ClinicalTrials.gg
TerminatedNCT05603624Updated Aug 25, 2023

Effect of Sterile Versus Clean Gloves Intrapartum and Postpartum Infections at Term

An interventional study of Cervical examination to assess labor in Chorioamnionitis, Intrauterine Infection and Postpartum Endometritis, sponsored by Eastern Virginia Medical School. Terminated at 1 site in United States. Open to female participants aged 18 Years to 50 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2023-08-25.

Sponsored by Eastern Virginia Medical School · Not applicable, Interventional, and Prevention

Why this study was terminated
Futility due to sample size needed to prove superiority and lack of difference in outcomes between intervention and control group.

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 1 year 1 month after the study started (first participant enrolled Sep 2021, registered Oct 2022).
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
163
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 50 Years
Sex
Female
01

Study summary

This prospective randomized controlled study examines whether the type of glove used (sterile vs clean) for cervical examination to assess progression in labor impacts the rates of intrapartum and/or postpartum infection in patients during labor or induction of labor at term.

Read the detailed description

Introduction The vaginal microbiota consists of a wide array of possible bacteria including species Ureaplasma, Listeria, Lactobacillus, Atopbium, Megasphaera, Leptotrichia, Peptostreptococcus, Prevotella, Diphtheria, Escherichia, Klebsiella, Enterobacter, Proteus, Pseudomonas, Gardnerella, Staphylococcus, and Streptococcus.1,2 However, the uterus is thought to be much less diverse in flora and possibly sterile, especially in the setting of pregnancy.3 Thickening of the cervical mucus functions as a buffer to prevent the polymicrobial vaginal bacteria from ascending into the uterus in pregnancy. Intraamniotic or intrauterine infections (IAI), also known as chorioamnionitis, are thought to occur most frequently from an ascending infection from the lower genital tract into the uterine cavity.4 IAI usually warrants immediate delivery and impacts 5 - 12% of term pregnancies, with the most commonly identified pathogenic species being Ureaplasma.5-7 IAI carries significant neonatal morbidity including increased risk for neonatal pneumonia, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, poor neonatal growth, dermatitis, necrotizing enterocolitis, retinopathy of prematurity, cerebral palsy, meningitis, sepsis, and death.4,7 When performing cervical examinations during labor, providers in the United States commonly use a sterile glove to examine dilation and effacement of the cervix and station of the fetal head, although there are no data currently to support that this practice reduces rates of infection. Even though the uterus could be sterile in normal pregnancies, the provider performing the cervical examination must traverse the milieu of diverse vaginal bacteria in order to reach the cervix to perform the exam, introducing vaginal microbiota into the uterus. Despite this, it is unclear if the number of cervical examinations impacts risk of infection, especially before rupture of membranes (ROM).8,9 Common risk factors for IAI acknowledged by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) include excessive number of cervical examinations (especially after rupture of membranes), cervical insufficiency, internal fetal heart rate or uterine contraction monitors, intracervical balloon catheters for induction of labor, urogenital pathogens (sexually transmitted infections (STI), group B streptococcus (GBS) colonization, bacterial vaginosis), nulliparity, alcohol and tobacco use in pregnancy, and meconium-stained amniotic fluid.4 Nevertheless, some of these factors are also associated with longer duration of labor, rupture of membranes, and more cervical examinations, so they may not be independently associated with IAI.8,10 The theory behind IAI, assuming there are no other sources of maternal infection present elsewhere that could be introduced into the uterus or passed through the placenta, is that an infection ascends from the vagina into the intrauterine or intraamniotic space to cause the infection. We hypothesize that the type of glove used for examination should not impact rates of intrapartum or postpartum infection since the glove, whether originally sterile or not, would have to pass through the unsterile vagina to reach the cervix to perform the cervical examination. This prospective randomized controlled study examines whether the type of glove used (sterile vs clean) impacts the rates of IAI in patients receiving cervical examinations during labor or induction of labor at term.

Methods Patients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria below provided written informed consent to participate in the study after admission to labor and delivery at the single institution tertiary care referral center for this study. Any cervical examinations performed prior to the patient being consented to participate in the study were not included, such as if performed in the office or in the triage area, prior to admission.

This study followed the format of a randomized prospective cohort study where eligible and consented participants were randomized to receive all cervical examinations with sterile powder-free polyvinyl chloride exam gloves (current routine practice, control group) or clean powder-free nitrile exam gloves (nonsterile, experimental group). Neither the clinical providers performing the exam nor the participants were blinded to the glove type used, however, the researchers did not know which glove type was used while completing the retrospective data collection and analysis. All other obstetrical care provided to the participants was per ACOG guidelines and the only changes made to their care was the type of glove used for this study.

Interested participants were eligible to participate if their pregnancy was at term (37w0d to 41w6d gestational age), if their amniotic membranes were intact on admission, if they were presenting in spontaneous labor or were to undergo induction of labor, and if they were attempting for a vaginal delivery initially, even if the final delivery method was by cesarean section. Participants were excluded if they were preterm (before 37w0d gestational age), postdates (after 41w6d gestational age), with ruptured membranes or premature rupture of membranes on admission, in preterm labor, with the diagnosis of chorioamnionitis or any intrauterine infection, with extrauterine infection that would compromise the diagnosis of intrauterine infection (e.g., COVID, upper respiratory infections, urinary tract infections, cellulitis, appendicitis, etc.), experiencing an immunocompromised state (e.g., human immunodeficiency virus, congenital syndromes, transplant recipient, or immunosuppressant use), with uncertainty of their gestational age or no prenatal care, with an intrauterine fetal demise, or requesting a termination of the pregnancy. Twin or multigestational pregnancies were not excluded, however, only singleton pregnancies consented to participate in the study.

