Commentary

Known as sweet chestnut, Castanea sativa is a member of the Fagaceae family, and is found in abundance in Southern and Southeastern Europe and Asia.¹ In traditional medicine, chestnut tree flower preparations have been used for various indications.² Chestnut has been used in French folk medicine as a tea to treat severe cough, colds, and bronchitis as well as diarrhea.^2-6 In modern times, C. sativa leaf extract has been described as having the capacity to scavenge various free radicals associated with oxidative stress induced by ultraviolet exposure.⁷

Traditional uses

A 2014 study of the therapeutic and traditional uses of the plants native to the Western Italian Alps revealed that C. sativa has long been important in the region, typically for food and wood.⁸ But medical uses have been uncovered in that region as well. In fact, ancient Romans found C. sativa to exhibit antibacterial, astringent, antitoxic, and tonic qualities, with chestnut honey used then to dress chronic wounds, burns, and skin ulcers.⁹ A 2014 study by Carocho et al. of the phytochemical profile and antioxidant activity of C. sativa flowers is noteworthy for buttressing the reported health benefits of the use of chestnut flower infusions and decoctions in traditional medicine.²

Antioxidant activity

In 2005, Calliste et al. investigated the antioxidant potential of C. sativa leaf to act against the stable free radical 2,2-diphenyl-1-pycrylhydrazyl, superoxide anion, and hydroxyl radical. Using electronic spin resonance, the investigators showed that C. sativa exhibited high antioxidant potential equivalent to reference antioxidants quercetin and vitamin E.³

Three years later, Almeida et al. conducted an in vitro assessment of an ethanol/water (7:3) extract from C. sativa leaves and an ethanol/water (2:3) extract from Quercus robur (English oak) leaves, finding that both plants demonstrated a high potency to scavenge various reactive oxygen and nitrogen species. The researchers concluded that these findings supported the burgeoning interest in these extracts for use in topical antioxidant formulations.⁴ An in vivo investigation using an ethanol/water (7:3) extract from C. sativa conducted by the same team later in the year yielded similar results, with the researchers concluding that chestnut extract has the potential to confer benefits against photoaging and other oxidative stress–mediated conditions when included in an appropriately formulated topical antioxidant preparation.⁶ Subsequently, Barreira et al. demonstrated that chestnut skin and leaves exhibited sufficient antioxidant potency to warrant use in novel antioxidant formulations.¹⁰

In 2015, Almeida et al. characterized an antioxidant semisolid surfactant-free topical formulation featuring C. sativa leaf extract. In the process of ascertaining the physical, functional, and microbiologic stability of the antioxidant formulation, the investigators identified a hydrating effect and good skin tolerance, which they concluded suggested a capacity to prevent or treat cutaneous conditions in which oxidative stress plays a role.¹¹

Photoprotective potential

In 2010, Sapkota et al. evaluated the antioxidant and antimelanogenic characteristics of several prebloom and full-bloom chestnut flower extracts, finding that a prebloom methanol extract and an ethanol extract evinced the greatest levels of phenolic and flavonoid compounds. These extracts also displayed the best radical scavenging and mushroom tyrosinase–inhibiting activities. Notably, the prebloom extract was effective in protecting the skin from the deleterious impact of UV radiation. The investigators also observed that all of the tested extracts lowered the tyrosinase activity and melanin formation of SK-MEL-2 cells similarly to arbutin. They ascribed the antimelanogenic effects of chestnut flower extracts to their antioxidant-mediated inhibitory effects on tyrosinase. They concluded that chestnut flower extracts have considerable potential as cosmetic agents.¹²

By Wildfeuer/ Wikimedia Commons/ CC BY-SA 3.0

Recently, Almeida et al. studied the protective effects in a human keratinocyte cell line of C. sativa extract at various concentrations (0.001-, 0.01-, 0.05-, and 0.1-mcg/mL) against UV-induced DNA damage. They found that the chestnut extract concentration dependently protected against UV-mediated DNA damage, with the 0.1-mcg/mL concentration affording maximum protection (66.4%). This result was considered to be a direct antioxidant effect attributed to various phenolic antioxidants present in C. sativa. In addition, the investigators observed no phototoxic or genotoxic effects on HaCaT cells incubated with up to 0.1 mcg/mL of chestnut leaf extract. They concluded that C. sativa leaf extract has the potential to prevent or mitigate UV-induced harm to the skin.⁷

Other benefits and bioactivity

Assessments of C. sativa by-products have shown a favorable profile of bioactive constituents that demonstrate antioxidant, anticarcinogenic, and cardioprotective activity. Braga et al. conducted a 2015 review that concluded these compounds, as part of agro-industrial waste, offer value to the pharmaceutical, cosmetics, and food industries, with the potential to lower pollution costs and raise profits while enhancing social, economic, and environmental sustainability in growing regions.¹

A related chestnut species also has been linked to dermatologic uses. In East Asia, a skin firming/antiwrinkle formulation features the inner shell of Castanea crenata as an active ingredient.¹³ In 2002, Chi et al. showed that the chestnut inner shell extract improved cell-associated expression of the adhesion molecules fibronectin and vitronectin. They also found that scoparone (6,7-dimethoxycoumarin) isolated from the chestnut extract exhibited comparable qualities. The investigators concluded that the enhanced expression of adhesion molecules imparted by the chestnut inner shell extract may account for the prevention of cell detachment and the manifestation of antiaging effects.¹³

Allergy

It is worth noting that chestnut is one of the many allergens associated with the latex-fruit syndrome.¹⁴ However, in a patch test investigation of the skin irritation potential of C. sativa leaf extract in 20 volunteers, Almeida et al. identified five phenolic compounds in the extract (chlorogenic acid, ellagic acid, rutin, isoquercitrin, and hyperoside) and found it safe for topical application.⁶ Chestnut is considered to pose a low to moderate risk of inducing allergic reactions.⁹

Conclusion

Recent research appears to suggest the in vitro antioxidant activity of sweet chestnut and potential for use in topical formulations. There remains a paucity of in vivo evidence, however. While much more research is necessary to determine whether it has a place in the dermatologic armamentarium, current data are intriguing.

References

1. Nat Prod Res. 2015;29(1):1-18

2. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:232956

3. J Agric Food Chem. 2005 Jan 26;53(2):282-8

4. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2008 May 29;91(2-3):87-95

5. A Modern Herbal (vol. I). New York: Dover Publications, 1971, p. 195

6. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2008 Nov;103(5):461-7

7. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2015 Mar;144C:28-34

8. J Ethnopharmacol. 2014 Aug 8;155(1):463-84

9. J Sci Food Agric. 2010 Aug 15;90(10):1578-89

10. Food Sci Technol Int. 2010 June;16(3):209-16

11. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2015 Jan;41(1):148-55

12. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2010;74(8):1527-33

13. Arch Pharm Res. 2002 Aug;25(4):469-74

14. Allergy. 2007 Nov;62(11):1277-81

Dr. Baumann is chief executive officer of the Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute in the Design District in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann wrote the textbook “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), and a book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Her latest book, “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients,” was published in November 2014. Dr. Baumann has received funding for clinical grants from Allergan, Aveeno, Avon Products, Evolus, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Mary Kay, Medicis Pharmaceuticals, Neutrogena, Philosophy, Topix Pharmaceuticals, and Unilever.

Known as sweet chestnut, Castanea sativa is a member of the Fagaceae family, and is found in abundance in Southern and Southeastern Europe and Asia.¹ In traditional medicine, chestnut tree flower preparations have been used for various indications.² Chestnut has been used in French folk medicine as a tea to treat severe cough, colds, and bronchitis as well as diarrhea.^2-6 In modern times, C. sativa leaf extract has been described as having the capacity to scavenge various free radicals associated with oxidative stress induced by ultraviolet exposure.⁷

Traditional uses

A 2014 study of the therapeutic and traditional uses of the plants native to the Western Italian Alps revealed that C. sativa has long been important in the region, typically for food and wood.⁸ But medical uses have been uncovered in that region as well. In fact, ancient Romans found C. sativa to exhibit antibacterial, astringent, antitoxic, and tonic qualities, with chestnut honey used then to dress chronic wounds, burns, and skin ulcers.⁹ A 2014 study by Carocho et al. of the phytochemical profile and antioxidant activity of C. sativa flowers is noteworthy for buttressing the reported health benefits of the use of chestnut flower infusions and decoctions in traditional medicine.²

Antioxidant activity

In 2005, Calliste et al. investigated the antioxidant potential of C. sativa leaf to act against the stable free radical 2,2-diphenyl-1-pycrylhydrazyl, superoxide anion, and hydroxyl radical. Using electronic spin resonance, the investigators showed that C. sativa exhibited high antioxidant potential equivalent to reference antioxidants quercetin and vitamin E.³

Three years later, Almeida et al. conducted an in vitro assessment of an ethanol/water (7:3) extract from C. sativa leaves and an ethanol/water (2:3) extract from Quercus robur (English oak) leaves, finding that both plants demonstrated a high potency to scavenge various reactive oxygen and nitrogen species. The researchers concluded that these findings supported the burgeoning interest in these extracts for use in topical antioxidant formulations.⁴ An in vivo investigation using an ethanol/water (7:3) extract from C. sativa conducted by the same team later in the year yielded similar results, with the researchers concluding that chestnut extract has the potential to confer benefits against photoaging and other oxidative stress–mediated conditions when included in an appropriately formulated topical antioxidant preparation.⁶ Subsequently, Barreira et al. demonstrated that chestnut skin and leaves exhibited sufficient antioxidant potency to warrant use in novel antioxidant formulations.¹⁰

In 2015, Almeida et al. characterized an antioxidant semisolid surfactant-free topical formulation featuring C. sativa leaf extract. In the process of ascertaining the physical, functional, and microbiologic stability of the antioxidant formulation, the investigators identified a hydrating effect and good skin tolerance, which they concluded suggested a capacity to prevent or treat cutaneous conditions in which oxidative stress plays a role.¹¹

Photoprotective potential

In 2010, Sapkota et al. evaluated the antioxidant and antimelanogenic characteristics of several prebloom and full-bloom chestnut flower extracts, finding that a prebloom methanol extract and an ethanol extract evinced the greatest levels of phenolic and flavonoid compounds. These extracts also displayed the best radical scavenging and mushroom tyrosinase–inhibiting activities. Notably, the prebloom extract was effective in protecting the skin from the deleterious impact of UV radiation. The investigators also observed that all of the tested extracts lowered the tyrosinase activity and melanin formation of SK-MEL-2 cells similarly to arbutin. They ascribed the antimelanogenic effects of chestnut flower extracts to their antioxidant-mediated inhibitory effects on tyrosinase. They concluded that chestnut flower extracts have considerable potential as cosmetic agents.¹²

By Wildfeuer/ Wikimedia Commons/ CC BY-SA 3.0

Recently, Almeida et al. studied the protective effects in a human keratinocyte cell line of C. sativa extract at various concentrations (0.001-, 0.01-, 0.05-, and 0.1-mcg/mL) against UV-induced DNA damage. They found that the chestnut extract concentration dependently protected against UV-mediated DNA damage, with the 0.1-mcg/mL concentration affording maximum protection (66.4%). This result was considered to be a direct antioxidant effect attributed to various phenolic antioxidants present in C. sativa. In addition, the investigators observed no phototoxic or genotoxic effects on HaCaT cells incubated with up to 0.1 mcg/mL of chestnut leaf extract. They concluded that C. sativa leaf extract has the potential to prevent or mitigate UV-induced harm to the skin.⁷

Other benefits and bioactivity

Assessments of C. sativa by-products have shown a favorable profile of bioactive constituents that demonstrate antioxidant, anticarcinogenic, and cardioprotective activity. Braga et al. conducted a 2015 review that concluded these compounds, as part of agro-industrial waste, offer value to the pharmaceutical, cosmetics, and food industries, with the potential to lower pollution costs and raise profits while enhancing social, economic, and environmental sustainability in growing regions.¹

A related chestnut species also has been linked to dermatologic uses. In East Asia, a skin firming/antiwrinkle formulation features the inner shell of Castanea crenata as an active ingredient.¹³ In 2002, Chi et al. showed that the chestnut inner shell extract improved cell-associated expression of the adhesion molecules fibronectin and vitronectin. They also found that scoparone (6,7-dimethoxycoumarin) isolated from the chestnut extract exhibited comparable qualities. The investigators concluded that the enhanced expression of adhesion molecules imparted by the chestnut inner shell extract may account for the prevention of cell detachment and the manifestation of antiaging effects.¹³

Allergy

It is worth noting that chestnut is one of the many allergens associated with the latex-fruit syndrome.¹⁴ However, in a patch test investigation of the skin irritation potential of C. sativa leaf extract in 20 volunteers, Almeida et al. identified five phenolic compounds in the extract (chlorogenic acid, ellagic acid, rutin, isoquercitrin, and hyperoside) and found it safe for topical application.⁶ Chestnut is considered to pose a low to moderate risk of inducing allergic reactions.⁹

Conclusion

Recent research appears to suggest the in vitro antioxidant activity of sweet chestnut and potential for use in topical formulations. There remains a paucity of in vivo evidence, however. While much more research is necessary to determine whether it has a place in the dermatologic armamentarium, current data are intriguing.

References

1. Nat Prod Res. 2015;29(1):1-18

2. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:232956

3. J Agric Food Chem. 2005 Jan 26;53(2):282-8

4. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2008 May 29;91(2-3):87-95

5. A Modern Herbal (vol. I). New York: Dover Publications, 1971, p. 195

6. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2008 Nov;103(5):461-7

7. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2015 Mar;144C:28-34

8. J Ethnopharmacol. 2014 Aug 8;155(1):463-84

9. J Sci Food Agric. 2010 Aug 15;90(10):1578-89

10. Food Sci Technol Int. 2010 June;16(3):209-16

11. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2015 Jan;41(1):148-55

12. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2010;74(8):1527-33

13. Arch Pharm Res. 2002 Aug;25(4):469-74

14. Allergy. 2007 Nov;62(11):1277-81

Dr. Baumann is chief executive officer of the Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute in the Design District in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann wrote the textbook “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), and a book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Her latest book, “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients,” was published in November 2014. Dr. Baumann has received funding for clinical grants from Allergan, Aveeno, Avon Products, Evolus, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Mary Kay, Medicis Pharmaceuticals, Neutrogena, Philosophy, Topix Pharmaceuticals, and Unilever.

Known as sweet chestnut, Castanea sativa is a member of the Fagaceae family, and is found in abundance in Southern and Southeastern Europe and Asia.¹ In traditional medicine, chestnut tree flower preparations have been used for various indications.² Chestnut has been used in French folk medicine as a tea to treat severe cough, colds, and bronchitis as well as diarrhea.^2-6 In modern times, C. sativa leaf extract has been described as having the capacity to scavenge various free radicals associated with oxidative stress induced by ultraviolet exposure.⁷

Traditional uses

A 2014 study of the therapeutic and traditional uses of the plants native to the Western Italian Alps revealed that C. sativa has long been important in the region, typically for food and wood.⁸ But medical uses have been uncovered in that region as well. In fact, ancient Romans found C. sativa to exhibit antibacterial, astringent, antitoxic, and tonic qualities, with chestnut honey used then to dress chronic wounds, burns, and skin ulcers.⁹ A 2014 study by Carocho et al. of the phytochemical profile and antioxidant activity of C. sativa flowers is noteworthy for buttressing the reported health benefits of the use of chestnut flower infusions and decoctions in traditional medicine.²

Antioxidant activity

In 2005, Calliste et al. investigated the antioxidant potential of C. sativa leaf to act against the stable free radical 2,2-diphenyl-1-pycrylhydrazyl, superoxide anion, and hydroxyl radical. Using electronic spin resonance, the investigators showed that C. sativa exhibited high antioxidant potential equivalent to reference antioxidants quercetin and vitamin E.³

Three years later, Almeida et al. conducted an in vitro assessment of an ethanol/water (7:3) extract from C. sativa leaves and an ethanol/water (2:3) extract from Quercus robur (English oak) leaves, finding that both plants demonstrated a high potency to scavenge various reactive oxygen and nitrogen species. The researchers concluded that these findings supported the burgeoning interest in these extracts for use in topical antioxidant formulations.⁴ An in vivo investigation using an ethanol/water (7:3) extract from C. sativa conducted by the same team later in the year yielded similar results, with the researchers concluding that chestnut extract has the potential to confer benefits against photoaging and other oxidative stress–mediated conditions when included in an appropriately formulated topical antioxidant preparation.⁶ Subsequently, Barreira et al. demonstrated that chestnut skin and leaves exhibited sufficient antioxidant potency to warrant use in novel antioxidant formulations.¹⁰

In 2015, Almeida et al. characterized an antioxidant semisolid surfactant-free topical formulation featuring C. sativa leaf extract. In the process of ascertaining the physical, functional, and microbiologic stability of the antioxidant formulation, the investigators identified a hydrating effect and good skin tolerance, which they concluded suggested a capacity to prevent or treat cutaneous conditions in which oxidative stress plays a role.¹¹

Photoprotective potential

In 2010, Sapkota et al. evaluated the antioxidant and antimelanogenic characteristics of several prebloom and full-bloom chestnut flower extracts, finding that a prebloom methanol extract and an ethanol extract evinced the greatest levels of phenolic and flavonoid compounds. These extracts also displayed the best radical scavenging and mushroom tyrosinase–inhibiting activities. Notably, the prebloom extract was effective in protecting the skin from the deleterious impact of UV radiation. The investigators also observed that all of the tested extracts lowered the tyrosinase activity and melanin formation of SK-MEL-2 cells similarly to arbutin. They ascribed the antimelanogenic effects of chestnut flower extracts to their antioxidant-mediated inhibitory effects on tyrosinase. They concluded that chestnut flower extracts have considerable potential as cosmetic agents.¹²

