Original Article

Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Cesarean Delivery Among Alabama Providers

Authors: Dana Watson, MS, Alan Tita, MD, PhD, Lisa Dimperio, BS, Tera Howard, MD, Lorie Harper, MD

Abstract

Objectives: A multicenter, randomized controlled trial has demonstrated the benefit of adding azithromycin to routine preoperative antibiotics in unscheduled cesarean deliveries (CDs) to prevent surgical site infections. We sought to describe and identify barriers to the implementation of azithromycin prophylaxis for CDs by Alabama healthcare providers.

Methods: We conducted an online, self-administered survey of obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) providers in Alabama. E-mail addresses were obtained from a publicly available list. We sent an invitation to complete an anonymous online survey to 478 providers after excluding incompatible addresses and providers who previously opted out of the survey platform. After the initial survey, three reminders to complete the survey were sent. Standard questions regarding population and provider demographics were asked. We assessed timing, duration, and type of antibiotic used for scheduled cesareans and unscheduled (labor) cesareans, and the reasons for not using azithromycin for prophylaxis. Results were compared using the Student t test and χ2 test as appropriate.

Results: Of the 66 OB/GYN providers who responded to the survey, 44 (66.7%) performed CDs. Most providers (59.1%) identified as female, served a mix of urban and rural communities (54.5%), and performed deliveries at a level IV hospital (54.5%) with >2000 deliveries annually (52.3%). Most providers (77.3%) reported that an antibiotic stewardship committee supervised antibiotic use at their hospital. For unscheduled cesareans, 54.5% reported the use of azithromycin and 47.7% for scheduled cesareans. The most common reason for not currently using azithromycin was being unaware of evidence for its use (55.6%). The only factors associated with azithromycin use were the urban/rural mix of the provider’s patient population (P = 0.03) and the hospital level (P < 0.01). More providers serving a primarily urban population reported azithromycin use (87.5%) compared with those serving in a rural (33.3%) or mixed (47.6%) population. In addition, 74.2% of the obstetricians who delivered in a level 3 or 4 hospital reported using azithromycin prophylaxis, whereas only 22.2% of level 1 or 2 hospital providers reported this usage.

Conclusions: Only 56.8% of Alabama obstetrics providers reported using azithromycin for CD, which is both effective and cost saving for prevention of surgical site infections. More needs to be done to increase awareness of these benefits.
Posted in: Obstetrics and Gynecology69

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Tuuli MG, Liu J, Stout MJ, et al. A randomized trial comparing skin antiseptic agents at cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2016;374:647-655.
2. Tita AT, Szychowski JM, Boggess K, et al. Adjunctive azithromycin prophylaxis for cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1231-1241.
3. Harper LM, Kilgore M, Szychowski JM, et al. Economic evaluation of adjunctive azithromycin prophylaxis for cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2017;130:328-334.
4. Olsen MA, Butler AM, Willers DM, et al. Attributable costs of surgical site infection and endometritis after low transverse cesarean delivery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:276-282.
5. Olsen MA, Butler AM, Willers DM, et al. Comparison of costs of surgical site infection and endometritis after cesarean delivery using claims and medical record data. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:872-875.
6. Bratzler DW, Dellinger EP, Olsen KM, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2013;70:195-283.
7. Sutton AL, Acosta EP, Larson KB, et al. Perinatal pharmacokinetics of azithromycin for cesarean prophylaxis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015;212:812.e1-812.e6.
8. Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics. ACOG practice bulletin no. 199: use of prophylactic antibiotics in labor and delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2018;132:e103-e119.
9. Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, et al. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci 2012;7:50.
10. Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med 2011;104:510-520.
11. Friedman AM, Ananth CV, Huang Y, et al. Hospital delivery volume, severe obstetrical morbidity, and failure to rescue. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;215:795.e1-795.e14.
12. Obstetric Care Consensus No. 2: levels of maternal care. Obstet Gynecol 2015;125:502-515.
13. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no. 120: use of prophylactic antibiotics in labor and delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:1472-1483.
14. Schonlau M, Fricker RD, Elliot EM. Conducting Research Surveys via e-mail and the web. Santa Monica CA: Rand 2002.
15. Sanchez-Fernandez J, Munoz-Leiva F, Montoro-Rios F. Improving retention rate and response quality in Web-based surveys. Comput Hum Behav 2012;28:507-514.
16. Doss AE, Davidson JD, Cliver SP, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis for cesarean delivery: survey of maternal-fetal medicine physicians in the U.S. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012;25:1264-1266.
17. Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JS, et al. Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review Group. BMJ 1998;317:465-468.
18. Lavis JN. How can we support the use of systematic reviews in policymaking? PLoS medicine 2009;6:e1000141-e.