to employ a well designed randomized controlled clinical trial to compare the efficacy of cleaning versus not cleaning the uterine cavity after placental delivery at cesarean section. We hypothesize that omission of intrauterine cleaning during cesarean deliveries does not increase intraoperative and postoperative complications
Our primary outcome measure will be endomyometritis after delivery. Endomyometritis will be diagnosed by the presence of two or more of the following: abnormally tender uterus on examination, temperature more than 38.0°C at any time postoperatively, and unexplained maternal tachycardia more than 100 beats per minute (bpm). A diagnosis of endomyometritis will be criteria for initiating treatment with antibiotics. Secondary outcomes will include post partum hemorrhage, mean surgical time, retained products of conception, retained placenta, quantitative blood loss, length of hospital stay, return of gastrointestinal function, repeat surgery, and hospital readmission rates
Potential Contribution:
This study may show an optimal method for dealing with the uterine cavity after placental delivery. The results may show in the long run whether routine cleaning of the uterine cavity following placental delivery is beneficial or not.
METHODS:
Timeline: Once this study is approved we plan on recruiting patients for 18 months. Once our recruitment period is complete we will perform data collection and analysis for two months. We have an estimated end date 3-4 months after recruitment has completed.
Recruitment: All eligible patients for cesarean section at the Sparrow hospital/Michigan State University OBGYN resident Clinic and OBGYN patients of the Sparrow Perinatal Center will be evaluated for study inclusion. All patients meeting the study's inclusion criteria and lack exclusion criteria will be approached for consent and enrollment. Patients will be given a consent form to review at home prior to their admission for cesarean section. For unscheduled patients, consent will be sought following the physician's decision to proceed with cesarean section. Patients will have adequate time to consider enrollment and discuss options with their physician prior to cesarean section. All eligible patients who present to labor and delivery for cesarean section will be examined upon presentation.
After inclusion criteria have been met, the patient will be approached for consent to participate in the study. Patients will be given study information and the consent form to review. Consent will be documented by the patient's signature indicating understanding and agreement to participate in the study.
Procedures: Patients admitted for cesarean section and meeting inclusion criteria will be approached for consent. Consented patients will then be randomized into two groups.
Group 1: (Cleaning the uterine cavity): These participants will have their uterine cavities cleaned with a dry laparotomy sponge after delivery of the placenta. Per standard protocol, the uterus will be explored with one hand holding a sponge to remove any remaining membranes or placental tissue, while the other hand is placed on the fundus to stabilize the uterus.
Group 2: (Not cleaning the uterine cavity): These participants will have their uterine cavities left alone after complete delivery of the placenta. The placenta will be inspected after delivery to make sure it is complete, including the membranes.
Assignment will be performed by opening a sequentially numbered opaque envelope containing computer-randomized individual allocations. The envelope will be opened by the circulation nurse in the operating room and silently viewed by the surgeons prior to surgery. Instructions will be given to not verbalize the treatment arm revealed. The original randomization will be performed by research staff before the initiation of the study using a random number table generator, and the participants will be blinded to treatment once assigned. Information regarding basic demographic data, interventions during the cesarean delivery and postpartum course will be obtained from the participant's charts after discharge from the hospital. The protocol for labor management will be the same for both groups (for laboring patients), including continuous electronic fetal monitoring with the external Doppler device. Per standard operative management at Sparrow Hospital/Michigan State University, both groups will undergo inspection of the uterine incision, with or without closure of the vesicouterine peritoneum (bladder flap), abdominal peritoneum, or rectus muscles per attending preference. Both groups will undergo standard closure of the abdominal fascia, consisting of suturing with a running non locking delayed absorbable suture. Irrigation of the subcutaneous tissues superior to the closed fascia will be performed in both groups. Staples or absorbable suture will be used for skin closure. In addition, all participants will receive a standardized dose of 1-2 g cefazolin intravenously as antibiotic prophylaxis before the start of surgery. Participants with cefazolin allergy will receive 900 mg clindamycin.
Informed Consent: All eligible patients undergoing cesarean delivery at Sparrow hospital will be given study information and the consent form to review. Consent will be documented by the patient's signature indicating understanding and agreement to participate in the study.
Sources of Materials: Data to be abstracted from the participant's charts will include demographic information (age, race, socioeconomic status), obstetric characteristics (parity, gestational age, indication for cesarean section, membrane status at time of cesarean section, and post operative complications as listed above). To protect patient confidentiality, only individuals directly involved in the study will have access to identifiable private patient information.
Data Security: Patient confidentiality will be protected by making sure that only individuals involved in the study will have access to identifiable patient information. Collected information will be coded and stripped of identifiers.
Statistical analysis: Analysis will be based on intention-to-treat. A Cox proportional hazard model will be used to estimate the hazards ratios between the two groups and will be adjusted for confounders. The proportional hazard assumption will be checked graphically by plotting the log-log of the survival probability and confirmed using Schoenfeld residuals. Comparison of other continuous variables will be done by independent t-test and categorical variables will be compared by the chi-squared test or Fisher exact test as appropriate. Interval data and non- parametric testing will be analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U test. The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) will be reported throughout. A significance level of 0.05 will be used when significance testing was necessary. Logistic regression will be used to analyze for potential confounding in the analysis of the primary outcome. The predetermined analysis will be to include in the model variables that appeared not to be randomly distributed during the randomization, as well as variables thought to be potential confounders clinically. Analyses will be performed using STATA version 13.0 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX).