By Wildfeuer/ Wikimedia Commons/ CC BY-SA 3.0

Recently, Almeida et al. studied the protective effects in a human keratinocyte cell line of C. sativa extract at various concentrations (0.001-, 0.01-, 0.05-, and 0.1-mcg/mL) against UV-induced DNA damage. They found that the chestnut extract concentration dependently protected against UV-mediated DNA damage, with the 0.1-mcg/mL concentration affording maximum protection (66.4%). This result was considered to be a direct antioxidant effect attributed to various phenolic antioxidants present in C. sativa. In addition, the investigators observed no phototoxic or genotoxic effects on HaCaT cells incubated with up to 0.1 mcg/mL of chestnut leaf extract. They concluded that C. sativa leaf extract has the potential to prevent or mitigate UV-induced harm to the skin.⁷

Other benefits and bioactivity

Assessments of C. sativa by-products have shown a favorable profile of bioactive constituents that demonstrate antioxidant, anticarcinogenic, and cardioprotective activity. Braga et al. conducted a 2015 review that concluded these compounds, as part of agro-industrial waste, offer value to the pharmaceutical, cosmetics, and food industries, with the potential to lower pollution costs and raise profits while enhancing social, economic, and environmental sustainability in growing regions.¹

A related chestnut species also has been linked to dermatologic uses. In East Asia, a skin firming/antiwrinkle formulation features the inner shell of Castanea crenata as an active ingredient.¹³ In 2002, Chi et al. showed that the chestnut inner shell extract improved cell-associated expression of the adhesion molecules fibronectin and vitronectin. They also found that scoparone (6,7-dimethoxycoumarin) isolated from the chestnut extract exhibited comparable qualities. The investigators concluded that the enhanced expression of adhesion molecules imparted by the chestnut inner shell extract may account for the prevention of cell detachment and the manifestation of antiaging effects.¹³

Allergy

It is worth noting that chestnut is one of the many allergens associated with the latex-fruit syndrome.¹⁴ However, in a patch test investigation of the skin irritation potential of C. sativa leaf extract in 20 volunteers, Almeida et al. identified five phenolic compounds in the extract (chlorogenic acid, ellagic acid, rutin, isoquercitrin, and hyperoside) and found it safe for topical application.⁶ Chestnut is considered to pose a low to moderate risk of inducing allergic reactions.⁹

Conclusion

Recent research appears to suggest the in vitro antioxidant activity of sweet chestnut and potential for use in topical formulations. There remains a paucity of in vivo evidence, however. While much more research is necessary to determine whether it has a place in the dermatologic armamentarium, current data are intriguing.

References

1. Nat Prod Res. 2015;29(1):1-18

2. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:232956

3. J Agric Food Chem. 2005 Jan 26;53(2):282-8

4. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2008 May 29;91(2-3):87-95

5. A Modern Herbal (vol. I). New York: Dover Publications, 1971, p. 195

6. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2008 Nov;103(5):461-7

7. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2015 Mar;144C:28-34

8. J Ethnopharmacol. 2014 Aug 8;155(1):463-84

9. J Sci Food Agric. 2010 Aug 15;90(10):1578-89

10. Food Sci Technol Int. 2010 June;16(3):209-16

11. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2015 Jan;41(1):148-55

12. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2010;74(8):1527-33

13. Arch Pharm Res. 2002 Aug;25(4):469-74

14. Allergy. 2007 Nov;62(11):1277-81

Dr. Baumann is chief executive officer of the Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute in the Design District in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann wrote the textbook “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), and a book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Her latest book, “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients,” was published in November 2014. Dr. Baumann has received funding for clinical grants from Allergan, Aveeno, Avon Products, Evolus, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Mary Kay, Medicis Pharmaceuticals, Neutrogena, Philosophy, Topix Pharmaceuticals, and Unilever.

“SHOULD YOU ADOPT THE PRACTICE OF VAGINAL CLEANSING WITH POVIDONE-IODINE PRIOR TO CESAREAN DELIVERY?”
ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; JANUARY 2016)
In his January 2016 Editorial, Editor in Chief Robert L. Barbieri, MD, presented evidence supporting the practice of vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine prior to cesarean delivery (CD) to prevent postoperative endometritis. He then asked readers if they would consider adopting such a practice. More than 250 readers weighed in through the Quick Poll at obgmanagement.com, and many readers sent in letters with follow-up questions and comments on controlling bacterial contamination, vaginal seeding, etc. Here are some of the letters, along with Dr. Barbieri’s response and the Quick Poll results.

A contradiction in definitions?
There seems to be a contradiction in definitions. The second sentence of the article defines endometritis as the presence of fever plus low abdominal tenderness. However, the studies presented state that vaginal cleansing pre-CD decreased endometritis but did not decrease postpartum fever. Is this not a discrepancy?
Nancy Kerr, MD, MPH
Albuquerque, New Mexico

A question about povidone-iodine
Have any studies been done on newborn iodine levels after vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine prior to CD?
G. Millard Simmons Jr, MD
Hilton Head, Bluffton, South Carolina

Additional tips for controlling bacterial contamination
Dr. Barbieri’s editorial on vaginal cleansing prior to CD is eye opening. I have a few additional suggestions to control bacterial contamination.

First, I examine my patients in labor as few times as necessary, and I ask the nurses (RNs) not to place their fingers in the patient’s vagina while she is pushing. I remove the Foley catheter when I feel progress (descent of fetal head) is being achieved. In addition, physicians as well as RNs should consider changing their scrubs between deliveries, as I believe that bacterial contamination is splattered all over the place, especially into the birth canal. These methods have worked for me in my over-20 years of practice.

I also firmly remind the RN circulator to perform a generous vaginal cleanse with povidone-iodine, in addition to the usual intravenous prophylaxis, before hysterectomy.
Luis Leyva Jr, MD
Miami, Florida

Mixed feelings
My first reaction to this Editorial was: Is this a solution in search of a problem? That is to say, how much of a clinical problem is endometritis after CD? Are we really treating the proposed problem, and does treatment affect long-term outcomes?

Upon reflection, I have concluded that vaginal cleansing pre-CD does intuitively make sense. What sways me in this direction is that the practice is simple, easy, and inexpensive. Since we typically have the patient positioned for Foley catheter insertion, performing vaginal cleansing as we put in the Foley would be easy. If vaginal cleansing were to be done, I definitely would be in favor of doing such practice liberally—for all CDs to make vaginal cleansing part of the “routine.”

Keep in mind that we are still chasing a problem of little clinical significance.

The biggest accomplishment has been to get everyone to give antibiotics preoperatively rather than after cutting the umbilical cord. We knew that this was best practice as early as the late 1980s/early 1990s, and I have been fighting this battle ever since. Believe it or not, there are still a few holdouts.
George H. Davis, DO
Johnson City, Tennessee

Would vaginal cleansing benefit all women in labor?
Vaginal cleansing before CD reminds me of my residency days when all women having hysterectomies were admitted early and given povidone-iodine (Betadine) douches the evening before surgery (unless an iodine allergy was present).

While reading your Editorial, I had several thoughts and questions. 1) Since vaginal cleansing seems to benefit CD patients, might it not benefit all laboring patients? 2) Is the timing of vaginal cleansing critical? 3) Should we do vaginal cleansing on all laboring patients if timing is not critical?

I plan to bring up the topic of vaginal cleansing for CD with my colleagues at our next department meeting, since it seems like such a simple, logical, inexpensive, and beneficial thing to do.
Douglas G. Tolley, MD
Yuba City, California

An early study on using povidone-iodine gel before CD
When I was a chief resident at Kings County Hospital in 1973, we had a very high rate of post-CD endometritis. I conducted a small study on the use of povidone-iodine gel in the last month of pregnancy. Before commencing, we confirmed that the gel did not interfere with diagnosing ruptured membranes.

Obstetric service patients were randomly divided into “A” and “B” groups. The A patients were asked to use povidone-iodine gel at night for the last 2 weeks before their estimated due date. When admitted in labor, they were asked to confirm its use. When a resident diagnosed post-CD endometritis, we kept track of which group the patient was in and whether or not that patient had used povidone-iodine. Approximately 100 infected patients were evaluated from each group.

As it turned out, there were about 3 times the number of infections among the patients who did not use povidone-iodine than among those who said they used it. It did not seem to matter how many times povidone-iodine was used. The “As” who did not use povidone-iodine had results similar to the “Bs.”

It was many years ago, and the study design was crude. However, it does seem to support the suggestion for vaginal cleansing.
Steve Ross, MD
Port Jefferson, New York

Two different ideas about the vaginal biome
This Editorial is timely in that Dr. Dominguez-Bello and colleagues recently published an article in Nature Medicine titled, “Partial restoration of the microbiota of cesarean-born infants via vaginal microbial transfer.”¹ Dr. Dominguez-Bello is one of the founders of the idea of “vaginal seeding,” or using the natural biome of the vagina on a newborn immediately after CD by swabbing the baby with the bacteria from the vagina.

I find it interesting that there are two very different ideas about the biome at this time. Vaginal seeding is a new trend that a few patients have asked about during prenatal care. The jury is still out on seeding, but a larger study is currently underway at New York University. Of course, infection is one of the risks of seeding. I appreciate hearing both sides of the issue.
Deborah Herchelroath, DO
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Reference

Dr. Barbieri responds
I would like to thank our readers for taking the time from their busy schedules to write about their clinical experiences and current practices for reducing infectious complications following CD.

Dr. Kerr raises the important issue of the apparent contradictory finding of the beneficial impact of vaginal cleansing on endometritis without a beneficial effect on the overall rate of fever. In the trial reported by Starr,¹ fever was defined as a temperature above 38˚C at any time after CD and endometritis was defined as a temperature above 38.4˚C PLUS uterine tenderness occurring more than 24 hours after CD. Given these 2 definitions one can understand the differential effect of vaginal cleansing on fever versus endometritis.

Dr. Simmons raises the intriguing question of the impact of an iodine-containing surgical preparation on newborn thyroid function. There are few studies addressing this issue. One study reports a transient increase in thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels in a small percentage of newborns whose mothers received an iodine preparation.² Another study reports no effect of an iodine surgical preparation on newborn thyroid function indices.³

I agree with the guidance of Drs. Leyva and Davis that we can help prevent postcesarean endometritis by minimizing the number of cervical examinations, changing scrubs between deliveries, and by ensuring that an intravenous anti‑ biotic is given before skin incision.

Dr. Tolley wonders if all women should receive vaginal cleansing, regardless of delivery route. It is possible that such an approach would be effective and it deserves study. Given the lower rate of endometritis following vaginal delivery compared with CD, many more women having a vaginal delivery would need to be treated to prevent one case of endometritis. Dr. Ross mentions his experience with the benefit of outpatient vaginal cleansing in the 2 weeks prior to delivery. Many general surgeons are recommending that their patients shower with chlorhexidine the day before surgery in order to reduce the rate of postoperative infection. Short-term and long-term outpatient vaginal cleansing prior to delivery deserves additional study.

Dr. Herchelroath raises the possibility that vaginal cleansing will decrease the ability of the newborn to develop a normal microbiome because it may not be exposed to sufficient vaginal bacteria. This possibility certainly deserves additional study.

The questions and guidance of our readers were incredibly helpful and stimulating. Thank you for sharing your perspective.

References

“CELL-FREE DNA SCREENING FOR WOMEN AT LOW RISK FOR FETAL ANEUPLOIDY” MARY E. NORTON, MD (JANUARY 2016)

The price of cfDNA screening is dropping
I found Dr. Norton’s article on cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening for women at low risk for fetal abnormalities to be enlightening and educational. The section addressing cost-effectiveness, however, was somewhat obsolete. The referenced study by Cuckle and colleagues,¹ which estimated the cost of cfDNA per case of Down syndrome in low-risk patients at $3.6 million, was published in 2013. With 4 major companies in the market, the cost/benefit ratio has been changing rapidly. At least one company has dropped the cost of the cfDNA test nearly 80% from 2015 to 2016, making the above reference irrelevant. Recently, Ariosa dropped the price of their Harmony cfDNA test to just $119 in our area, regardless of a patient’s insurance or poverty level. This is significantly less than the cost of performing an early screen and is being welcomed by my patients even after substantial counseling on the test’s limitations in the low-risk population. Natera, another laboratory with a similar test, offers a low-cost option. However, patients must provide proof that their income is below a specified level.

Guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) likely will have a hard time keeping up with the cost-effectiveness of noninvasive prenatal testing, as the price continues to be dynamic.
Samuel Wolf, DO
Panama City, Florida

Reference

“DOES THE DISCONTINUATION OF MENOPAUSAL HORMONE THERAPY AFFECT A WOMAN’S CARDIOVASCULAR RISK?”
ANDREW M. KAUNITZ, MD; JOANN E. MANSON, MD, DRPH; AND CYNTHIA A. STUENKEL, MD(EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE; DECEMBER 2015)

Disagrees with conclusion
In their expert commentary, Drs. Kaunitz, Manson, and Stuenkel state:

They support this claim by citing Heiss 2008.¹ In fact, however, the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) data show opposite to their statement: In the WHI, all-cause mortality was increased among the women who were assigned to estrogen-progestin therapy (EPT) relative to those who were assigned to placebo within the 3 years of EPT cessation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95–1.39). More importantly, mortality was significantly increased among women who were originally assigned to EPT relative to those who were assigned to placebo and were at least 80% adherent with intervention (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.04–2.24). Thus, the statement by Drs. Kaunitz, Manson, and Stuenkel is incorrect.

In addition to the WHI studies, data are available from at least 2 other randomized controlled trials addressing the issue of HT withdrawal. In the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS) II,² the unblinded 2.7-year follow-up to the HERS trial, women originally assigned to EPT had a 3.3-fold higher rate of ventricular arrhythmia requiring resuscitation than women assigned to placebo (HR, 3.30; 95% CI, 1.08–10.10). During the first 6 months of posttrial follow-up of the Women’s Estrogen for Stroke Trial (WEST),³ there were 3 fatal strokes and 18 nonfatal strokes among the women originally randomized to estradiol therapy; there were 9 strokes (1 fatal and 8 nonfatal) among the women originally assigned to placebo (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1–5.0; P = .03).

In our study we detected that women who stopped HT, compared with women who continued HT, had a 2.3-fold (95% CI, 2.12–2.50) greater risk of cardiac death within the first post-HT year and a 1.3-fold (95% CI, 1.21–1.31) greater risk of cardiac death more than 1 year after stopping HT.⁴ In addition, women who stopped HT, compared with women who continuedHT, had a 2.5-fold (95% CI, 2.28–2.77) greater risk of dying from stroke within the first post-HT year and a 1.3-fold (95% CI, 1.19–1.31) greater risk of dying from stroke more than 1 year after stopping HT. We believe that these data substantially further our understanding of the posttrial data from WHI, as well as HERS and WEST. Thus, cumulative data support that HT withdrawal potentially has detrimental implications for women. In total, the data are highly informative when counseling women regarding use or discontinuation of HT.
Tomi Mikkola, MD
Helsinki, Finland

References

Drs. Kaunitz, Manson, and Stuenkel respond
We thank Dr. Mikkola for his response to our commentary, but we do not agree with his interpretation of the WHI reports or our conclusions. As we originally stated, the WHI trial of estrogen-only therapy (ET) and EPT provides an opportunity to observe outcomes in the largest randomized controlled trial of HT in healthy postmenopausal women. Our commentary was based on the most recent, 13-year follow-up of the WHI trials,¹ and we are confident in the accuracy of our presentation of the results.

As the debate apparently focuses on the safety of stopping HT, we wish to reiterate, for those who may not be familiar with the data, that, in the ET trial, all-cause mortality declined (although not significantly) after stopping ET, as summarized here:

 Similarly, in the EPT trial, as the following findings indicate, stopping HT did not increase all-cause mortality:

Again, these findings from the largest randomized trial of HT in healthy postmenopausal women are adequate for us to conclude that stopping HT does not elevate risk of mortality. Among all women participating in the WHI HT trials, HRs for coronary heart disease, pulmonary embolism, stroke, and cardiovascular disease mortality likewise were lower (better) after stopping treatment than during the intervention phase. The results for these outcomes in younger women followed similar patterns but, due to smaller numbers of events, could not be tested formally for differences in time trends.

Moreover, the data Dr. Mikkola cites from analyses conducted 3 years postcessation² reflected a borderline increased risk of cancer mortality that emerged in the EPT trial after stopping treatment. This clearly was related to the prolonged effects of EPT on breast cancer and other cancers, given the known latency period for cancer, and was not observed in the ET trial postcessation. The risk elevation in the EPT trial became attenuated with longer follow-up and, as of 13 years, the HRs for cancer mortality were 1.07 (0.93–1.23) in the EPT trial and 0.95 (0.81–1.13) in the ET trial.

It is interesting that Dr. Mikkola now inculcates his interpretation of his findings³ with those from secondary prevention trials such as the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study and the Women’s Estrogen for Stroke Trial, neither of which was included as corroborative evidence in the discussion section of his originally published manuscript, and neither of which is considered applicable to healthy postmenopausal women taking HT for treatment of menopausal symptoms. Based on these findings, we do not recommend that clinicians counsel women that stopping HT increases their risk of cardiovascular or overall mortality. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the evidence and our position.

