Browsing by Author "Harris, Benjamin S"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Are prediction models for vaginal birth after cesarean accurate?
    (American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2019-05) Harris, Benjamin S; Heine, R Phillips; Park, Jinyoung; Faurot, Keturah R; Hopkins, Maeve K; Rivara, Andrew J; Kemeny, Hanna R; Grotegut, Chad A; Jelovsek, J Eric
    BACKGROUND:The use of trial of labor after cesarean delivery calculators in the prediction of successful vaginal birth after cesarean delivery gives physicians an evidence-based tool to assist with patient counseling and risk stratification. Before deployment of prediction models for routine care at an institutional level, it is recommended to test their performance initially in the institution's target population. This allows the institution to understand not only the overall accuracy of the model for the intended population but also to comprehend where the accuracy of the model is most limited when predicting across the range of predictions (calibration). OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to compare 3 models that predict successful vaginal birth after cesarean delivery with the use of a single tertiary referral cohort before continuous model deployment in the electronic medical record. STUDY DESIGN:All cesarean births for failed trial of labor after cesarean delivery and successful vaginal birth after cesarean delivery at an academic health system between May 2013 and March 2016 were reviewed. Women with a history of 1 previous cesarean birth who underwent a trial of labor with a term (≥37 weeks gestation), cephalic, and singleton gestation were included. Women with antepartum intrauterine fetal death or fetal anomalies were excluded. The probability of successful vaginal birth after cesarean delivery was calculated with the use of 3 prediction models: Grobman 2007, Grobman 2009, and Metz 2013 and compared with actual vaginal birth after cesarean delivery success. Each model's performance was measured with the use of concordance indices, Brier scores, and calibration plots. Decision curve analysis identified the range of threshold probabilities for which the best prediction model would be of clinical value. RESULTS:Four hundred four women met the eligibility criteria. The observed rate of successful vaginal birth after cesarean delivery was 75% (305/404). Concordance indices were 0.717 (95% confidence interval, 0.659-0.778), 0.703 (95% confidence interval, 0.647-0.758), and 0.727 (95% confidence interval, 0.669-0.779), respectively. Brier scores were 0.172, 0.205, and 0.179, respectively. Calibration demonstrated that Grobman 2007 and Metz vaginal birth after cesarean delivery models were most accurate when predicted probabilities were >60% and were beneficial for counseling women who did not desire to have vaginal birth after cesarean delivery but had a predicted success rates of 60-90%. The models underpredicted actual probabilities when predicting success at <60%. The Grobman 2007 and Metz vaginal birth after cesarean delivery models provided greatest net benefit between threshold probabilities of 60-90% but did not provide a net benefit with lower predicted probabilities of success compared with a strategy of recommending vaginal birth after cesarean delivery for all women . CONCLUSION:When 3 commonly used vaginal birth after cesarean delivery prediction models are compared in the same population, there are differences in performance that may affect an institution's choice of which model to use.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Efficacy of Non-Beta-lactam Antibiotics for Prevention of Cesarean Delivery Surgical Site Infections.
    (AJP reports, 2019-04-30) Harris, Benjamin S; Hopkins, Maeve K; Villers, Margaret S; Weber, Jeremy M; Pieper, Carl; Grotegut, Chad A; Swamy, Geeta K; Hughes, Brenna L; Heine, R Phillips
    Objective  To examine the association between perioperative Beta ( β ))-lactam versus non- β -lactam antibiotics and cesarean delivery surgical site infection (SSI). Study Design  Retrospective cohort of women undergoing cesarean delivery from January 1 to December 31, 2014. All women undergoing cesarean after 34 weeks with a postpartum visit were included. Prevalence of SSI was compared between women receiving β -lactam versus non- β -lactam antibiotics. Bivariate analyses were performed using Pearson's Chi-square, Fisher's exact, or Wilcoxon's rank-sum tests. Logistic regression models were fit controlling for possible confounders. Results  Of the 929 women included, 826 (89%) received β -lactam prophylaxis and 103 (11%) received a non- β -lactam. Among the 893 women who reported a non-type I (low risk) allergy, 819 (92%) received β -lactam prophylaxis. SSI occurred in 7% of women who received β -lactam antibiotics versus 15% of women who received a non- β -lactam ( p  = 0.004). β -Lactam prophylaxis was associated with lower odds of SSI compared with non- β -lactam antibiotics (odds ratio [OR] = 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.22-0.83; p  = 0.01) after controlling for chorioamnionitis in labor, postlabor cesarean, endometritis, tobacco use, and body mass index (BMI). Conclusion   β -Lactam perioperative prophylaxis is associated with lower odds of a cesarean delivery surgical site infection compared with non- β -lactam antibiotics.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Hormonal management of menopausal symptoms in women with a history of gynecologic malignancy.
    (Menopause (New York, N.Y.), 2020-02) Harris, Benjamin S; Bishop, Katherine C; Kuller, Jeffrey A; Ford, Anne C; Muasher, Lisa C; Cantrell, Sarah E; Price, Thomas M

    Objective

    The aim of the study was to review the role of hormone therapy in menopausal patients with breast cancer and gynecologic malignancies.

    Methods

    We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) using a combination of keywords and database-specific subject headings for the following concepts: menopause, hormone therapy, and cancer. Editorials, letters, case reports, and comments were excluded, as were non-English articles. Additional references were identified by hand-searching bibliographies of included articles. The searches yielded a total of 1,484 citations. All citations were imported into EndNote X9, where they were screened by the authors.

    Results

    In breast cancer survivors, systemic hormone therapy is not recommended, whereas local low-dose estrogen therapy may be considered after discussion with the patient's oncologist. Among endometrial cancer survivors, hormone therapy is considered safe in low-risk cancers but should be avoided in high-risk subtypes. For survivors of epithelial ovarian cancer and cervical cancer, hormone therapy can be considered, but should be avoided in women with estrogen-sensitive histologic subtypes.

    Conclusions

    The risks of hormone therapy should be assessed on an individual basis, with consideration of age, type of hormone therapy, dose, duration of use, regimen, route, and prior exposure. Systemic hormone therapy is not recommended in breast cancer survivors, whereas vaginal low-dose estrogen appears safe. Hormone therapy may be used by endometrial, cervical, and ovarian cancer survivors with low-risk, non-estrogen-receptor-positive subtypes. Video Summary: http://links.lww.com/MENO/A516.