Sample Size estimation:
After reviewing the literature, we considered a 20% reduction between groups to be clinically significant. We used a 20% difference and a type 1 error rate of 0.05 and a power of 0.90 for a two sided test. This will require randomization of 206 women (103 patients in each group) to obtain an adequate sample size.
Assessment of Risks and benefits Subject Characteristics: Pregnant women with a singleton or multiple pregnancies, vertex or breech presentation with intact membranes presenting to our labor and delivery unit for an elective cesarean section will be eligible for participation. We anticipate enrolling a minimum of 206 patients. Women will be excluded if any of the following criteria are encountered: preterm premature rupture of membranes, spontaneous rupture of membranes prior to cesarean section, chorioamnionitis, fetal demise, uncontrolled diabetes or an immunosuppressive disorder. The involvement of pregnant women in this study, a vulnerable population, is inevitable since cesarean section is a procedure performed only in this patient population. The study will be restricted to Sparrow Hospital/Michigan State University.
Benefits: The study is not designed to provide direct benefits to research participants. However, if the hypothesis is true, participants in the study group may enjoy the benefit. Since the anticipated risks to participants are minimal, the risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits. The knowledge gained from this study has the potential of significantly impacting obstetrical clinical practice. It will provide evidence that can be used in decision making and options presented to women at cesarean section. The results, if our hypothesis is true, will contribute to the long term goal of providing safe efficacious options during cesarean section, which will reduce morbidity, cost of health care and length of hospital stay.
Potential Risks: Just like all cesarean sections, patients are at risk of hemorrhage, chorioamnionitis, anesthetic complications, hemorrhagic shock, cardiac arrest, acute renal failure, assisted ventilation, venous thromboembolism and post operative infections. In this study, even though we will not be cleaning the uterine cavity, we will ensure that the placenta and membranes are removed in its entirety.
Protection against Risks: Major risks above and beyond those incurred with standard medical care are not anticipated with this protocol. Cesarean section is a common procedure in obstetrical practice. Not cleaning the uterine cavity during cesarean section is standard of care by some of the attendings here at Sparrow. Safety will be monitored by the investigators. In the case of an adverse event, it will be submitted to the Human research Protection Office (HRPO) here at Sparrow per standard HRPO reporting guidelines.
Data and Safety Monitoring Plan: Although the risks to study participants are expected to be minimal and no greater than those associated with routine cesarean sections, a number of measures are planned to ensure patient safety. Monitoring will involve the principal investigator who will monitor, document, and report to the Institutional Review Board, any adverse events among study participants.
Data and Safety and Monitoring - Dr Maude Guerin will serve as the consultant for this research study. She will be tasked with ensuring the overall safety of the subjects enrolled in the study. She will be responsible for interpreting results of the interim analysis and making decisions including stopping the study.
Interim analysis- Interim efficacy analysis will be conducted with endometritis as the primary outcome of interest. Analyses will be performed by the study statistician and presented to the DSMB. The board will make a recommendation regarding further conduct of the study. The principal investigator will not be informed of the results of the interim analysis unless the DSMB determines that some level of unblinding is necessary to make final decisions about the conduct of the study. Possible decisions include stopping the study because efficacy has been achieved or because futility, and modifying sample size.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Cleaning the uterine cavity | Active comparator | Procedure: Cleaning the uterine cavityCleaning the uterine cavity: participants will have their uterine cavities cleaned with a dry laparotomy sponge after delivery of the placenta. Per standard protocol, the uterus will be explored with one hand holding a sponge to remove any remaining membranes or placental tissue, while the other hand is placed on the fundus to stabilize the uterus. |
| Not cleaning the uterine cavity | No intervention | –These participants will have their uterine cavities left alone after complete delivery of the placenta. The placenta will be inspected after delivery to make sure it is complete, including the membranes. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 50 years
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Women with singleton or multiple pregnancies, vertex or breech presentation with intact membranes presenting to our labor and delivery unit for cesarean section will be evaluated for participation
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Women will be excluded if any of the following criteria are encountered: preterm premature rupture of membranes, spontaneous rupture of membranes prior to cesarean section, chorioamnionitis, fetal demise, uncontrolled diabetes or an immunosuppressive disorder.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Cleaning the uterine cavityThese participants will have their uterine cavities cleaned with a dry laparotomy sponge after delivery of the placenta. Per standard protocol, the uterus will be explored with one hand holding a sponge to remove any remaining membranes or placental tissue, while the other hand is placed on the fundus to stabilize the uterus | Procedure or surgery | Cleaning the uterine cavity |
Primary outcome
Endomyometritis after delivery
Time frame: Within 6 weeks after delivery
Endomyometritis will be diagnosed by the presence of two or more of the following: abnormally tender uterus on examination, temperature more than 38.0°C at any time postoperatively, and unexplained maternal tachycardia more than 100 beats per minute (bpm). A diagnosis of endomyometritis will be criteria for initiating treatment with antibiotics.