References

“SHOULD YOU ADOPT THE PRACTICE OF VAGINAL CLEANSING WITH POVIDONE-IODINE PRIOR TO CESAREAN DELIVERY?”
ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; JANUARY 2016)
In his January 2016 Editorial, Editor in Chief Robert L. Barbieri, MD, presented evidence supporting the practice of vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine prior to cesarean delivery (CD) to prevent postoperative endometritis. He then asked readers if they would consider adopting such a practice. More than 250 readers weighed in through the Quick Poll at obgmanagement.com, and many readers sent in letters with follow-up questions and comments on controlling bacterial contamination, vaginal seeding, etc. Here are some of the letters, along with Dr. Barbieri’s response and the Quick Poll results.

A contradiction in definitions?
There seems to be a contradiction in definitions. The second sentence of the article defines endometritis as the presence of fever plus low abdominal tenderness. However, the studies presented state that vaginal cleansing pre-CD decreased endometritis but did not decrease postpartum fever. Is this not a discrepancy?
Nancy Kerr, MD, MPH
Albuquerque, New Mexico

A question about povidone-iodine
Have any studies been done on newborn iodine levels after vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine prior to CD?
G. Millard Simmons Jr, MD
Hilton Head, Bluffton, South Carolina

Additional tips for controlling bacterial contamination
Dr. Barbieri’s editorial on vaginal cleansing prior to CD is eye opening. I have a few additional suggestions to control bacterial contamination.

First, I examine my patients in labor as few times as necessary, and I ask the nurses (RNs) not to place their fingers in the patient’s vagina while she is pushing. I remove the Foley catheter when I feel progress (descent of fetal head) is being achieved. In addition, physicians as well as RNs should consider changing their scrubs between deliveries, as I believe that bacterial contamination is splattered all over the place, especially into the birth canal. These methods have worked for me in my over-20 years of practice.

I also firmly remind the RN circulator to perform a generous vaginal cleanse with povidone-iodine, in addition to the usual intravenous prophylaxis, before hysterectomy.
Luis Leyva Jr, MD
Miami, Florida

Mixed feelings
My first reaction to this Editorial was: Is this a solution in search of a problem? That is to say, how much of a clinical problem is endometritis after CD? Are we really treating the proposed problem, and does treatment affect long-term outcomes?

Upon reflection, I have concluded that vaginal cleansing pre-CD does intuitively make sense. What sways me in this direction is that the practice is simple, easy, and inexpensive. Since we typically have the patient positioned for Foley catheter insertion, performing vaginal cleansing as we put in the Foley would be easy. If vaginal cleansing were to be done, I definitely would be in favor of doing such practice liberally—for all CDs to make vaginal cleansing part of the “routine.”

Keep in mind that we are still chasing a problem of little clinical significance.

The biggest accomplishment has been to get everyone to give antibiotics preoperatively rather than after cutting the umbilical cord. We knew that this was best practice as early as the late 1980s/early 1990s, and I have been fighting this battle ever since. Believe it or not, there are still a few holdouts.
George H. Davis, DO
Johnson City, Tennessee

Would vaginal cleansing benefit all women in labor?
Vaginal cleansing before CD reminds me of my residency days when all women having hysterectomies were admitted early and given povidone-iodine (Betadine) douches the evening before surgery (unless an iodine allergy was present).

While reading your Editorial, I had several thoughts and questions. 1) Since vaginal cleansing seems to benefit CD patients, might it not benefit all laboring patients? 2) Is the timing of vaginal cleansing critical? 3) Should we do vaginal cleansing on all laboring patients if timing is not critical?

I plan to bring up the topic of vaginal cleansing for CD with my colleagues at our next department meeting, since it seems like such a simple, logical, inexpensive, and beneficial thing to do.
Douglas G. Tolley, MD
Yuba City, California

An early study on using povidone-iodine gel before CD
When I was a chief resident at Kings County Hospital in 1973, we had a very high rate of post-CD endometritis. I conducted a small study on the use of povidone-iodine gel in the last month of pregnancy. Before commencing, we confirmed that the gel did not interfere with diagnosing ruptured membranes.

Obstetric service patients were randomly divided into “A” and “B” groups. The A patients were asked to use povidone-iodine gel at night for the last 2 weeks before their estimated due date. When admitted in labor, they were asked to confirm its use. When a resident diagnosed post-CD endometritis, we kept track of which group the patient was in and whether or not that patient had used povidone-iodine. Approximately 100 infected patients were evaluated from each group.

As it turned out, there were about 3 times the number of infections among the patients who did not use povidone-iodine than among those who said they used it. It did not seem to matter how many times povidone-iodine was used. The “As” who did not use povidone-iodine had results similar to the “Bs.”

It was many years ago, and the study design was crude. However, it does seem to support the suggestion for vaginal cleansing.
Steve Ross, MD
Port Jefferson, New York

Two different ideas about the vaginal biome
This Editorial is timely in that Dr. Dominguez-Bello and colleagues recently published an article in Nature Medicine titled, “Partial restoration of the microbiota of cesarean-born infants via vaginal microbial transfer.”¹ Dr. Dominguez-Bello is one of the founders of the idea of “vaginal seeding,” or using the natural biome of the vagina on a newborn immediately after CD by swabbing the baby with the bacteria from the vagina.

I find it interesting that there are two very different ideas about the biome at this time. Vaginal seeding is a new trend that a few patients have asked about during prenatal care. The jury is still out on seeding, but a larger study is currently underway at New York University. Of course, infection is one of the risks of seeding. I appreciate hearing both sides of the issue.
Deborah Herchelroath, DO
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Reference

Dr. Barbieri responds
I would like to thank our readers for taking the time from their busy schedules to write about their clinical experiences and current practices for reducing infectious complications following CD.

Dr. Kerr raises the important issue of the apparent contradictory finding of the beneficial impact of vaginal cleansing on endometritis without a beneficial effect on the overall rate of fever. In the trial reported by Starr,¹ fever was defined as a temperature above 38˚C at any time after CD and endometritis was defined as a temperature above 38.4˚C PLUS uterine tenderness occurring more than 24 hours after CD. Given these 2 definitions one can understand the differential effect of vaginal cleansing on fever versus endometritis.

Dr. Simmons raises the intriguing question of the impact of an iodine-containing surgical preparation on newborn thyroid function. There are few studies addressing this issue. One study reports a transient increase in thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels in a small percentage of newborns whose mothers received an iodine preparation.² Another study reports no effect of an iodine surgical preparation on newborn thyroid function indices.³

I agree with the guidance of Drs. Leyva and Davis that we can help prevent postcesarean endometritis by minimizing the number of cervical examinations, changing scrubs between deliveries, and by ensuring that an intravenous anti‑ biotic is given before skin incision.

Dr. Tolley wonders if all women should receive vaginal cleansing, regardless of delivery route. It is possible that such an approach would be effective and it deserves study. Given the lower rate of endometritis following vaginal delivery compared with CD, many more women having a vaginal delivery would need to be treated to prevent one case of endometritis. Dr. Ross mentions his experience with the benefit of outpatient vaginal cleansing in the 2 weeks prior to delivery. Many general surgeons are recommending that their patients shower with chlorhexidine the day before surgery in order to reduce the rate of postoperative infection. Short-term and long-term outpatient vaginal cleansing prior to delivery deserves additional study.

Dr. Herchelroath raises the possibility that vaginal cleansing will decrease the ability of the newborn to develop a normal microbiome because it may not be exposed to sufficient vaginal bacteria. This possibility certainly deserves additional study.

The questions and guidance of our readers were incredibly helpful and stimulating. Thank you for sharing your perspective.

References

“CELL-FREE DNA SCREENING FOR WOMEN AT LOW RISK FOR FETAL ANEUPLOIDY” MARY E. NORTON, MD (JANUARY 2016)

The price of cfDNA screening is dropping
I found Dr. Norton’s article on cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening for women at low risk for fetal abnormalities to be enlightening and educational. The section addressing cost-effectiveness, however, was somewhat obsolete. The referenced study by Cuckle and colleagues,¹ which estimated the cost of cfDNA per case of Down syndrome in low-risk patients at $3.6 million, was published in 2013. With 4 major companies in the market, the cost/benefit ratio has been changing rapidly. At least one company has dropped the cost of the cfDNA test nearly 80% from 2015 to 2016, making the above reference irrelevant. Recently, Ariosa dropped the price of their Harmony cfDNA test to just $119 in our area, regardless of a patient’s insurance or poverty level. This is significantly less than the cost of performing an early screen and is being welcomed by my patients even after substantial counseling on the test’s limitations in the low-risk population. Natera, another laboratory with a similar test, offers a low-cost option. However, patients must provide proof that their income is below a specified level.

Guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) likely will have a hard time keeping up with the cost-effectiveness of noninvasive prenatal testing, as the price continues to be dynamic.
Samuel Wolf, DO
Panama City, Florida

Reference

“DOES THE DISCONTINUATION OF MENOPAUSAL HORMONE THERAPY AFFECT A WOMAN’S CARDIOVASCULAR RISK?”
ANDREW M. KAUNITZ, MD; JOANN E. MANSON, MD, DRPH; AND CYNTHIA A. STUENKEL, MD(EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE; DECEMBER 2015)

Disagrees with conclusion
In their expert commentary, Drs. Kaunitz, Manson, and Stuenkel state:

They support this claim by citing Heiss 2008.¹ In fact, however, the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) data show opposite to their statement: In the WHI, all-cause mortality was increased among the women who were assigned to estrogen-progestin therapy (EPT) relative to those who were assigned to placebo within the 3 years of EPT cessation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95–1.39). More importantly, mortality was significantly increased among women who were originally assigned to EPT relative to those who were assigned to placebo and were at least 80% adherent with intervention (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.04–2.24). Thus, the statement by Drs. Kaunitz, Manson, and Stuenkel is incorrect.

In addition to the WHI studies, data are available from at least 2 other randomized controlled trials addressing the issue of HT withdrawal. In the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS) II,² the unblinded 2.7-year follow-up to the HERS trial, women originally assigned to EPT had a 3.3-fold higher rate of ventricular arrhythmia requiring resuscitation than women assigned to placebo (HR, 3.30; 95% CI, 1.08–10.10). During the first 6 months of posttrial follow-up of the Women’s Estrogen for Stroke Trial (WEST),³ there were 3 fatal strokes and 18 nonfatal strokes among the women originally randomized to estradiol therapy; there were 9 strokes (1 fatal and 8 nonfatal) among the women originally assigned to placebo (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1–5.0; P = .03).

In our study we detected that women who stopped HT, compared with women who continued HT, had a 2.3-fold (95% CI, 2.12–2.50) greater risk of cardiac death within the first post-HT year and a 1.3-fold (95% CI, 1.21–1.31) greater risk of cardiac death more than 1 year after stopping HT.⁴ In addition, women who stopped HT, compared with women who continuedHT, had a 2.5-fold (95% CI, 2.28–2.77) greater risk of dying from stroke within the first post-HT year and a 1.3-fold (95% CI, 1.19–1.31) greater risk of dying from stroke more than 1 year after stopping HT. We believe that these data substantially further our understanding of the posttrial data from WHI, as well as HERS and WEST. Thus, cumulative data support that HT withdrawal potentially has detrimental implications for women. In total, the data are highly informative when counseling women regarding use or discontinuation of HT.
Tomi Mikkola, MD
Helsinki, Finland

References

Drs. Kaunitz, Manson, and Stuenkel respond
We thank Dr. Mikkola for his response to our commentary, but we do not agree with his interpretation of the WHI reports or our conclusions. As we originally stated, the WHI trial of estrogen-only therapy (ET) and EPT provides an opportunity to observe outcomes in the largest randomized controlled trial of HT in healthy postmenopausal women. Our commentary was based on the most recent, 13-year follow-up of the WHI trials,¹ and we are confident in the accuracy of our presentation of the results.

As the debate apparently focuses on the safety of stopping HT, we wish to reiterate, for those who may not be familiar with the data, that, in the ET trial, all-cause mortality declined (although not significantly) after stopping ET, as summarized here:

 Similarly, in the EPT trial, as the following findings indicate, stopping HT did not increase all-cause mortality:

Again, these findings from the largest randomized trial of HT in healthy postmenopausal women are adequate for us to conclude that stopping HT does not elevate risk of mortality. Among all women participating in the WHI HT trials, HRs for coronary heart disease, pulmonary embolism, stroke, and cardiovascular disease mortality likewise were lower (better) after stopping treatment than during the intervention phase. The results for these outcomes in younger women followed similar patterns but, due to smaller numbers of events, could not be tested formally for differences in time trends.

Moreover, the data Dr. Mikkola cites from analyses conducted 3 years postcessation² reflected a borderline increased risk of cancer mortality that emerged in the EPT trial after stopping treatment. This clearly was related to the prolonged effects of EPT on breast cancer and other cancers, given the known latency period for cancer, and was not observed in the ET trial postcessation. The risk elevation in the EPT trial became attenuated with longer follow-up and, as of 13 years, the HRs for cancer mortality were 1.07 (0.93–1.23) in the EPT trial and 0.95 (0.81–1.13) in the ET trial.

It is interesting that Dr. Mikkola now inculcates his interpretation of his findings³ with those from secondary prevention trials such as the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study and the Women’s Estrogen for Stroke Trial, neither of which was included as corroborative evidence in the discussion section of his originally published manuscript, and neither of which is considered applicable to healthy postmenopausal women taking HT for treatment of menopausal symptoms. Based on these findings, we do not recommend that clinicians counsel women that stopping HT increases their risk of cardiovascular or overall mortality. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the evidence and our position.

References

“SHOULD YOU ADOPT THE PRACTICE OF VAGINAL CLEANSING WITH POVIDONE-IODINE PRIOR TO CESAREAN DELIVERY?”
ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; JANUARY 2016)
In his January 2016 Editorial, Editor in Chief Robert L. Barbieri, MD, presented evidence supporting the practice of vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine prior to cesarean delivery (CD) to prevent postoperative endometritis. He then asked readers if they would consider adopting such a practice. More than 250 readers weighed in through the Quick Poll at obgmanagement.com, and many readers sent in letters with follow-up questions and comments on controlling bacterial contamination, vaginal seeding, etc. Here are some of the letters, along with Dr. Barbieri’s response and the Quick Poll results.

A contradiction in definitions?
There seems to be a contradiction in definitions. The second sentence of the article defines endometritis as the presence of fever plus low abdominal tenderness. However, the studies presented state that vaginal cleansing pre-CD decreased endometritis but did not decrease postpartum fever. Is this not a discrepancy?
Nancy Kerr, MD, MPH
Albuquerque, New Mexico

A question about povidone-iodine
Have any studies been done on newborn iodine levels after vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine prior to CD?
G. Millard Simmons Jr, MD
Hilton Head, Bluffton, South Carolina

Additional tips for controlling bacterial contamination
Dr. Barbieri’s editorial on vaginal cleansing prior to CD is eye opening. I have a few additional suggestions to control bacterial contamination.

First, I examine my patients in labor as few times as necessary, and I ask the nurses (RNs) not to place their fingers in the patient’s vagina while she is pushing. I remove the Foley catheter when I feel progress (descent of fetal head) is being achieved. In addition, physicians as well as RNs should consider changing their scrubs between deliveries, as I believe that bacterial contamination is splattered all over the place, especially into the birth canal. These methods have worked for me in my over-20 years of practice.

I also firmly remind the RN circulator to perform a generous vaginal cleanse with povidone-iodine, in addition to the usual intravenous prophylaxis, before hysterectomy.
Luis Leyva Jr, MD
Miami, Florida

Mixed feelings
My first reaction to this Editorial was: Is this a solution in search of a problem? That is to say, how much of a clinical problem is endometritis after CD? Are we really treating the proposed problem, and does treatment affect long-term outcomes?

Upon reflection, I have concluded that vaginal cleansing pre-CD does intuitively make sense. What sways me in this direction is that the practice is simple, easy, and inexpensive. Since we typically have the patient positioned for Foley catheter insertion, performing vaginal cleansing as we put in the Foley would be easy. If vaginal cleansing were to be done, I definitely would be in favor of doing such practice liberally—for all CDs to make vaginal cleansing part of the “routine.”

Keep in mind that we are still chasing a problem of little clinical significance.

The biggest accomplishment has been to get everyone to give antibiotics preoperatively rather than after cutting the umbilical cord. We knew that this was best practice as early as the late 1980s/early 1990s, and I have been fighting this battle ever since. Believe it or not, there are still a few holdouts.
George H. Davis, DO
Johnson City, Tennessee

Would vaginal cleansing benefit all women in labor?
Vaginal cleansing before CD reminds me of my residency days when all women having hysterectomies were admitted early and given povidone-iodine (Betadine) douches the evening before surgery (unless an iodine allergy was present).

While reading your Editorial, I had several thoughts and questions. 1) Since vaginal cleansing seems to benefit CD patients, might it not benefit all laboring patients? 2) Is the timing of vaginal cleansing critical? 3) Should we do vaginal cleansing on all laboring patients if timing is not critical?

