Article

Use of intrapartum antibiotics and the incidence of postnatal maternal and neonatal yeast infections

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, United States
Obstetrics and Gynecology (Impact Factor: 4.37). 07/2005; 106(1):19-22. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000164049.12159.bd
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To estimate 1) the risk of candidiasis (neonatal thrush or breast infections or both) in nursing mother-infant pairs and 2) whether receipt of intrapartum antibiotics increases this risk.
Demographic and obstetric data were obtained at delivery, and telephone follow-up was obtained at 1 week and 1 and 3 months and recorded in the Lactation Services database, which was reviewed retrospectively. The diagnoses of thrush and breast candidiasis were based on symptoms and patient reports, as per standard clinical practice. For statistical analysis, chi(2) analysis and Student t test were used. A value of P < .05 was considered significant.
A total of 811 nursing mother-infant pairs were seen between February 1, 2001, and August 31, 2002. Mother-infant pairs with follow-up who nursed for 1 month or longer were included (n = 435). Of these, 173 (39.8%) received intrapartum antibiotics, most (78.6%) for group B streptococci prophylaxis. Overall, 46 mother-infant pairs (10.6%) had either thrush or breast candidiasis (32 with both) within 1 month of delivery. Mothers who were exposed to intrapartum antibiotics were significantly more likely to develop breast candidiasis (odds ratio 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.08-4.08). Antibiotic-exposed neonates were more likely to develop thrush, although this was not statistically significant. (odds ratio 1.87, 95% confidence interval 0.97-3.63). Antibiotic-exposed infants were younger (mean +/- standard deviation, 38.5 +/- 1.9 weeks compared with 39.0 +/- 1.3 weeks; P = .002), but there were no differences in maternal age, gravity or parity, or route of delivery.
Neonatal thrush and maternal breast candidiasis are common early postnatal complications. The higher rates of thrush and breast candidiasis in antibiotic-exposed mother-infant pairs merits further study.
II-2.

0 Followers
 · 
79 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Maternal colonization with group B streptococcus (GBS) during pregnancy increases the risk of neonatal infection by vertical transmission. Administration of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) during labor has been associated with a reduction in early onset GBS disease (EOGBSD). However, treating all colonized women during labor exposes a large number of women and infants to possible adverse effects without benefit. To assess the effect of IAP for maternal GBS colonization on neonatal: 1) all cause mortality and 2) morbidity from proven and probable EOGBSD, late onset GBS disease (LOD), maternal infectious outcomes and allergic reactions to antibiotics. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (April 2009). Randomized trials assessing the impact of maternal IAP on neonatal GBS infections were included. We independently assessed eligibility and quality of the studies. Three trials (involving 852 women) evaluating the effects of IAP versus no treatment were included. The risk of bias was high. The use of IAP did not significantly reduce the incidence of all cause mortality, mortality from GBS infection or from infections caused by bacteria other than GBS. The incidence of early GBS infection was reduced with IAP compared to no treatment (risk ratio 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.74, three trials, 488 infants; risk difference -0.04, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.01; number needed to treat to benefit 25, 95% CI 14 to 100, I(2) 0%). The incidence of LOD or sepsis from organisms other than GBS and puerperal infection was not significantly different between groups.One trial (involving 352 women) compared intrapartum ampicillin versus penicillin and reported no significant difference in neonatal or maternal outcomes. Intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis appeared to reduce EOGBSD, but this result may well be a result of bias as we found a high risk of bias for one or more key domains in the study methodology and execution. There is lack of evidence from well designed and conducted trials to recommend IAP to reduce neonatal EOGBSD.Ideally the effectiveness of IAP to reduce neonatal GBS infections should be studied in adequately sized double-blind controlled trials. The opportunity to conduct such trials has likely been lost, as practice guidelines (albeit without good evidence) have been introduced in many jurisdictions.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 02/2009; DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD007467.pub2 · 5.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A central goal of The Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine is the development of clinical protocols for managing common medical problems that may impact breastfeeding success. These protocols serve only as guidelines for the care of breastfeeding mothers and infants and do not delineate an exclusive course of treatment or serve as standards of medical care. Variations in treatment may be appropriate according to the needs of an individual patient.
    Breastfeeding Medicine 06/2014; 9(5):239-243. DOI:10.1089/bfm.2014.9984 · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Epidural fever is a maternal temperature elevation seen in women who use epidural analgesia during labor. It occurs in a subset of laboring women after epidural administration and is noninfectious in origin. Epidural fever is not associated with neonatal sepsis, but it often is difficult to distinguish from chorioamnionitis, a condition that can cause neonatal sepsis. Because of this, neonates born to mothers who experience fever during labor are often evaluated for sepsis. Potential solutions to this problem include establishing better methods to distinguish between epidural fever and chorioamnionitis and making alternative methods of pain relief available to laboring women.
    Journal of midwifery & women's health 01/2012; 57(1):82-5. DOI:10.1111/j.1542-2011.2011.00105.x · 1.04 Impact Factor