9 secondary outcomes
Post partum hemorrhage
Time frame: Within 6 weeks after delivery
Mean surgical time
Time frame: Immediately post cesarean
Retained products of conception
Time frame: Within 6 weeks post delivery
Retained placenta
Time frame: Within 6 weeks post delivery
Quantitative blood loss
Time frame: Within 6 weeks post delivery
Hospital length of stay
Time frame: Participants will be followed for the duration of hospital stay, an expected average of 4 days postpartum
Return of gastrointestinal function
Time frame: Participants will be followed for the duration to return of bowel function, an expected average of 2 days postpartum
Repeat surgery
Time frame: Within 6 weeks post delivery
Hospital readmission rates.
Time frame: Within 6 weeks post delivery
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 25 Nov 2015.
- Background: PubMed 16260200Berghella V, Baxter JK, Chauhan SP. Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Nov;193(5):1607-17. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.03.063.
- Background: PubMed 23400611Hamilton BE, Hoyert DL, Martin JA, Strobino DM, Guyer B. Annual summary of vital statistics: 2010-2011. Pediatrics. 2013 Mar;131(3):548-58. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-3769. Epub 2013 Feb 11.
- Background: PubMed 17296957Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS, Heaman M, Sauve R, Kramer MS; Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. CMAJ. 2007 Feb 13;176(4):455-60. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.060870.
- Background: PubMed 23249931Eisenach JC, Pan P, Smiley RM, Lavand'homme P, Landau R, Houle TT. Resolution of pain after childbirth. Anesthesiology. 2013 Jan;118(1):143-51. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318278ccfd.
- Background: PubMed 22670489Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, Osterman MJ, Kirmeyer S, Mathews TJ, Wilson EC. Births: final data for 2009. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2011 Nov 3;60(1):1-70.
- Background: PubMed 22119498O'Dwyer V, Hogan JL, Farah N, Kennelly MM, Fitzpatrick C, Turner MJ. Maternal mortality and the rising cesarean rate. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012 Feb;116(2):162-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.09.024. Epub 2011 Nov 26.
- Background: PubMed 17253508Mathai M, Hofmeyr GJ. Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jan 24;(1):CD004453. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004453.pub2.
- Background: PubMed 19879392Hofmeyr JG, Novikova N, Mathai M, Shah A. Techniques for cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Nov;201(5):431-44. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.03.018.
- Background: PubMed 11755558Hohlagschwandtner M, Ruecklinger E, Husslein P, Joura EA. Is the formation of a bladder flap at cesarean necessary? A randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Dec;98(6):1089-92. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(01)01570-8.
- Background: PubMed 22395144Tuuli MG, Odibo AO, Fogertey P, Roehl K, Stamilio D, Macones GA. Utility of the bladder flap at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Apr;119(4):815-21. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31824c0e12.
- Background: PubMed 20840692CAESAR study collaborative group. Caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised factorial trial (CAESAR). BJOG. 2010 Oct;117(11):1366-76. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02686.x.
- Background: PubMed 23721753CORONIS Collaborative Group; Abalos E, Addo V, Brocklehurst P, El Sheikh M, Farrell B, Gray S, Hardy P, Juszczak E, Mathews JE, Masood SN, Oyarzun E, Oyieke J, Sharma JB, Spark P. Caesarean section surgical techniques (CORONIS): a fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013 Jul 20;382(9888):234-48. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60441-9. Epub 2013 May 28.
Related trials for Pregnancy
Recruiting
Methylation Profiling in Self-Samples for Identification of (Epi)Genetic Biomarkers for Gynecological Cancers
Gynaecological Cancers, Ovarian Cancer
RecruitingPhase 1/2
Study of INBRX-106 and INBRX-106 in Combination With Pembrolizumab (Keytruda®) in Subjects With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Solid Tumors (Hexavalent OX40 Agonist)
Solid Tumor, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
RecruitingObservational study
Population Pharmacokinetics of Temocillin in Acute Enterobacterial Pyelonephritis in Children
Pyelonephritis
Active, not recruitingPhase 3
A Study of Belzutifan (MK-6482) in Combination With Lenvatinib Versus Cabozantinib for Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma (MK-6482-011)
Carcinoma, Renal Cell
Recruiting
Safety and Performance of UCon Patch Electrode
Urinary Incontinence, Urinary Incontinence, Urge
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Ahizechukwu C Eke, MD, MPH principal investigator
Dept of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Michigan State University/Sparrow Hospital, Lansing, MI 48912
Martin Denny, DO, FACOOG principal investigator
Dept of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Michigan State University/Sparrow Hospital, Lansing, MI 48912
Steven Roth, MD, FACOG study director
Dept of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Michigan State University/Sparrow Hospital, Lansing, MI 48912
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Cleaning the uterine cavity in people with Pregnancy, run by Michigan State University at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 25 Nov 2015. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Endomyometritis after delivery (time frame: Within 6 weeks after delivery). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02152735, which also lists 24 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 25 Nov 2015.