I plan to bring up the topic of vaginal cleansing for CD with my colleagues at our next department meeting, since it seems like such a simple, logical, inexpensive, and beneficial thing to do.
Douglas G. Tolley, MD
Yuba City, California

An early study on using povidone-iodine gel before CD
When I was a chief resident at Kings County Hospital in 1973, we had a very high rate of post-CD endometritis. I conducted a small study on the use of povidone-iodine gel in the last month of pregnancy. Before commencing, we confirmed that the gel did not interfere with diagnosing ruptured membranes.

Obstetric service patients were randomly divided into “A” and “B” groups. The A patients were asked to use povidone-iodine gel at night for the last 2 weeks before their estimated due date. When admitted in labor, they were asked to confirm its use. When a resident diagnosed post-CD endometritis, we kept track of which group the patient was in and whether or not that patient had used povidone-iodine. Approximately 100 infected patients were evaluated from each group.

As it turned out, there were about 3 times the number of infections among the patients who did not use povidone-iodine than among those who said they used it. It did not seem to matter how many times povidone-iodine was used. The “As” who did not use povidone-iodine had results similar to the “Bs.”

It was many years ago, and the study design was crude. However, it does seem to support the suggestion for vaginal cleansing.
Steve Ross, MD
Port Jefferson, New York

Two different ideas about the vaginal biome
This Editorial is timely in that Dr. Dominguez-Bello and colleagues recently published an article in Nature Medicine titled, “Partial restoration of the microbiota of cesarean-born infants via vaginal microbial transfer.”¹ Dr. Dominguez-Bello is one of the founders of the idea of “vaginal seeding,” or using the natural biome of the vagina on a newborn immediately after CD by swabbing the baby with the bacteria from the vagina.

I find it interesting that there are two very different ideas about the biome at this time. Vaginal seeding is a new trend that a few patients have asked about during prenatal care. The jury is still out on seeding, but a larger study is currently underway at New York University. Of course, infection is one of the risks of seeding. I appreciate hearing both sides of the issue.
Deborah Herchelroath, DO
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Reference

Dr. Barbieri responds
I would like to thank our readers for taking the time from their busy schedules to write about their clinical experiences and current practices for reducing infectious complications following CD.

Dr. Kerr raises the important issue of the apparent contradictory finding of the beneficial impact of vaginal cleansing on endometritis without a beneficial effect on the overall rate of fever. In the trial reported by Starr,¹ fever was defined as a temperature above 38˚C at any time after CD and endometritis was defined as a temperature above 38.4˚C PLUS uterine tenderness occurring more than 24 hours after CD. Given these 2 definitions one can understand the differential effect of vaginal cleansing on fever versus endometritis.

Dr. Simmons raises the intriguing question of the impact of an iodine-containing surgical preparation on newborn thyroid function. There are few studies addressing this issue. One study reports a transient increase in thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels in a small percentage of newborns whose mothers received an iodine preparation.² Another study reports no effect of an iodine surgical preparation on newborn thyroid function indices.³

I agree with the guidance of Drs. Leyva and Davis that we can help prevent postcesarean endometritis by minimizing the number of cervical examinations, changing scrubs between deliveries, and by ensuring that an intravenous anti‑ biotic is given before skin incision.

Dr. Tolley wonders if all women should receive vaginal cleansing, regardless of delivery route. It is possible that such an approach would be effective and it deserves study. Given the lower rate of endometritis following vaginal delivery compared with CD, many more women having a vaginal delivery would need to be treated to prevent one case of endometritis. Dr. Ross mentions his experience with the benefit of outpatient vaginal cleansing in the 2 weeks prior to delivery. Many general surgeons are recommending that their patients shower with chlorhexidine the day before surgery in order to reduce the rate of postoperative infection. Short-term and long-term outpatient vaginal cleansing prior to delivery deserves additional study.

Dr. Herchelroath raises the possibility that vaginal cleansing will decrease the ability of the newborn to develop a normal microbiome because it may not be exposed to sufficient vaginal bacteria. This possibility certainly deserves additional study.

The questions and guidance of our readers were incredibly helpful and stimulating. Thank you for sharing your perspective.

References

“CELL-FREE DNA SCREENING FOR WOMEN AT LOW RISK FOR FETAL ANEUPLOIDY” MARY E. NORTON, MD (JANUARY 2016)

The price of cfDNA screening is dropping
I found Dr. Norton’s article on cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening for women at low risk for fetal abnormalities to be enlightening and educational. The section addressing cost-effectiveness, however, was somewhat obsolete. The referenced study by Cuckle and colleagues,¹ which estimated the cost of cfDNA per case of Down syndrome in low-risk patients at $3.6 million, was published in 2013. With 4 major companies in the market, the cost/benefit ratio has been changing rapidly. At least one company has dropped the cost of the cfDNA test nearly 80% from 2015 to 2016, making the above reference irrelevant. Recently, Ariosa dropped the price of their Harmony cfDNA test to just $119 in our area, regardless of a patient’s insurance or poverty level. This is significantly less than the cost of performing an early screen and is being welcomed by my patients even after substantial counseling on the test’s limitations in the low-risk population. Natera, another laboratory with a similar test, offers a low-cost option. However, patients must provide proof that their income is below a specified level.

Guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) likely will have a hard time keeping up with the cost-effectiveness of noninvasive prenatal testing, as the price continues to be dynamic.
Samuel Wolf, DO
Panama City, Florida

Reference

“DOES THE DISCONTINUATION OF MENOPAUSAL HORMONE THERAPY AFFECT A WOMAN’S CARDIOVASCULAR RISK?”
ANDREW M. KAUNITZ, MD; JOANN E. MANSON, MD, DRPH; AND CYNTHIA A. STUENKEL, MD(EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE; DECEMBER 2015)

Disagrees with conclusion
In their expert commentary, Drs. Kaunitz, Manson, and Stuenkel state:

They support this claim by citing Heiss 2008.¹ In fact, however, the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) data show opposite to their statement: In the WHI, all-cause mortality was increased among the women who were assigned to estrogen-progestin therapy (EPT) relative to those who were assigned to placebo within the 3 years of EPT cessation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95–1.39). More importantly, mortality was significantly increased among women who were originally assigned to EPT relative to those who were assigned to placebo and were at least 80% adherent with intervention (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.04–2.24). Thus, the statement by Drs. Kaunitz, Manson, and Stuenkel is incorrect.

In addition to the WHI studies, data are available from at least 2 other randomized controlled trials addressing the issue of HT withdrawal. In the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS) II,² the unblinded 2.7-year follow-up to the HERS trial, women originally assigned to EPT had a 3.3-fold higher rate of ventricular arrhythmia requiring resuscitation than women assigned to placebo (HR, 3.30; 95% CI, 1.08–10.10). During the first 6 months of posttrial follow-up of the Women’s Estrogen for Stroke Trial (WEST),³ there were 3 fatal strokes and 18 nonfatal strokes among the women originally randomized to estradiol therapy; there were 9 strokes (1 fatal and 8 nonfatal) among the women originally assigned to placebo (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1–5.0; P = .03).

In our study we detected that women who stopped HT, compared with women who continued HT, had a 2.3-fold (95% CI, 2.12–2.50) greater risk of cardiac death within the first post-HT year and a 1.3-fold (95% CI, 1.21–1.31) greater risk of cardiac death more than 1 year after stopping HT.⁴ In addition, women who stopped HT, compared with women who continuedHT, had a 2.5-fold (95% CI, 2.28–2.77) greater risk of dying from stroke within the first post-HT year and a 1.3-fold (95% CI, 1.19–1.31) greater risk of dying from stroke more than 1 year after stopping HT. We believe that these data substantially further our understanding of the posttrial data from WHI, as well as HERS and WEST. Thus, cumulative data support that HT withdrawal potentially has detrimental implications for women. In total, the data are highly informative when counseling women regarding use or discontinuation of HT.
Tomi Mikkola, MD
Helsinki, Finland

References

Drs. Kaunitz, Manson, and Stuenkel respond
We thank Dr. Mikkola for his response to our commentary, but we do not agree with his interpretation of the WHI reports or our conclusions. As we originally stated, the WHI trial of estrogen-only therapy (ET) and EPT provides an opportunity to observe outcomes in the largest randomized controlled trial of HT in healthy postmenopausal women. Our commentary was based on the most recent, 13-year follow-up of the WHI trials,¹ and we are confident in the accuracy of our presentation of the results.

As the debate apparently focuses on the safety of stopping HT, we wish to reiterate, for those who may not be familiar with the data, that, in the ET trial, all-cause mortality declined (although not significantly) after stopping ET, as summarized here:

 Similarly, in the EPT trial, as the following findings indicate, stopping HT did not increase all-cause mortality:

Again, these findings from the largest randomized trial of HT in healthy postmenopausal women are adequate for us to conclude that stopping HT does not elevate risk of mortality. Among all women participating in the WHI HT trials, HRs for coronary heart disease, pulmonary embolism, stroke, and cardiovascular disease mortality likewise were lower (better) after stopping treatment than during the intervention phase. The results for these outcomes in younger women followed similar patterns but, due to smaller numbers of events, could not be tested formally for differences in time trends.

Moreover, the data Dr. Mikkola cites from analyses conducted 3 years postcessation² reflected a borderline increased risk of cancer mortality that emerged in the EPT trial after stopping treatment. This clearly was related to the prolonged effects of EPT on breast cancer and other cancers, given the known latency period for cancer, and was not observed in the ET trial postcessation. The risk elevation in the EPT trial became attenuated with longer follow-up and, as of 13 years, the HRs for cancer mortality were 1.07 (0.93–1.23) in the EPT trial and 0.95 (0.81–1.13) in the ET trial.

It is interesting that Dr. Mikkola now inculcates his interpretation of his findings³ with those from secondary prevention trials such as the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study and the Women’s Estrogen for Stroke Trial, neither of which was included as corroborative evidence in the discussion section of his originally published manuscript, and neither of which is considered applicable to healthy postmenopausal women taking HT for treatment of menopausal symptoms. Based on these findings, we do not recommend that clinicians counsel women that stopping HT increases their risk of cardiovascular or overall mortality. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the evidence and our position.

References

It has been clear for a long time that a child who grows up in an environment dominated by adversity is more likely to enter adulthood scarred psychologically, and as a result is less likely to succeed. This well-described association has in the last few years become a hot button topic. A 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement alerted pediatricians to their potential role in identifying and managing what is now referred to as “toxic stress” (“Early Childhood Adversity, Toxic Stress, and the Role of the Pediatrician: Translating Developmental Science Into Lifelong Health”).

Although a childhood in which challenges outnumber advantages is often followed by an adult life characterized by failure and dysfunction, there are a few individuals who not only survive a disadvantaged childhood unscathed but somehow manage to thrive in its wake. For example, Joe Rantz, the central figure in Daniel James Brown’s nonfiction best seller “The Boys in the Boat” (New York: Viking Press, 2013) was abandoned several times by his family but emerged to power the University of Washington crew team to victory in the 1936 Olympics. Intrigued by these outliers, a developmental psychologist and clinician from the University of Minnesota named Norman Garmezy began looking for features that may have allowed these exceptional people to succeed and even excel despite incredibly difficult circumstances (“How People Learn to Become Resilient,” Maria Konnikova, The New Yorker, Feb. 11, 2016). His search for the characteristics that might have protected these individuals as children from the acute and chronic environmental threats of their disadvantaged childhoods has spawned a breed of developmental psychologists who devote their research to a quality now referred to as “resilience.”

In 1989, Emmy E. Werner, Ph.D., published a study of 698 children on the island of Kauai in Hawaii and identified several elements that might predict resilience (“Children of the Garden Island,” Sci Am. 1989;260[4]:106-11). Not surprisingly, one factor was the good luck of having formed a strong bond with a supportive person such as a caregiver or mentor. However, Dr. Werner also discovered that resilient individuals possessed a set of psychological characteristics that included a positive social orientation prompting them to “meet the world on their own terms.” They were likely to be autonomous and independent and had the attitude that “they, and not their circumstances, affected their achievements.”

These findings lead to the obvious question of whether those attributes that can protect against adversity can be taught. George Bonanno, a clinical psychologist at Columbia University’s Teachers College, found that an individual’s perception of the situation is the key element in resilience. In the New Yorker article on resilience, he was quoted in an interview as saying, “Events are not traumatic until we experience them as traumatic.” In his studies he has found that individuals can be taught how to reframe an event in positive terms that was initially perceived as negative. Unfortunately, the reverse can occur, and as Dr. Bonanno also said in the interview, “We can create or exaggerate stressors very easily in our own minds.” Every event is potentially traumatic if we perceive it that way.

Could it be that in some situations our behavior as adults, parents, and professionals creates an environment that transforms an event into one that is more easily perceived by a child as traumatizing? While it is important to be on the lookout for children who have been emotionally traumatized by an unfortunate event such as a school shooting, we must be careful to keep our responses measured and positive. Children should be reminded that it is they who control their own behavior and achievements, not the circumstances in which they find themselves.

Parents should be reminded that hovering and overinvolvement in their children’s lives is preventing the development of independence and a sense of autonomy, two important characteristics of resilience. The trend in education that emphasizes group solutions may be helping some children learn to cooperate with others and function as a team. But, we must also remember to offer each individual child abundant opportunities to learn so that he or she can also rely on himself or herself to solve problems.

Few of us will ever have the capacity for resiliency demonstrated by Louis Zamperini in the nonfiction best seller Unbroken, but we can and should be doing a better job helping children learn that even in the most adverse conditions, they have some control – if not over the circumstance, then at least over their perception of it.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.”

It has been clear for a long time that a child who grows up in an environment dominated by adversity is more likely to enter adulthood scarred psychologically, and as a result is less likely to succeed. This well-described association has in the last few years become a hot button topic. A 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement alerted pediatricians to their potential role in identifying and managing what is now referred to as “toxic stress” (“Early Childhood Adversity, Toxic Stress, and the Role of the Pediatrician: Translating Developmental Science Into Lifelong Health”).

Although a childhood in which challenges outnumber advantages is often followed by an adult life characterized by failure and dysfunction, there are a few individuals who not only survive a disadvantaged childhood unscathed but somehow manage to thrive in its wake. For example, Joe Rantz, the central figure in Daniel James Brown’s nonfiction best seller “The Boys in the Boat” (New York: Viking Press, 2013) was abandoned several times by his family but emerged to power the University of Washington crew team to victory in the 1936 Olympics. Intrigued by these outliers, a developmental psychologist and clinician from the University of Minnesota named Norman Garmezy began looking for features that may have allowed these exceptional people to succeed and even excel despite incredibly difficult circumstances (“How People Learn to Become Resilient,” Maria Konnikova, The New Yorker, Feb. 11, 2016). His search for the characteristics that might have protected these individuals as children from the acute and chronic environmental threats of their disadvantaged childhoods has spawned a breed of developmental psychologists who devote their research to a quality now referred to as “resilience.”

In 1989, Emmy E. Werner, Ph.D., published a study of 698 children on the island of Kauai in Hawaii and identified several elements that might predict resilience (“Children of the Garden Island,” Sci Am. 1989;260[4]:106-11). Not surprisingly, one factor was the good luck of having formed a strong bond with a supportive person such as a caregiver or mentor. However, Dr. Werner also discovered that resilient individuals possessed a set of psychological characteristics that included a positive social orientation prompting them to “meet the world on their own terms.” They were likely to be autonomous and independent and had the attitude that “they, and not their circumstances, affected their achievements.”

These findings lead to the obvious question of whether those attributes that can protect against adversity can be taught. George Bonanno, a clinical psychologist at Columbia University’s Teachers College, found that an individual’s perception of the situation is the key element in resilience. In the New Yorker article on resilience, he was quoted in an interview as saying, “Events are not traumatic until we experience them as traumatic.” In his studies he has found that individuals can be taught how to reframe an event in positive terms that was initially perceived as negative. Unfortunately, the reverse can occur, and as Dr. Bonanno also said in the interview, “We can create or exaggerate stressors very easily in our own minds.” Every event is potentially traumatic if we perceive it that way.

Could it be that in some situations our behavior as adults, parents, and professionals creates an environment that transforms an event into one that is more easily perceived by a child as traumatizing? While it is important to be on the lookout for children who have been emotionally traumatized by an unfortunate event such as a school shooting, we must be careful to keep our responses measured and positive. Children should be reminded that it is they who control their own behavior and achievements, not the circumstances in which they find themselves.

Parents should be reminded that hovering and overinvolvement in their children’s lives is preventing the development of independence and a sense of autonomy, two important characteristics of resilience. The trend in education that emphasizes group solutions may be helping some children learn to cooperate with others and function as a team. But, we must also remember to offer each individual child abundant opportunities to learn so that he or she can also rely on himself or herself to solve problems.

Few of us will ever have the capacity for resiliency demonstrated by Louis Zamperini in the nonfiction best seller Unbroken, but we can and should be doing a better job helping children learn that even in the most adverse conditions, they have some control – if not over the circumstance, then at least over their perception of it.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.”

It has been clear for a long time that a child who grows up in an environment dominated by adversity is more likely to enter adulthood scarred psychologically, and as a result is less likely to succeed. This well-described association has in the last few years become a hot button topic. A 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement alerted pediatricians to their potential role in identifying and managing what is now referred to as “toxic stress” (“Early Childhood Adversity, Toxic Stress, and the Role of the Pediatrician: Translating Developmental Science Into Lifelong Health”).

