Postoperative morbidity associated with cesarean delivery among human immunodeficiency virus-seropositive women

40Citations
Citations of this article
21Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the complication rates associated with cesarean delivery between human immunodeficiency virus-seropositive women with those among a matched group of human immunodeficiency virus-seronegative subjects. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a case-control study of 86 human immunodeficiency virus-seropositive women undergoing cesarean delivery between the years 1992 and 2000 at a large, urban teaching institution and a control group of 86 human immunodeficiency virus-seronegative women matched for age, race, year of delivery, and delivery indications. Data were analyzed with the X2 test and odds ratios. Among human immunodeficiency virus-seropositive women, complications were further stratified according to maternal disease status and use of antiretroviral therapy. RESULTS: Human immunodeficiency virus-seropositive women were significantly more likely than control women to have minor postoperative complications (66.3% vs 41.8%; odds ratio, 2.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-6.10), of which febrile morbidity was the most common (62.8% vs 42.7%; P = .003). There was no difference between the groups in the rate of major complications (9.3% vs 3.4%; odds ratio, 2.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-14.06). Zidovudine use was associated with a decrease in the maternal morbidity rate (odds ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-1.03). CONCLUSION: Postoperative morbidity among human immunodeficiency virus-seropositive women undergoing cesarean delivery was not different from that in a matched control population.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rodriguez, E. J., Spann, C., Jamieson, D., & Lindsay, M. (2001). Postoperative morbidity associated with cesarean delivery among human immunodeficiency virus-seropositive women. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 184(6), 1108–1111. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2001.115179

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free