Although a childhood in which challenges outnumber advantages is often followed by an adult life characterized by failure and dysfunction, there are a few individuals who not only survive a disadvantaged childhood unscathed but somehow manage to thrive in its wake. For example, Joe Rantz, the central figure in Daniel James Brown’s nonfiction best seller “The Boys in the Boat” (New York: Viking Press, 2013) was abandoned several times by his family but emerged to power the University of Washington crew team to victory in the 1936 Olympics. Intrigued by these outliers, a developmental psychologist and clinician from the University of Minnesota named Norman Garmezy began looking for features that may have allowed these exceptional people to succeed and even excel despite incredibly difficult circumstances (“How People Learn to Become Resilient,” Maria Konnikova, The New Yorker, Feb. 11, 2016). His search for the characteristics that might have protected these individuals as children from the acute and chronic environmental threats of their disadvantaged childhoods has spawned a breed of developmental psychologists who devote their research to a quality now referred to as “resilience.”

In 1989, Emmy E. Werner, Ph.D., published a study of 698 children on the island of Kauai in Hawaii and identified several elements that might predict resilience (“Children of the Garden Island,” Sci Am. 1989;260[4]:106-11). Not surprisingly, one factor was the good luck of having formed a strong bond with a supportive person such as a caregiver or mentor. However, Dr. Werner also discovered that resilient individuals possessed a set of psychological characteristics that included a positive social orientation prompting them to “meet the world on their own terms.” They were likely to be autonomous and independent and had the attitude that “they, and not their circumstances, affected their achievements.”

These findings lead to the obvious question of whether those attributes that can protect against adversity can be taught. George Bonanno, a clinical psychologist at Columbia University’s Teachers College, found that an individual’s perception of the situation is the key element in resilience. In the New Yorker article on resilience, he was quoted in an interview as saying, “Events are not traumatic until we experience them as traumatic.” In his studies he has found that individuals can be taught how to reframe an event in positive terms that was initially perceived as negative. Unfortunately, the reverse can occur, and as Dr. Bonanno also said in the interview, “We can create or exaggerate stressors very easily in our own minds.” Every event is potentially traumatic if we perceive it that way.

Could it be that in some situations our behavior as adults, parents, and professionals creates an environment that transforms an event into one that is more easily perceived by a child as traumatizing? While it is important to be on the lookout for children who have been emotionally traumatized by an unfortunate event such as a school shooting, we must be careful to keep our responses measured and positive. Children should be reminded that it is they who control their own behavior and achievements, not the circumstances in which they find themselves.

Parents should be reminded that hovering and overinvolvement in their children’s lives is preventing the development of independence and a sense of autonomy, two important characteristics of resilience. The trend in education that emphasizes group solutions may be helping some children learn to cooperate with others and function as a team. But, we must also remember to offer each individual child abundant opportunities to learn so that he or she can also rely on himself or herself to solve problems.

Few of us will ever have the capacity for resiliency demonstrated by Louis Zamperini in the nonfiction best seller Unbroken, but we can and should be doing a better job helping children learn that even in the most adverse conditions, they have some control – if not over the circumstance, then at least over their perception of it.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.”

The clerical work involved in managing the electronic medical record (EMR) is clearly not at the top of the skill set for physicians, yet many office-based clinicians find themselves bogged down in this work with no easy way out.

However, practices that are adopting team-based care—where each team member works at the top of his or her skill set—are finding a solution in the form of scribing, or team documentation. This approach can ease that burden and perhaps even help to curb physician burnout in the process. But many questions still surround this approach, notably: What do we know about the quality of this documentation?

Research conducted by Misra-Hebert et al reported on in this issue provides some insight—and reason for optimism. (See “Medical scribes: How do their notes stack up?”) Their study found that scribes’ outpatient notes stack up quite well when compared to those of physicians. And having worked with this approach to documentation, I can attest to its benefits, as well.

Misra-Hebert et al’s study in this issue attests to the quality of scribes’ notes. My personal experience is that charts are usually closed at the end of each half-day.

Two approaches, one goal. There are 2 different ways that physicians can get help with documentation. One involves the use of trained scribes, who come from a variety of backgrounds and are charged with writing down, or scribing, what the physician says. The other involves training staff, usually certified medical assistants (CMAs) or licensed practical nurses (LPNs), to take on a wide variety of additional duties including refill management, care gap closure, and most of the duties concerning the EMR—including documentation.

Misra-Hebert et al studied the second approach and found important evidence that using staff in this way does not adversely affect—and may even enhance—documentation previously done entirely by physicians.

This change in the way we approach EMRs involves commitment, as I’ve seen first hand. There needs to be significant training to make this work and there needs to be more staff, since physicians require 2 of these valuable team members to function effectively. (At least that’s been our experience.)

We are in the process of implementing team-based care throughout our 32-location health care system and have found that using CMAs and LPNs to assist with documentation is a “win” for everyone.

1. A win for the patient. Patients immediately notice that their physicians are now able to focus on them during the office visit, since they no longer have to tend to the demands of the computer. In addition, since the CMAs/LPNs are with patients during the entire visit, the patients bond with them and feel the extra support from this relationship.  

2. A win for the care team. Physician satisfaction has never been higher. Charts are usually closed at the end of each half-day. There is no need to take work home at night. CMAs/LPNs feel empowered and meaningfully involved in patient care. Their increase in satisfaction mirrors that of the physicians.

3. A win for the system. Not only are quality measures improving, but access improves since this team support increases efficiency. The biggest surprise of all for us was a financial one. We are able to see more patients per day and are billing at a higher level of service, since there is more time to attend to more of the patient’s needs (thanks to the additional team support).

There is much talk about putting joy back into the practice of medicine. But the benchmark of any change needs to be whether it helps our patients. I believe that team documentation does. Happier, less burned-out physicians are able to better focus on patients during their visit. As one patient recently said to me at the end of a visit, “I feel like I’ve got my doctor back.”

That’s something that patients, and doctors alike, can feel good about.

The clerical work involved in managing the electronic medical record (EMR) is clearly not at the top of the skill set for physicians, yet many office-based clinicians find themselves bogged down in this work with no easy way out.

However, practices that are adopting team-based care—where each team member works at the top of his or her skill set—are finding a solution in the form of scribing, or team documentation. This approach can ease that burden and perhaps even help to curb physician burnout in the process. But many questions still surround this approach, notably: What do we know about the quality of this documentation?

Research conducted by Misra-Hebert et al reported on in this issue provides some insight—and reason for optimism. (See “Medical scribes: How do their notes stack up?”) Their study found that scribes’ outpatient notes stack up quite well when compared to those of physicians. And having worked with this approach to documentation, I can attest to its benefits, as well.

Misra-Hebert et al’s study in this issue attests to the quality of scribes’ notes. My personal experience is that charts are usually closed at the end of each half-day.

Two approaches, one goal. There are 2 different ways that physicians can get help with documentation. One involves the use of trained scribes, who come from a variety of backgrounds and are charged with writing down, or scribing, what the physician says. The other involves training staff, usually certified medical assistants (CMAs) or licensed practical nurses (LPNs), to take on a wide variety of additional duties including refill management, care gap closure, and most of the duties concerning the EMR—including documentation.

Misra-Hebert et al studied the second approach and found important evidence that using staff in this way does not adversely affect—and may even enhance—documentation previously done entirely by physicians.

This change in the way we approach EMRs involves commitment, as I’ve seen first hand. There needs to be significant training to make this work and there needs to be more staff, since physicians require 2 of these valuable team members to function effectively. (At least that’s been our experience.)

We are in the process of implementing team-based care throughout our 32-location health care system and have found that using CMAs and LPNs to assist with documentation is a “win” for everyone.

1. A win for the patient. Patients immediately notice that their physicians are now able to focus on them during the office visit, since they no longer have to tend to the demands of the computer. In addition, since the CMAs/LPNs are with patients during the entire visit, the patients bond with them and feel the extra support from this relationship.  

2. A win for the care team. Physician satisfaction has never been higher. Charts are usually closed at the end of each half-day. There is no need to take work home at night. CMAs/LPNs feel empowered and meaningfully involved in patient care. Their increase in satisfaction mirrors that of the physicians.

3. A win for the system. Not only are quality measures improving, but access improves since this team support increases efficiency. The biggest surprise of all for us was a financial one. We are able to see more patients per day and are billing at a higher level of service, since there is more time to attend to more of the patient’s needs (thanks to the additional team support).

There is much talk about putting joy back into the practice of medicine. But the benchmark of any change needs to be whether it helps our patients. I believe that team documentation does. Happier, less burned-out physicians are able to better focus on patients during their visit. As one patient recently said to me at the end of a visit, “I feel like I’ve got my doctor back.”

That’s something that patients, and doctors alike, can feel good about.

The clerical work involved in managing the electronic medical record (EMR) is clearly not at the top of the skill set for physicians, yet many office-based clinicians find themselves bogged down in this work with no easy way out.

However, practices that are adopting team-based care—where each team member works at the top of his or her skill set—are finding a solution in the form of scribing, or team documentation. This approach can ease that burden and perhaps even help to curb physician burnout in the process. But many questions still surround this approach, notably: What do we know about the quality of this documentation?

Research conducted by Misra-Hebert et al reported on in this issue provides some insight—and reason for optimism. (See “Medical scribes: How do their notes stack up?”) Their study found that scribes’ outpatient notes stack up quite well when compared to those of physicians. And having worked with this approach to documentation, I can attest to its benefits, as well.

Misra-Hebert et al’s study in this issue attests to the quality of scribes’ notes. My personal experience is that charts are usually closed at the end of each half-day.

Two approaches, one goal. There are 2 different ways that physicians can get help with documentation. One involves the use of trained scribes, who come from a variety of backgrounds and are charged with writing down, or scribing, what the physician says. The other involves training staff, usually certified medical assistants (CMAs) or licensed practical nurses (LPNs), to take on a wide variety of additional duties including refill management, care gap closure, and most of the duties concerning the EMR—including documentation.

Misra-Hebert et al studied the second approach and found important evidence that using staff in this way does not adversely affect—and may even enhance—documentation previously done entirely by physicians.

This change in the way we approach EMRs involves commitment, as I’ve seen first hand. There needs to be significant training to make this work and there needs to be more staff, since physicians require 2 of these valuable team members to function effectively. (At least that’s been our experience.)

We are in the process of implementing team-based care throughout our 32-location health care system and have found that using CMAs and LPNs to assist with documentation is a “win” for everyone.

1. A win for the patient. Patients immediately notice that their physicians are now able to focus on them during the office visit, since they no longer have to tend to the demands of the computer. In addition, since the CMAs/LPNs are with patients during the entire visit, the patients bond with them and feel the extra support from this relationship.  

2. A win for the care team. Physician satisfaction has never been higher. Charts are usually closed at the end of each half-day. There is no need to take work home at night. CMAs/LPNs feel empowered and meaningfully involved in patient care. Their increase in satisfaction mirrors that of the physicians.

3. A win for the system. Not only are quality measures improving, but access improves since this team support increases efficiency. The biggest surprise of all for us was a financial one. We are able to see more patients per day and are billing at a higher level of service, since there is more time to attend to more of the patient’s needs (thanks to the additional team support).

There is much talk about putting joy back into the practice of medicine. But the benchmark of any change needs to be whether it helps our patients. I believe that team documentation does. Happier, less burned-out physicians are able to better focus on patients during their visit. As one patient recently said to me at the end of a visit, “I feel like I’ve got my doctor back.”

That’s something that patients, and doctors alike, can feel good about.

During my 25 years as a defense attorney, I have seen the traumatic impact that the allegation of medical malpractice can have on healthcare providers. And I have seen many times that in the aftermath of a case it remains difficult, if not impossible, for the practitioner to return to the clinical setting unscarred by the process. Although vindication by the jury provides some solace, by itself it does not create healing. Instead, the critic’s voice continues to resonate long after the trial.

See related editorial

During a lawsuit, physicians and other providers are commonly confronted with incidental imperfections in the care they provided, errors in their documentation, or both. Consequently, a provider’s perception of events and ultimately the meaning derived from the experience is shaped less by the valid defenses and opinions of the supportive defense experts than by the inconsequential flaws and errors that can often be found in any medical record.

A RECENT CASE

Recently, I defended a hospital team consisting of a hospitalist, trauma surgeon, three residents, and a nurse. The case involved a 74-year-old man who was admitted to the hospital with pancreatitis of unknown cause. Six days after admission, he died of complications of acute respiratory distress syndrome. The team was accused of causing the patient’s death. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that although the patient’s liver enzyme levels were improving, his condition was deteriorating, and he ultimately developed hemorrhagic pancreatitis. It was the plaintiff’s contention that proper ongoing evaluation, including computed tomographic imaging, would have led to treatment that would have avoided the worsening of pancreatitis, development of an ileus, and ultimately the insult to his bowel and lungs that they claim caused acute respiratory distress syndrome and death. The patient was survived by his wife and their three children. After his death, hospital representatives and the hospitalist met with her in an effort to explain the events that led to her husband’s death. Unfortunately, these discussions did not ameliorate her feelings of loss and anger. She filed a lawsuit, and 4 years later, the case went to trial.

Vindication provides some solace, but the critic’s voice can resonate long after the trial

During the trial, the plaintiff’s attorney highlighted errors in the electronic medical record. Entries had been cut and pasted, saving time, but without updating information that had changed in the interim. The inaccuracies included “assessment: worsening pancreatitis” on a day it was considered to have improved. Another entry contained “persistent fever” on a day when no fever was present. Other mistakes involved notes that contained care plans made after morning rounds that were not revised later in the day after changes in the patient’s condition necessitated a change in the plan. In fact, most references to medication dosing in the progress notes on the last 2 days did not match the medication dosing documented in the medication administration record.

In the end, the plaintiff’s counsel did not convince the jury that the healthcare team had been negligent, but unfortunately, she planted doubt in the minds of the caregivers themselves. Perhaps in part, these doubts were the result of having to defend a bad outcome in the face of criticism that was based solely in retrospect. But the providers’ doubts seemed mostly to emanate from the inadequacies in their documentation as they observed how every entry in a far-from-perfect medical record was scrutinized and then manipulated to challenge its textual integrity—and to portray the healthcare team as unengaged and substandard clinicians.

Despite the team’s high level of engagement and the quality of care they provided, any imperfection—whether a documentation error or a minor omission in some aspect of the care provided to this complex patient—became a source of self-doubt and self-criticism.

THE ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD: A MIXED BLESSING

Documentation failures have long been used to “prove” that physicians are disconnected from the clinical situation. The electronic medical record has not proved to be a strong shield against malpractice allegations. In fact, because the electronic medical record absorbs more of the physician’s time and that of the care team’s members, efforts to save time through work-arounds and shortcuts have increased the risk of errors in entering information.

For instance, drop-down menus have led to wrong selections. Cutting and pasting has led to entries that contain data superseded by clinical events, thus creating contradictions within the record itself, and worse, with the physician’s own testimony pertaining to the basis of the clinical decision-making. And boilerplate language has created difficulties when the language does not completely fit the context or when inapplicable verbiage that fills itself in automatically goes unedited. An emergency department physician I represented at trial had to awkwardly explain that some of the data reported in his physical exam findings were inaccurate because of programmed language and should have been deleted; he had no explanation for his oversight.

But my experience has been that juries can forgive imperfections in documentation and even incidental aspects of care. They want to trust that the clinician was there for, and there with, the patient. This emphasis is what allowed us to defend the case involving the patient with pancreatitis. Clinical judgment means being engaged enough to choose what you pay attention to and to process the data you receive.

The electronic medical record has not proved to be a strong shield against malpractice allegations

Unfortunately, the electronic medical record seems designed more for billing and for guarding against claims of fraud than for communication among clinicians or documenting clinically significant events. Many clinicians believe that redundancy and standardized phraseology have weakened the meaningful use of the medical record, as the clinical information is now of questionable reliability or value or is simply hard to find. Consequently, the electronic medical record has become less effective as a communication tool for providing continuity of care.

More importantly, the electronic medical record too often places the physician in front of a computer, so that the computer becomes the focus, not the patient. Studies suggest that the way the electronic medical record is currently used in the examination room affects the quality of physician-patient communication as well as the physician’s cognitive processing of information. Unless the physician is alert and attuned, the electronic medical record can be a barrier to connection. This not only creates the potential for mistakes, but it can also cause patients to question the quality of care they are getting and to distrust the level of the provider’s engagement. In this context, the likelihood that the patient retains an attorney increases when a bad outcome occurs, avoidable or not.

WHAT PATIENTS WANT FROM PHYSICIANS

When I first began seeing my own primary care physician, her office was 5 minutes from my home. Then she relocated to a practice 15 minutes away. And then, because of office consolidation and acquisition, her office was relocated 40 minutes away.

So why do I still go to her? Her training is not better than that of most internists, and my medical history is not so complex that I require more care than most 55-year-old men. I am only speculating, but I would guess that she is not the most financially productive physician in her group. I know that her transition to the electronic medical record has been difficult. Recently, I asked her about it. Except in some situations, she does not type while taking a history, and she stays totally away from the computer while in the examination room with me. She sits a couple of feet from me, and it feels like the days before the electronic medical record. She is clearly more comfortable listening and taking notes first and worrying about the electronic record later. I imagine she stays later to do her notes than most of the other physicians, or she finishes them at home.

The reason I continue to see her as my primary care physician is that she remains totally engaged during my office visit. What tells me that is not just her avoidance of the computer or her body language, but the depth of questions she asks. My responses often prompt her to look back at an earlier office note, and she will then ask follow-up questions to confirm what she had previously recorded. Her examination is thorough, with testing to confirm and retesting to be sure. Doing this may mean that she has difficulty meeting financial or administrative benchmarks established by her practice. I don’t know. But I have no doubt that the likelihood of her missing something in her clinical care is small, and what I suspect is even smaller is the risk that one of her patients would bring a lawsuit against her, given the time she takes to listen and remain connected throughout the office visit.

STAYING CONNECTED, IN SPITE OF EVERYTHING

Be the attentive, compassionate healer you hoped to be when you first entered practice

My point is not to suggest that everyone must conform to the same practice philosophy, particularly with the economic pressures in the medical field. What I am suggesting is that it is not easy to stay connected in a healthcare system in which the system’s structure is driving physicians and other members of the healthcare team towards disconnection. Quality healthcare means making every effort to remain engaged at all times with your patient’s care, which will reduce the likelihood of a bad outcome and may preserve the physician-patient relationship even when a bad outcome occurs.

In the end, perhaps it is not possible to avoid being named as a defendant in a malpractice case, just as it is not possible to avoid all bad medical outcomes despite exceptional care. In law, as in medicine, there are always factors beyond your control. My aspiration is to find a pathway to get providers through the system unbroken—also not an easy task. But one thing I know is true: the more you can stay engaged in the care you provide and in your documentation, the more you will preclude a plaintiff’s attorney from exploiting the effects of the forces within the system that drive providers toward disconnection. As long as you stay engaged and supported by the knowledge that the care provided was appropriate, it is my hope that the voice of the critic will not count as much in the aftermath of a malpractice case. But more importantly, it may allow you to draw meaning and reconciliation from the fact that throughout the patient’s illness, undeterred by the complexities of today’s healthcare system, you remained the attentive and compassionate healer you hoped to be when you first became a healthcare professional.

During my 25 years as a defense attorney, I have seen the traumatic impact that the allegation of medical malpractice can have on healthcare providers. And I have seen many times that in the aftermath of a case it remains difficult, if not impossible, for the practitioner to return to the clinical setting unscarred by the process. Although vindication by the jury provides some solace, by itself it does not create healing. Instead, the critic’s voice continues to resonate long after the trial.

See related editorial

During a lawsuit, physicians and other providers are commonly confronted with incidental imperfections in the care they provided, errors in their documentation, or both. Consequently, a provider’s perception of events and ultimately the meaning derived from the experience is shaped less by the valid defenses and opinions of the supportive defense experts than by the inconsequential flaws and errors that can often be found in any medical record.

A RECENT CASE

Recently, I defended a hospital team consisting of a hospitalist, trauma surgeon, three residents, and a nurse. The case involved a 74-year-old man who was admitted to the hospital with pancreatitis of unknown cause. Six days after admission, he died of complications of acute respiratory distress syndrome. The team was accused of causing the patient’s death. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that although the patient’s liver enzyme levels were improving, his condition was deteriorating, and he ultimately developed hemorrhagic pancreatitis. It was the plaintiff’s contention that proper ongoing evaluation, including computed tomographic imaging, would have led to treatment that would have avoided the worsening of pancreatitis, development of an ileus, and ultimately the insult to his bowel and lungs that they claim caused acute respiratory distress syndrome and death. The patient was survived by his wife and their three children. After his death, hospital representatives and the hospitalist met with her in an effort to explain the events that led to her husband’s death. Unfortunately, these discussions did not ameliorate her feelings of loss and anger. She filed a lawsuit, and 4 years later, the case went to trial.

Vindication provides some solace, but the critic’s voice can resonate long after the trial

During the trial, the plaintiff’s attorney highlighted errors in the electronic medical record. Entries had been cut and pasted, saving time, but without updating information that had changed in the interim. The inaccuracies included “assessment: worsening pancreatitis” on a day it was considered to have improved. Another entry contained “persistent fever” on a day when no fever was present. Other mistakes involved notes that contained care plans made after morning rounds that were not revised later in the day after changes in the patient’s condition necessitated a change in the plan. In fact, most references to medication dosing in the progress notes on the last 2 days did not match the medication dosing documented in the medication administration record.

In the end, the plaintiff’s counsel did not convince the jury that the healthcare team had been negligent, but unfortunately, she planted doubt in the minds of the caregivers themselves. Perhaps in part, these doubts were the result of having to defend a bad outcome in the face of criticism that was based solely in retrospect. But the providers’ doubts seemed mostly to emanate from the inadequacies in their documentation as they observed how every entry in a far-from-perfect medical record was scrutinized and then manipulated to challenge its textual integrity—and to portray the healthcare team as unengaged and substandard clinicians.

Despite the team’s high level of engagement and the quality of care they provided, any imperfection—whether a documentation error or a minor omission in some aspect of the care provided to this complex patient—became a source of self-doubt and self-criticism.

THE ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD: A MIXED BLESSING

Documentation failures have long been used to “prove” that physicians are disconnected from the clinical situation. The electronic medical record has not proved to be a strong shield against malpractice allegations. In fact, because the electronic medical record absorbs more of the physician’s time and that of the care team’s members, efforts to save time through work-arounds and shortcuts have increased the risk of errors in entering information.

For instance, drop-down menus have led to wrong selections. Cutting and pasting has led to entries that contain data superseded by clinical events, thus creating contradictions within the record itself, and worse, with the physician’s own testimony pertaining to the basis of the clinical decision-making. And boilerplate language has created difficulties when the language does not completely fit the context or when inapplicable verbiage that fills itself in automatically goes unedited. An emergency department physician I represented at trial had to awkwardly explain that some of the data reported in his physical exam findings were inaccurate because of programmed language and should have been deleted; he had no explanation for his oversight.

But my experience has been that juries can forgive imperfections in documentation and even incidental aspects of care. They want to trust that the clinician was there for, and there with, the patient. This emphasis is what allowed us to defend the case involving the patient with pancreatitis. Clinical judgment means being engaged enough to choose what you pay attention to and to process the data you receive.

The electronic medical record has not proved to be a strong shield against malpractice allegations

Unfortunately, the electronic medical record seems designed more for billing and for guarding against claims of fraud than for communication among clinicians or documenting clinically significant events. Many clinicians believe that redundancy and standardized phraseology have weakened the meaningful use of the medical record, as the clinical information is now of questionable reliability or value or is simply hard to find. Consequently, the electronic medical record has become less effective as a communication tool for providing continuity of care.

More importantly, the electronic medical record too often places the physician in front of a computer, so that the computer becomes the focus, not the patient. Studies suggest that the way the electronic medical record is currently used in the examination room affects the quality of physician-patient communication as well as the physician’s cognitive processing of information. Unless the physician is alert and attuned, the electronic medical record can be a barrier to connection. This not only creates the potential for mistakes, but it can also cause patients to question the quality of care they are getting and to distrust the level of the provider’s engagement. In this context, the likelihood that the patient retains an attorney increases when a bad outcome occurs, avoidable or not.

WHAT PATIENTS WANT FROM PHYSICIANS

When I first began seeing my own primary care physician, her office was 5 minutes from my home. Then she relocated to a practice 15 minutes away. And then, because of office consolidation and acquisition, her office was relocated 40 minutes away.

So why do I still go to her? Her training is not better than that of most internists, and my medical history is not so complex that I require more care than most 55-year-old men. I am only speculating, but I would guess that she is not the most financially productive physician in her group. I know that her transition to the electronic medical record has been difficult. Recently, I asked her about it. Except in some situations, she does not type while taking a history, and she stays totally away from the computer while in the examination room with me. She sits a couple of feet from me, and it feels like the days before the electronic medical record. She is clearly more comfortable listening and taking notes first and worrying about the electronic record later. I imagine she stays later to do her notes than most of the other physicians, or she finishes them at home.

The reason I continue to see her as my primary care physician is that she remains totally engaged during my office visit. What tells me that is not just her avoidance of the computer or her body language, but the depth of questions she asks. My responses often prompt her to look back at an earlier office note, and she will then ask follow-up questions to confirm what she had previously recorded. Her examination is thorough, with testing to confirm and retesting to be sure. Doing this may mean that she has difficulty meeting financial or administrative benchmarks established by her practice. I don’t know. But I have no doubt that the likelihood of her missing something in her clinical care is small, and what I suspect is even smaller is the risk that one of her patients would bring a lawsuit against her, given the time she takes to listen and remain connected throughout the office visit.

STAYING CONNECTED, IN SPITE OF EVERYTHING

Be the attentive, compassionate healer you hoped to be when you first entered practice

My point is not to suggest that everyone must conform to the same practice philosophy, particularly with the economic pressures in the medical field. What I am suggesting is that it is not easy to stay connected in a healthcare system in which the system’s structure is driving physicians and other members of the healthcare team towards disconnection. Quality healthcare means making every effort to remain engaged at all times with your patient’s care, which will reduce the likelihood of a bad outcome and may preserve the physician-patient relationship even when a bad outcome occurs.

In the end, perhaps it is not possible to avoid being named as a defendant in a malpractice case, just as it is not possible to avoid all bad medical outcomes despite exceptional care. In law, as in medicine, there are always factors beyond your control. My aspiration is to find a pathway to get providers through the system unbroken—also not an easy task. But one thing I know is true: the more you can stay engaged in the care you provide and in your documentation, the more you will preclude a plaintiff’s attorney from exploiting the effects of the forces within the system that drive providers toward disconnection. As long as you stay engaged and supported by the knowledge that the care provided was appropriate, it is my hope that the voice of the critic will not count as much in the aftermath of a malpractice case. But more importantly, it may allow you to draw meaning and reconciliation from the fact that throughout the patient’s illness, undeterred by the complexities of today’s healthcare system, you remained the attentive and compassionate healer you hoped to be when you first became a healthcare professional.

During my 25 years as a defense attorney, I have seen the traumatic impact that the allegation of medical malpractice can have on healthcare providers. And I have seen many times that in the aftermath of a case it remains difficult, if not impossible, for the practitioner to return to the clinical setting unscarred by the process. Although vindication by the jury provides some solace, by itself it does not create healing. Instead, the critic’s voice continues to resonate long after the trial.

See related editorial

During a lawsuit, physicians and other providers are commonly confronted with incidental imperfections in the care they provided, errors in their documentation, or both. Consequently, a provider’s perception of events and ultimately the meaning derived from the experience is shaped less by the valid defenses and opinions of the supportive defense experts than by the inconsequential flaws and errors that can often be found in any medical record.

A RECENT CASE

Recently, I defended a hospital team consisting of a hospitalist, trauma surgeon, three residents, and a nurse. The case involved a 74-year-old man who was admitted to the hospital with pancreatitis of unknown cause. Six days after admission, he died of complications of acute respiratory distress syndrome. The team was accused of causing the patient’s death. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that although the patient’s liver enzyme levels were improving, his condition was deteriorating, and he ultimately developed hemorrhagic pancreatitis. It was the plaintiff’s contention that proper ongoing evaluation, including computed tomographic imaging, would have led to treatment that would have avoided the worsening of pancreatitis, development of an ileus, and ultimately the insult to his bowel and lungs that they claim caused acute respiratory distress syndrome and death. The patient was survived by his wife and their three children. After his death, hospital representatives and the hospitalist met with her in an effort to explain the events that led to her husband’s death. Unfortunately, these discussions did not ameliorate her feelings of loss and anger. She filed a lawsuit, and 4 years later, the case went to trial.

Vindication provides some solace, but the critic’s voice can resonate long after the trial

During the trial, the plaintiff’s attorney highlighted errors in the electronic medical record. Entries had been cut and pasted, saving time, but without updating information that had changed in the interim. The inaccuracies included “assessment: worsening pancreatitis” on a day it was considered to have improved. Another entry contained “persistent fever” on a day when no fever was present. Other mistakes involved notes that contained care plans made after morning rounds that were not revised later in the day after changes in the patient’s condition necessitated a change in the plan. In fact, most references to medication dosing in the progress notes on the last 2 days did not match the medication dosing documented in the medication administration record.

In the end, the plaintiff’s counsel did not convince the jury that the healthcare team had been negligent, but unfortunately, she planted doubt in the minds of the caregivers themselves. Perhaps in part, these doubts were the result of having to defend a bad outcome in the face of criticism that was based solely in retrospect. But the providers’ doubts seemed mostly to emanate from the inadequacies in their documentation as they observed how every entry in a far-from-perfect medical record was scrutinized and then manipulated to challenge its textual integrity—and to portray the healthcare team as unengaged and substandard clinicians.

Despite the team’s high level of engagement and the quality of care they provided, any imperfection—whether a documentation error or a minor omission in some aspect of the care provided to this complex patient—became a source of self-doubt and self-criticism.

THE ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD: A MIXED BLESSING

Documentation failures have long been used to “prove” that physicians are disconnected from the clinical situation. The electronic medical record has not proved to be a strong shield against malpractice allegations. In fact, because the electronic medical record absorbs more of the physician’s time and that of the care team’s members, efforts to save time through work-arounds and shortcuts have increased the risk of errors in entering information.

For instance, drop-down menus have led to wrong selections. Cutting and pasting has led to entries that contain data superseded by clinical events, thus creating contradictions within the record itself, and worse, with the physician’s own testimony pertaining to the basis of the clinical decision-making. And boilerplate language has created difficulties when the language does not completely fit the context or when inapplicable verbiage that fills itself in automatically goes unedited. An emergency department physician I represented at trial had to awkwardly explain that some of the data reported in his physical exam findings were inaccurate because of programmed language and should have been deleted; he had no explanation for his oversight.

But my experience has been that juries can forgive imperfections in documentation and even incidental aspects of care. They want to trust that the clinician was there for, and there with, the patient. This emphasis is what allowed us to defend the case involving the patient with pancreatitis. Clinical judgment means being engaged enough to choose what you pay attention to and to process the data you receive.

The electronic medical record has not proved to be a strong shield against malpractice allegations

Unfortunately, the electronic medical record seems designed more for billing and for guarding against claims of fraud than for communication among clinicians or documenting clinically significant events. Many clinicians believe that redundancy and standardized phraseology have weakened the meaningful use of the medical record, as the clinical information is now of questionable reliability or value or is simply hard to find. Consequently, the electronic medical record has become less effective as a communication tool for providing continuity of care.

More importantly, the electronic medical record too often places the physician in front of a computer, so that the computer becomes the focus, not the patient. Studies suggest that the way the electronic medical record is currently used in the examination room affects the quality of physician-patient communication as well as the physician’s cognitive processing of information. Unless the physician is alert and attuned, the electronic medical record can be a barrier to connection. This not only creates the potential for mistakes, but it can also cause patients to question the quality of care they are getting and to distrust the level of the provider’s engagement. In this context, the likelihood that the patient retains an attorney increases when a bad outcome occurs, avoidable or not.

WHAT PATIENTS WANT FROM PHYSICIANS

When I first began seeing my own primary care physician, her office was 5 minutes from my home. Then she relocated to a practice 15 minutes away. And then, because of office consolidation and acquisition, her office was relocated 40 minutes away.

So why do I still go to her? Her training is not better than that of most internists, and my medical history is not so complex that I require more care than most 55-year-old men. I am only speculating, but I would guess that she is not the most financially productive physician in her group. I know that her transition to the electronic medical record has been difficult. Recently, I asked her about it. Except in some situations, she does not type while taking a history, and she stays totally away from the computer while in the examination room with me. She sits a couple of feet from me, and it feels like the days before the electronic medical record. She is clearly more comfortable listening and taking notes first and worrying about the electronic record later. I imagine she stays later to do her notes than most of the other physicians, or she finishes them at home.

The reason I continue to see her as my primary care physician is that she remains totally engaged during my office visit. What tells me that is not just her avoidance of the computer or her body language, but the depth of questions she asks. My responses often prompt her to look back at an earlier office note, and she will then ask follow-up questions to confirm what she had previously recorded. Her examination is thorough, with testing to confirm and retesting to be sure. Doing this may mean that she has difficulty meeting financial or administrative benchmarks established by her practice. I don’t know. But I have no doubt that the likelihood of her missing something in her clinical care is small, and what I suspect is even smaller is the risk that one of her patients would bring a lawsuit against her, given the time she takes to listen and remain connected throughout the office visit.

STAYING CONNECTED, IN SPITE OF EVERYTHING

Be the attentive, compassionate healer you hoped to be when you first entered practice

My point is not to suggest that everyone must conform to the same practice philosophy, particularly with the economic pressures in the medical field. What I am suggesting is that it is not easy to stay connected in a healthcare system in which the system’s structure is driving physicians and other members of the healthcare team towards disconnection. Quality healthcare means making every effort to remain engaged at all times with your patient’s care, which will reduce the likelihood of a bad outcome and may preserve the physician-patient relationship even when a bad outcome occurs.

In the end, perhaps it is not possible to avoid being named as a defendant in a malpractice case, just as it is not possible to avoid all bad medical outcomes despite exceptional care. In law, as in medicine, there are always factors beyond your control. My aspiration is to find a pathway to get providers through the system unbroken—also not an easy task. But one thing I know is true: the more you can stay engaged in the care you provide and in your documentation, the more you will preclude a plaintiff’s attorney from exploiting the effects of the forces within the system that drive providers toward disconnection. As long as you stay engaged and supported by the knowledge that the care provided was appropriate, it is my hope that the voice of the critic will not count as much in the aftermath of a malpractice case. But more importantly, it may allow you to draw meaning and reconciliation from the fact that throughout the patient’s illness, undeterred by the complexities of today’s healthcare system, you remained the attentive and compassionate healer you hoped to be when you first became a healthcare professional.

How do you feel about hunger? Do you trust in its power? Having written one book on picky eating based solely on my mother’s wisdom, supplemented with a scanty amount of Internet-based research, I have spent and continue to spend a good bit of time thinking about hunger.

I have concluded that it is a very powerful force and that when a child gets hungry enough, he will eat, even foods that he has previously rejected. It is that assumption that is at the core of my advice to parents of picky eaters. I suspect that many of you share that same philosophy and recommend a strategy that is heavy on patience. Of course the problem lies in getting parents to adopt that attitude and accept the fact that if they just present a healthy diet and step back, hunger will eventually win, and the child will eat.

However, the devil is in the details. Have the parents set rules that will prevent the child from overdrinking? Have they really stopped talking about what the child, and everyone else in the family, is or isn’t eating? Are the parents setting good examples with their own eating habits and comments about food?

Because 99% of my patient population have been healthy, I have always felt comfortable relying on the power of hunger to win the battle over picky eating. If properly managed, none of my patients was going to die or suffer permanent consequences from picky eating. However, I have always wondered whether hunger could be leveraged to safely manage selective eating in children with serious health problems. I have a suspicion that it would succeed, but luckily I have never been presented with a case to test my hunch.

I recently read a very personal account written by the mother of a child with severe congenital cardiac disease that supports my gut feeling that when carefully monitored, starvation can be an effective strategy in managing selective eating (“When Your Baby Won’t Eat,” by Virginia Sole-Smith, The New York Times Magazine, Feb. 4, 2016). Three surgeries in the first few months of life necessitated that the child be fed by gavage. Attempts at breastfeeding failed, as it often does in situations like this. Struggles with gavage tube placement at home became such an emotionally traumatic ordeal that eventually a gastrostomy tube was placed when the child was 6 months old.

The family was led to believe that an important window in the child’s oral development had closed as a result of interventions necessitated by the child’s cardiac malformations. Although she was neurologically and physically capable of eating, getting her to do so was going to require long-term behavior modification, and there was no guarantee that this approach would completely undo what bad luck and prior management strategies had created. She might never relate to food as a normal child does.

After several attempts at behavior management using one-to-one reinforcement, this mother began to do some research. She discovered that of the nearly 30 feeding programs in children’s hospitals and private clinics, almost all use variations of a similar behavior modification strategy that had not worked for her daughter. As she observed: “This behavioral model presumes that children who don’t eat need external motivation.”

Eventually, the family found help in one of the few feeding programs in the United States that has adopted a dramatically different “child-centered” approach in which “therapists believe that all children have some internal motivation to eat, as well as an innate ability to effectively self-regulate their intake.” The solution to this child’s problem didn’t occur overnight. It began by exposing the child to a variety of foods in situations free of attempts to get her to eat – no coercion or rewards, regardless of how subtle they might have seemed. Once the child was experimenting with food, her tube feedings were gradually decreased in volume and caloric content. And, voila! Hunger won and the child began meeting her total nutritional needs by eating, in some cases with gusto.

Of course I was easy to convince because the results confirmed my hunch. But, do you believe that hunger can and should be used as the centerpiece in the management of selective eating, even in cases well beyond the parameters of garden variety picky eating? Are you willing to play the hunger game along with me?

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.”

How do you feel about hunger? Do you trust in its power? Having written one book on picky eating based solely on my mother’s wisdom, supplemented with a scanty amount of Internet-based research, I have spent and continue to spend a good bit of time thinking about hunger.

I have concluded that it is a very powerful force and that when a child gets hungry enough, he will eat, even foods that he has previously rejected. It is that assumption that is at the core of my advice to parents of picky eaters. I suspect that many of you share that same philosophy and recommend a strategy that is heavy on patience. Of course the problem lies in getting parents to adopt that attitude and accept the fact that if they just present a healthy diet and step back, hunger will eventually win, and the child will eat.

However, the devil is in the details. Have the parents set rules that will prevent the child from overdrinking? Have they really stopped talking about what the child, and everyone else in the family, is or isn’t eating? Are the parents setting good examples with their own eating habits and comments about food?

Because 99% of my patient population have been healthy, I have always felt comfortable relying on the power of hunger to win the battle over picky eating. If properly managed, none of my patients was going to die or suffer permanent consequences from picky eating. However, I have always wondered whether hunger could be leveraged to safely manage selective eating in children with serious health problems. I have a suspicion that it would succeed, but luckily I have never been presented with a case to test my hunch.

I recently read a very personal account written by the mother of a child with severe congenital cardiac disease that supports my gut feeling that when carefully monitored, starvation can be an effective strategy in managing selective eating (“When Your Baby Won’t Eat,” by Virginia Sole-Smith, The New York Times Magazine, Feb. 4, 2016). Three surgeries in the first few months of life necessitated that the child be fed by gavage. Attempts at breastfeeding failed, as it often does in situations like this. Struggles with gavage tube placement at home became such an emotionally traumatic ordeal that eventually a gastrostomy tube was placed when the child was 6 months old.

The family was led to believe that an important window in the child’s oral development had closed as a result of interventions necessitated by the child’s cardiac malformations. Although she was neurologically and physically capable of eating, getting her to do so was going to require long-term behavior modification, and there was no guarantee that this approach would completely undo what bad luck and prior management strategies had created. She might never relate to food as a normal child does.

After several attempts at behavior management using one-to-one reinforcement, this mother began to do some research. She discovered that of the nearly 30 feeding programs in children’s hospitals and private clinics, almost all use variations of a similar behavior modification strategy that had not worked for her daughter. As she observed: “This behavioral model presumes that children who don’t eat need external motivation.”

Eventually, the family found help in one of the few feeding programs in the United States that has adopted a dramatically different “child-centered” approach in which “therapists believe that all children have some internal motivation to eat, as well as an innate ability to effectively self-regulate their intake.” The solution to this child’s problem didn’t occur overnight. It began by exposing the child to a variety of foods in situations free of attempts to get her to eat – no coercion or rewards, regardless of how subtle they might have seemed. Once the child was experimenting with food, her tube feedings were gradually decreased in volume and caloric content. And, voila! Hunger won and the child began meeting her total nutritional needs by eating, in some cases with gusto.

Of course I was easy to convince because the results confirmed my hunch. But, do you believe that hunger can and should be used as the centerpiece in the management of selective eating, even in cases well beyond the parameters of garden variety picky eating? Are you willing to play the hunger game along with me?

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.”

How do you feel about hunger? Do you trust in its power? Having written one book on picky eating based solely on my mother’s wisdom, supplemented with a scanty amount of Internet-based research, I have spent and continue to spend a good bit of time thinking about hunger.

I have concluded that it is a very powerful force and that when a child gets hungry enough, he will eat, even foods that he has previously rejected. It is that assumption that is at the core of my advice to parents of picky eaters. I suspect that many of you share that same philosophy and recommend a strategy that is heavy on patience. Of course the problem lies in getting parents to adopt that attitude and accept the fact that if they just present a healthy diet and step back, hunger will eventually win, and the child will eat.

However, the devil is in the details. Have the parents set rules that will prevent the child from overdrinking? Have they really stopped talking about what the child, and everyone else in the family, is or isn’t eating? Are the parents setting good examples with their own eating habits and comments about food?

Because 99% of my patient population have been healthy, I have always felt comfortable relying on the power of hunger to win the battle over picky eating. If properly managed, none of my patients was going to die or suffer permanent consequences from picky eating. However, I have always wondered whether hunger could be leveraged to safely manage selective eating in children with serious health problems. I have a suspicion that it would succeed, but luckily I have never been presented with a case to test my hunch.

I recently read a very personal account written by the mother of a child with severe congenital cardiac disease that supports my gut feeling that when carefully monitored, starvation can be an effective strategy in managing selective eating (“When Your Baby Won’t Eat,” by Virginia Sole-Smith, The New York Times Magazine, Feb. 4, 2016). Three surgeries in the first few months of life necessitated that the child be fed by gavage. Attempts at breastfeeding failed, as it often does in situations like this. Struggles with gavage tube placement at home became such an emotionally traumatic ordeal that eventually a gastrostomy tube was placed when the child was 6 months old.

The family was led to believe that an important window in the child’s oral development had closed as a result of interventions necessitated by the child’s cardiac malformations. Although she was neurologically and physically capable of eating, getting her to do so was going to require long-term behavior modification, and there was no guarantee that this approach would completely undo what bad luck and prior management strategies had created. She might never relate to food as a normal child does.

After several attempts at behavior management using one-to-one reinforcement, this mother began to do some research. She discovered that of the nearly 30 feeding programs in children’s hospitals and private clinics, almost all use variations of a similar behavior modification strategy that had not worked for her daughter. As she observed: “This behavioral model presumes that children who don’t eat need external motivation.”

Eventually, the family found help in one of the few feeding programs in the United States that has adopted a dramatically different “child-centered” approach in which “therapists believe that all children have some internal motivation to eat, as well as an innate ability to effectively self-regulate their intake.” The solution to this child’s problem didn’t occur overnight. It began by exposing the child to a variety of foods in situations free of attempts to get her to eat – no coercion or rewards, regardless of how subtle they might have seemed. Once the child was experimenting with food, her tube feedings were gradually decreased in volume and caloric content. And, voila! Hunger won and the child began meeting her total nutritional needs by eating, in some cases with gusto.

Of course I was easy to convince because the results confirmed my hunch. But, do you believe that hunger can and should be used as the centerpiece in the management of selective eating, even in cases well beyond the parameters of garden variety picky eating? Are you willing to play the hunger game along with me?

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.”

Only recently has evidence emerged that challenges our long-held understanding of “normal” and “abnormal” labor. We now know there is a much wider range of normal labor progress in women who go on to have good labor outcomes. We have a new labor curve to guide us – one that shows us, for example, that active labor occurs most commonly after 6 cm dilation rather than 4 cm as we’d previously thought.

By appreciating this new labor paradigm, we can potentially have a significant impact on the cesarean rate in the United States. While our use of the older labor curve is not the only reason for the rise in cesarean deliveries over the last 30 years, it very likely has played a role. A study published in 2011 of more than 32,000 live births at a major academic hospital demonstrated that one of the most common reasons for primary cesarean is abnormal labor or arrest (Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jul;118[1]:29-38).

Another study by the Consortium on Safe Labor – an analysis of labor and delivery information from more than 228,000 women across the United States – showed that half of the cesarean deliveries performed for dystocia in women undergoing labor induction were performed before 6 cm of cervical dilation and relatively soon after the previous cervical examination (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Oct; 203[4]: 326.e1–326.e10).

Our new labor paradigm brings to the forefront a host of new issues and questions about how we can best manage labor to optimize outcomes. In a way, recent discoveries about labor progress have highlighted a dearth of evidence and made “old” issues in labor management seem new and urgent.

As we strive to learn more, however, we are challenged to change our practices and behavior at the bedside with the evidence we currently have. By appreciating both the new labor curve and our current understanding of how labor induction, obesity, and other patient characteristics and clinical conditions can affect labor progress, we can expect that many women will simply progress much more slowly than was historically expected.

As long as we have indications of the well-being of the baby and the well-being of the mother, a slower but progressive labor in the first stage should not prompt us to intervene. We should no longer apply the standards of active-phase progress – standards that have traditionally driven our diagnoses of labor dystocia – until the patient has achieved 6 cm of dilation.

The labor curve that had shaped our thinking about normal and abnormal labor progress until recently was developed by Dr. Emanuel Friedman. Based on findings from a prospective cohort study of 500 nulliparous women, Dr. Friedman plotted labor progress with centimeters of cervical dilation on the Y-axis and time on the X-axis, and divided labor into several stages and phases. In this curve, the rate of change of cervical dilation over time started increasing significantly at 4 cm; this period of increasing slope defined the active phase of labor.

Abnormal labor progress in the active phase was then defined, based on the 95th percentile, as cervical dilation of less than 1.2 cm per hour for nulliparous women and less than 1.5 cm per hour for multiparous women. Based on Dr. Friedman’s work, a woman was deemed to be in active-phase arrest when she had no cervical changes for 2 hours or more while having adequate uterine contractions and cervical dilation of at least 4 cm. These concepts came to govern labor management.

The paradigm shifted when the Consortium on Safe Labor reported in 2010 on a retrospective cohort study of more than 62,000 women at 19 U.S. hospitals. The women had a singleton term gestation, spontaneous labor, vertex presentation, vaginal delivery, and a normal perinatal outcome. In their analysis of labor and delivery information, Dr. Jun Zhang of the National Institutes of Health’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and his colleagues accounted for the fact that the exact times of cervical change are unknown.

They used modern statistical methods and analytical tools that took into account the specific nature of cervical dilation data – that cervical measurements are interval-censored (we never know the exact time when a woman’s cervix changes) and that multiple exams of the cervix in the same patient are not independent (Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Dec;116[6]:1281-7).

The methodology used in the Consortium study accounted for both the interval-censored and repeated-measures nature of cervical dilation data. It thus addressed analytical flaws in the previous approach to labor data, which was purely descriptive of the exam findings and did not consider the nature of the data itself.

Under the new analysis and in the larger, contemporary population of patients, the period of increasing slope was found to occur most commonly after 6 cm, not 4 cm. The slowest 5% of nulliparous women had cervical dilation of 0.4 cm per hour (with the median at 1.9 cm per hour), compared with 1.2 cm per hour (with a median of 3.0 cm per hour) as in the Friedman data.

Dr. Zhang’s study showed us that labor may take more than 6 hours to progress from 4 to 5 cm dilation, and more than 3 hours to progress from 5 to 6 cm dilation – a rate of progress that is significantly slower than what Dr. Friedman had described. The new data showed us, moreover, that from 4 cm-6 cm dilation, nulliparous and multiparous women progressed similarly slowly. Beyond 6 cm, multiparous women dilated more rapidly, with a steeper acceleration phase than previously described.

A consensus statement published in 2014 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) on “Safe Prevention of the Primary Cesarean Delivery” encourages use of the Consortium data to revisit the definition of labor dystocia. While the data “do not directly address an optimal duration for the diagnosis of active-phase protraction or labor arrest, [they] do suggest that neither should be diagnosed before 6 cm dilation” (Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Mar;123[3]:693-711).

The ACOG-SMFM statement makes a series of recommendations for managing the first and second stages of labor, based not only on the Consortium data but on a broader literature review. It recommends that if mother and fetus appear well, cesarean delivery for active-phase arrest in the first stage of labor be reserved for women of at least 6 cm of dilation with ruptured membranes who fail to progress despite 4 hours of adequate uterine activity, or at least 6 hours of oxytocin administration with inadequate uterine activity and no cervical change.

Regarding the latent phase of labor, the statement says that most women with a prolonged latent phase ultimately will enter the active phase with expectant management. It advises that a prolonged latent phase (for example, greater than 20 hours in nulliparous women and greater than 14 hours in multiparous women) should not be an isolated indication for cesarean delivery.

The consensus statement also recognizes recent data showing that women who undergo labor induction have an even slower “normal” course of labor, particularly a longer latent phase, than women who labor spontaneously. A retrospective cohort study of more than 5,000 women, for instance, found that before 6 cm, women whose labor is induced can spend up to 10 hours to achieve each 1 cm of dilation (Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jun;119[6]:1113-8).

As long as maternal and fetal status are reassuring, the statement says, cesarean deliveries for failed induction of labor in the latent phase can be avoided by allowing longer durations of the latent phase (up to 24 hours) and by requiring that oxytocin be administered for 12-18 hours after membrane rupture before deeming induction a failure.

Each of these described recommendations were graded in the ACOG-SMFM consensus document as “strong” recommendations with “moderate quality evidence.”

Examining our standards

Moving forward, we must further develop and define our thresholds for identifying who will most benefit from a cesarean delivery. We have many specific aspects of labor management to address as well, such as the optimal timing of artificial membrane rupture and the safety and efficacy of different oxytocin protocols. We may also want to revisit recommendations for serial cervical assessment, possibly adjusting the intervals given our understanding of the new labor curve.

Under the new labor paradigm, moreover, we must think not only about the clinical decisions we make at the bedside, but about the decisions we make early in the labor management process.

The timing of admission is one such decision. A statement published in 2012 on “Preventing the First Cesarean Delivery” by ACOG, SMFM, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development advises us to avoid admittance of women during the early latent phase of labor (Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Nov;120[5]:1181-93).

It may even be advisable that we consider admittance at higher cervical dilation. A study published this year shows that women admitted at less than 6 cm of dilation had an increased risk of cesarean delivery, compared with women admitted at higher cervical dilation (Am J Perinatol. 2016 Jan;33[2]:188-94). We have more to learn, but certainly, given what we know now about labor progress and the start of active labor, the timing of admission is an important factor to consider.

The second stage of labor, defined as the interval from complete cervical dilation through delivery of the fetus, presents many questions as well. There is a paucity of quality published data concerning what is normal, how long the stage should last, and how we should manage it. Historically, we have been taught to allow 2 hours of pushing for nulliparous women and 1 hour for multiparous women, when epidural anesthesia has not been administered, and to add an additional hour when epidural is used.

The 2014 ACOG-SMFM consensus statement recommends extending each of these limits by an hour, if maternal and fetal conditions permit, so that we allow at least 3 hours of pushing for nulliparous women and at least 2 hours for multiparous women before diagnosing arrest of labor in the second stage. Longer durations may be appropriate with the use of epidural anesthesia and on an individualized basis.

At this time, it is unclear whether there is any absolute maximum length of time beyond which all women in the second stage of labor should undergo cesarean delivery. We also still do not know the optimal technique for managing maternal pushing during the second stage. Should women with an epidural push right away or should they allow for a period of spontaneous descent? Many of the high-quality studies reported thus far that compare delayed and immediate pushing have limited applicability to current practice because they involved now-obsolete midpelvic forceps deliveries. A large multicenter randomized trial currently underway should provide us with some answers.

Dr. Cahill is an associate professor and chief of the division of maternal-fetal medicine in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. She reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

Only recently has evidence emerged that challenges our long-held understanding of “normal” and “abnormal” labor. We now know there is a much wider range of normal labor progress in women who go on to have good labor outcomes. We have a new labor curve to guide us – one that shows us, for example, that active labor occurs most commonly after 6 cm dilation rather than 4 cm as we’d previously thought.

By appreciating this new labor paradigm, we can potentially have a significant impact on the cesarean rate in the United States. While our use of the older labor curve is not the only reason for the rise in cesarean deliveries over the last 30 years, it very likely has played a role. A study published in 2011 of more than 32,000 live births at a major academic hospital demonstrated that one of the most common reasons for primary cesarean is abnormal labor or arrest (Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jul;118[1]:29-38).

Another study by the Consortium on Safe Labor – an analysis of labor and delivery information from more than 228,000 women across the United States – showed that half of the cesarean deliveries performed for dystocia in women undergoing labor induction were performed before 6 cm of cervical dilation and relatively soon after the previous cervical examination (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Oct; 203[4]: 326.e1–326.e10).

Our new labor paradigm brings to the forefront a host of new issues and questions about how we can best manage labor to optimize outcomes. In a way, recent discoveries about labor progress have highlighted a dearth of evidence and made “old” issues in labor management seem new and urgent.

As we strive to learn more, however, we are challenged to change our practices and behavior at the bedside with the evidence we currently have. By appreciating both the new labor curve and our current understanding of how labor induction, obesity, and other patient characteristics and clinical conditions can affect labor progress, we can expect that many women will simply progress much more slowly than was historically expected.

As long as we have indications of the well-being of the baby and the well-being of the mother, a slower but progressive labor in the first stage should not prompt us to intervene. We should no longer apply the standards of active-phase progress – standards that have traditionally driven our diagnoses of labor dystocia – until the patient has achieved 6 cm of dilation.

The labor curve that had shaped our thinking about normal and abnormal labor progress until recently was developed by Dr. Emanuel Friedman. Based on findings from a prospective cohort study of 500 nulliparous women, Dr. Friedman plotted labor progress with centimeters of cervical dilation on the Y-axis and time on the X-axis, and divided labor into several stages and phases. In this curve, the rate of change of cervical dilation over time started increasing significantly at 4 cm; this period of increasing slope defined the active phase of labor.

Abnormal labor progress in the active phase was then defined, based on the 95th percentile, as cervical dilation of less than 1.2 cm per hour for nulliparous women and less than 1.5 cm per hour for multiparous women. Based on Dr. Friedman’s work, a woman was deemed to be in active-phase arrest when she had no cervical changes for 2 hours or more while having adequate uterine contractions and cervical dilation of at least 4 cm. These concepts came to govern labor management.

The paradigm shifted when the Consortium on Safe Labor reported in 2010 on a retrospective cohort study of more than 62,000 women at 19 U.S. hospitals. The women had a singleton term gestation, spontaneous labor, vertex presentation, vaginal delivery, and a normal perinatal outcome. In their analysis of labor and delivery information, Dr. Jun Zhang of the National Institutes of Health’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and his colleagues accounted for the fact that the exact times of cervical change are unknown.

They used modern statistical methods and analytical tools that took into account the specific nature of cervical dilation data – that cervical measurements are interval-censored (we never know the exact time when a woman’s cervix changes) and that multiple exams of the cervix in the same patient are not independent (Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Dec;116[6]:1281-7).

The methodology used in the Consortium study accounted for both the interval-censored and repeated-measures nature of cervical dilation data. It thus addressed analytical flaws in the previous approach to labor data, which was purely descriptive of the exam findings and did not consider the nature of the data itself.

Under the new analysis and in the larger, contemporary population of patients, the period of increasing slope was found to occur most commonly after 6 cm, not 4 cm. The slowest 5% of nulliparous women had cervical dilation of 0.4 cm per hour (with the median at 1.9 cm per hour), compared with 1.2 cm per hour (with a median of 3.0 cm per hour) as in the Friedman data.

Dr. Zhang’s study showed us that labor may take more than 6 hours to progress from 4 to 5 cm dilation, and more than 3 hours to progress from 5 to 6 cm dilation – a rate of progress that is significantly slower than what Dr. Friedman had described. The new data showed us, moreover, that from 4 cm-6 cm dilation, nulliparous and multiparous women progressed similarly slowly. Beyond 6 cm, multiparous women dilated more rapidly, with a steeper acceleration phase than previously described.

A consensus statement published in 2014 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) on “Safe Prevention of the Primary Cesarean Delivery” encourages use of the Consortium data to revisit the definition of labor dystocia. While the data “do not directly address an optimal duration for the diagnosis of active-phase protraction or labor arrest, [they] do suggest that neither should be diagnosed before 6 cm dilation” (Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Mar;123[3]:693-711).

The ACOG-SMFM statement makes a series of recommendations for managing the first and second stages of labor, based not only on the Consortium data but on a broader literature review. It recommends that if mother and fetus appear well, cesarean delivery for active-phase arrest in the first stage of labor be reserved for women of at least 6 cm of dilation with ruptured membranes who fail to progress despite 4 hours of adequate uterine activity, or at least 6 hours of oxytocin administration with inadequate uterine activity and no cervical change.

Regarding the latent phase of labor, the statement says that most women with a prolonged latent phase ultimately will enter the active phase with expectant management. It advises that a prolonged latent phase (for example, greater than 20 hours in nulliparous women and greater than 14 hours in multiparous women) should not be an isolated indication for cesarean delivery.

The consensus statement also recognizes recent data showing that women who undergo labor induction have an even slower “normal” course of labor, particularly a longer latent phase, than women who labor spontaneously. A retrospective cohort study of more than 5,000 women, for instance, found that before 6 cm, women whose labor is induced can spend up to 10 hours to achieve each 1 cm of dilation (Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jun;119[6]:1113-8).

As long as maternal and fetal status are reassuring, the statement says, cesarean deliveries for failed induction of labor in the latent phase can be avoided by allowing longer durations of the latent phase (up to 24 hours) and by requiring that oxytocin be administered for 12-18 hours after membrane rupture before deeming induction a failure.

Each of these described recommendations were graded in the ACOG-SMFM consensus document as “strong” recommendations with “moderate quality evidence.”

Examining our standards

Moving forward, we must further develop and define our thresholds for identifying who will most benefit from a cesarean delivery. We have many specific aspects of labor management to address as well, such as the optimal timing of artificial membrane rupture and the safety and efficacy of different oxytocin protocols. We may also want to revisit recommendations for serial cervical assessment, possibly adjusting the intervals given our understanding of the new labor curve.

Under the new labor paradigm, moreover, we must think not only about the clinical decisions we make at the bedside, but about the decisions we make early in the labor management process.

The timing of admission is one such decision. A statement published in 2012 on “Preventing the First Cesarean Delivery” by ACOG, SMFM, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development advises us to avoid admittance of women during the early latent phase of labor (Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Nov;120[5]:1181-93).

It may even be advisable that we consider admittance at higher cervical dilation. A study published this year shows that women admitted at less than 6 cm of dilation had an increased risk of cesarean delivery, compared with women admitted at higher cervical dilation (Am J Perinatol. 2016 Jan;33[2]:188-94). We have more to learn, but certainly, given what we know now about labor progress and the start of active labor, the timing of admission is an important factor to consider.

The second stage of labor, defined as the interval from complete cervical dilation through delivery of the fetus, presents many questions as well. There is a paucity of quality published data concerning what is normal, how long the stage should last, and how we should manage it. Historically, we have been taught to allow 2 hours of pushing for nulliparous women and 1 hour for multiparous women, when epidural anesthesia has not been administered, and to add an additional hour when epidural is used.

The 2014 ACOG-SMFM consensus statement recommends extending each of these limits by an hour, if maternal and fetal conditions permit, so that we allow at least 3 hours of pushing for nulliparous women and at least 2 hours for multiparous women before diagnosing arrest of labor in the second stage. Longer durations may be appropriate with the use of epidural anesthesia and on an individualized basis.

At this time, it is unclear whether there is any absolute maximum length of time beyond which all women in the second stage of labor should undergo cesarean delivery. We also still do not know the optimal technique for managing maternal pushing during the second stage. Should women with an epidural push right away or should they allow for a period of spontaneous descent? Many of the high-quality studies reported thus far that compare delayed and immediate pushing have limited applicability to current practice because they involved now-obsolete midpelvic forceps deliveries. A large multicenter randomized trial currently underway should provide us with some answers.

Dr. Cahill is an associate professor and chief of the division of maternal-fetal medicine in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. She reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

Only recently has evidence emerged that challenges our long-held understanding of “normal” and “abnormal” labor. We now know there is a much wider range of normal labor progress in women who go on to have good labor outcomes. We have a new labor curve to guide us – one that shows us, for example, that active labor occurs most commonly after 6 cm dilation rather than 4 cm as we’d previously thought.

By appreciating this new labor paradigm, we can potentially have a significant impact on the cesarean rate in the United States. While our use of the older labor curve is not the only reason for the rise in cesarean deliveries over the last 30 years, it very likely has played a role. A study published in 2011 of more than 32,000 live births at a major academic hospital demonstrated that one of the most common reasons for primary cesarean is abnormal labor or arrest (Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jul;118[1]:29-38).

Another study by the Consortium on Safe Labor – an analysis of labor and delivery information from more than 228,000 women across the United States – showed that half of the cesarean deliveries performed for dystocia in women undergoing labor induction were performed before 6 cm of cervical dilation and relatively soon after the previous cervical examination (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Oct; 203[4]: 326.e1–326.e10).

Our new labor paradigm brings to the forefront a host of new issues and questions about how we can best manage labor to optimize outcomes. In a way, recent discoveries about labor progress have highlighted a dearth of evidence and made “old” issues in labor management seem new and urgent.

As we strive to learn more, however, we are challenged to change our practices and behavior at the bedside with the evidence we currently have. By appreciating both the new labor curve and our current understanding of how labor induction, obesity, and other patient characteristics and clinical conditions can affect labor progress, we can expect that many women will simply progress much more slowly than was historically expected.

As long as we have indications of the well-being of the baby and the well-being of the mother, a slower but progressive labor in the first stage should not prompt us to intervene. We should no longer apply the standards of active-phase progress – standards that have traditionally driven our diagnoses of labor dystocia – until the patient has achieved 6 cm of dilation.

The labor curve that had shaped our thinking about normal and abnormal labor progress until recently was developed by Dr. Emanuel Friedman. Based on findings from a prospective cohort study of 500 nulliparous women, Dr. Friedman plotted labor progress with centimeters of cervical dilation on the Y-axis and time on the X-axis, and divided labor into several stages and phases. In this curve, the rate of change of cervical dilation over time started increasing significantly at 4 cm; this period of increasing slope defined the active phase of labor.

Abnormal labor progress in the active phase was then defined, based on the 95th percentile, as cervical dilation of less than 1.2 cm per hour for nulliparous women and less than 1.5 cm per hour for multiparous women. Based on Dr. Friedman’s work, a woman was deemed to be in active-phase arrest when she had no cervical changes for 2 hours or more while having adequate uterine contractions and cervical dilation of at least 4 cm. These concepts came to govern labor management.

The paradigm shifted when the Consortium on Safe Labor reported in 2010 on a retrospective cohort study of more than 62,000 women at 19 U.S. hospitals. The women had a singleton term gestation, spontaneous labor, vertex presentation, vaginal delivery, and a normal perinatal outcome. In their analysis of labor and delivery information, Dr. Jun Zhang of the National Institutes of Health’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and his colleagues accounted for the fact that the exact times of cervical change are unknown.

They used modern statistical methods and analytical tools that took into account the specific nature of cervical dilation data – that cervical measurements are interval-censored (we never know the exact time when a woman’s cervix changes) and that multiple exams of the cervix in the same patient are not independent (Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Dec;116[6]:1281-7).

The methodology used in the Consortium study accounted for both the interval-censored and repeated-measures nature of cervical dilation data. It thus addressed analytical flaws in the previous approach to labor data, which was purely descriptive of the exam findings and did not consider the nature of the data itself.

Under the new analysis and in the larger, contemporary population of patients, the period of increasing slope was found to occur most commonly after 6 cm, not 4 cm. The slowest 5% of nulliparous women had cervical dilation of 0.4 cm per hour (with the median at 1.9 cm per hour), compared with 1.2 cm per hour (with a median of 3.0 cm per hour) as in the Friedman data.

Dr. Zhang’s study showed us that labor may take more than 6 hours to progress from 4 to 5 cm dilation, and more than 3 hours to progress from 5 to 6 cm dilation – a rate of progress that is significantly slower than what Dr. Friedman had described. The new data showed us, moreover, that from 4 cm-6 cm dilation, nulliparous and multiparous women progressed similarly slowly. Beyond 6 cm, multiparous women dilated more rapidly, with a steeper acceleration phase than previously described.

A consensus statement published in 2014 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) on “Safe Prevention of the Primary Cesarean Delivery” encourages use of the Consortium data to revisit the definition of labor dystocia. While the data “do not directly address an optimal duration for the diagnosis of active-phase protraction or labor arrest, [they] do suggest that neither should be diagnosed before 6 cm dilation” (Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Mar;123[3]:693-711).

The ACOG-SMFM statement makes a series of recommendations for managing the first and second stages of labor, based not only on the Consortium data but on a broader literature review. It recommends that if mother and fetus appear well, cesarean delivery for active-phase arrest in the first stage of labor be reserved for women of at least 6 cm of dilation with ruptured membranes who fail to progress despite 4 hours of adequate uterine activity, or at least 6 hours of oxytocin administration with inadequate uterine activity and no cervical change.

Regarding the latent phase of labor, the statement says that most women with a prolonged latent phase ultimately will enter the active phase with expectant management. It advises that a prolonged latent phase (for example, greater than 20 hours in nulliparous women and greater than 14 hours in multiparous women) should not be an isolated indication for cesarean delivery.

The consensus statement also recognizes recent data showing that women who undergo labor induction have an even slower “normal” course of labor, particularly a longer latent phase, than women who labor spontaneously. A retrospective cohort study of more than 5,000 women, for instance, found that before 6 cm, women whose labor is induced can spend up to 10 hours to achieve each 1 cm of dilation (Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jun;119[6]:1113-8).

As long as maternal and fetal status are reassuring, the statement says, cesarean deliveries for failed induction of labor in the latent phase can be avoided by allowing longer durations of the latent phase (up to 24 hours) and by requiring that oxytocin be administered for 12-18 hours after membrane rupture before deeming induction a failure.

Each of these described recommendations were graded in the ACOG-SMFM consensus document as “strong” recommendations with “moderate quality evidence.”

Examining our standards

Moving forward, we must further develop and define our thresholds for identifying who will most benefit from a cesarean delivery. We have many specific aspects of labor management to address as well, such as the optimal timing of artificial membrane rupture and the safety and efficacy of different oxytocin protocols. We may also want to revisit recommendations for serial cervical assessment, possibly adjusting the intervals given our understanding of the new labor curve.

Under the new labor paradigm, moreover, we must think not only about the clinical decisions we make at the bedside, but about the decisions we make early in the labor management process.

The timing of admission is one such decision. A statement published in 2012 on “Preventing the First Cesarean Delivery” by ACOG, SMFM, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development advises us to avoid admittance of women during the early latent phase of labor (Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Nov;120[5]:1181-93).

It may even be advisable that we consider admittance at higher cervical dilation. A study published this year shows that women admitted at less than 6 cm of dilation had an increased risk of cesarean delivery, compared with women admitted at higher cervical dilation (Am J Perinatol. 2016 Jan;33[2]:188-94). We have more to learn, but certainly, given what we know now about labor progress and the start of active labor, the timing of admission is an important factor to consider.

The second stage of labor, defined as the interval from complete cervical dilation through delivery of the fetus, presents many questions as well. There is a paucity of quality published data concerning what is normal, how long the stage should last, and how we should manage it. Historically, we have been taught to allow 2 hours of pushing for nulliparous women and 1 hour for multiparous women, when epidural anesthesia has not been administered, and to add an additional hour when epidural is used.

The 2014 ACOG-SMFM consensus statement recommends extending each of these limits by an hour, if maternal and fetal conditions permit, so that we allow at least 3 hours of pushing for nulliparous women and at least 2 hours for multiparous women before diagnosing arrest of labor in the second stage. Longer durations may be appropriate with the use of epidural anesthesia and on an individualized basis.

At this time, it is unclear whether there is any absolute maximum length of time beyond which all women in the second stage of labor should undergo cesarean delivery. We also still do not know the optimal technique for managing maternal pushing during the second stage. Should women with an epidural push right away or should they allow for a period of spontaneous descent? Many of the high-quality studies reported thus far that compare delayed and immediate pushing have limited applicability to current practice because they involved now-obsolete midpelvic forceps deliveries. A large multicenter randomized trial currently underway should provide us with some answers.

Dr. Cahill is an associate professor and chief of the division of maternal-fetal medicine in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. She reported having no relevant financial disclosures.