The primary outcome of the study was the proportion of participants in each glove group who experienced intraamniotic or intrauterine infection or chorioamnionitis or intrapartum infection, these terms are used interchangeably for the purposes of this study. The diagnostic criteria for intraamniotic/intrauterine infection followed the ACOG committee opinion 7124 on the topic, listed below for reference:

Patients must have fever >39.0*C (102.2F) ONE TIME without need to recheck temperature in the presence of no other identifiable source of fever OR

Fever of 38.0 - 38.9*C (100.4 - 102.02F) on two or more measurements that are at least 30 minutes apart without another clear source PLUS one or more of the following:

  • Baseline fetal heart rate >160 beats/min for ≥10 minutes, excluding accelerations, decelerations, and periods of marked variability.
  • Maternal white cell (WBC) count >15,000/mm\^3 in the absence of corticosteroids and ideally showing a left shift (bandemia).
  • Purulent-appearing fluid coming from the cervical os visualized by speculum examination.

The study's secondary outcomes and other data recorded included:

Rates of endometritis, maternal age, gravida, parity, induction of labor (IOL) method (foley balloon, cook catheter or cervical ripening balloon, Cytotec (misoprostol), Pitocin (oxytocin), Dilapan, Cervidil), artificial or spontaneous rupture of membrane time (AROM and SROM respectively), time of first cervical exam, number of documented cervical exams, delivery time, delivery method (cesarean section vs vaginal delivery), operative delivery (forceps or vacuum), postpartum hemorrhage (qualitative blood loss > 1000 mL), GBS colonization, gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM or T2DM, respectively), genitourinary infections (urinary tract infections (UTI), pyelonephritis, gonorrhea (Gc), chlamydia (Ch), trichomonas (Tr), or pelvic inflammatory disease), tobacco/alcohol/drug use in pregnancy, meconium stained fluid, intrauterine pressure catheter (IUPC) use, fetal scalp electrode (FSE) use, epidural use, length of IOL (first cervical exam to delivery time), starting dilation, initial white blood cell (WBC) level on presentation, initial maternal temperature, highest maternal temperature, initial maternal heart rate (HR), highest maternal HR, and fetal tachycardia, if present and noted in the maternal chart.

Participants were considered GBS colonized if they had a positive rectovaginal culture by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) during routine prenatal care. All patients with a GBS positive status received antibiotics per ACOG recommendations. GBS negative or participants that did not have a GBS rectovaginal culture were not considered GBS colonized in this study to help distinguish those participants receiving antibiotics in labor.

Statistical analysis and sample size:

Given that the estimated rates of IAI in term pregnancy is estimated to be between 5-12%, weekly analysis was performed to ensure that interim rates of infection did not exceed 20%, which is double the median expected rate at term and would warrant discontinuation of the study. Data was collected in a deidentified manner from chart review and input into a REDCap database for analysis. The study was approved by the Eastern Virginia Medical School Institutional Review Board under IRB 21-09-FB-0206.

Descriptive statistics were used to describe the demographic and baseline characteristics of each cohort. Independent group comparisons were used to assure that the randomization resulted in equal groups at baseline. Continuous variables were compared with a two-sample independent group t test for normally distributed data or by Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test for non-normally distributed continuous variables. For categorical variables, the two groups were compared by Chi square test or Fisher exact test based on expected cell size.

02

Conditions studied

  • Chorioamnionitis
  • Intrauterine Infection
  • Postpartum Endometritis
  • Puerperal Infection

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Sterile glove
  • Clean glove
  • Glove type
  • Intraamniotic infection
  • Cervical examination
  • Sterile vaginal examination
  • Intrapartum infection
  • Postpartum infection
03

In context

Chorioamnionitis

39 studies on the registry are indexed under Chorioamnionitis; 9 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 163 is close to the median of 157 across 22 interventional studies indexed under Chorioamnionitis.

Browse Chorioamnionitis studies →

Lead sponsor

Eastern Virginia Medical School is the lead sponsor of 56 studies on the registry; 8 are open to participants now.

Of its 9 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 1 (11%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 50 Years
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Between 18 and 50 years old
  • Term pregnancy (37w0d to 41w6d gestational age)
  • Amniotic membranes were intact on admission
  • Patient presenting in spontaneous labor or were to undergo induction of labor
  • Patient attempting for a vaginal delivery initially, even if the final delivery method was by cesarean section

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Preterm pregnancy (before 37w0d gestational age)
  • Postdate pregnancy (after 41w6d gestational age)
  • Ruptured membranes or premature rupture of membranes on admission
  • Patient being evaluated for preterm labor
  • Patient has diagnosis of chorioamnionitis or any intrauterine infection
  • Patient has an extrauterine infection that would compromise the diagnosis of intrauterine infection (e.g., COVID, upper respiratory infections, urinary tract infections, cellulitis, appendicitis, etc.)
  • Patient experiencing an state (e.g., , congenital syndromes, transplant recipient, or immunosuppressant use)
  • Patient with uncertainty of their gestational age and/or no prenatal care
  • Patient with an intrauterine fetal demise
  • Patient requesting a termination of the pregnancy
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(2)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Immunosuppression

A weakened immune system. It can come from an illness, such as HIV or some blood cancers, or from medicines that turn the immune system down, for example after an organ transplant or for an autoimmune disease; steroids at higher doses count.

Read whether the line is about a condition or about medicines, and which medicines and doses it means.

HIV

The human immunodeficiency virus, which weakens the immune system.

Many studies now accept people whose HIV is controlled on treatment, judged by the viral load and the CD4 count. Check the limits this study sets.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Prevention
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
163 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Sterile glove

    Sterile glove is usually the standard of care

    Procedure: Cervical examination to assess labor

  • Experimental
    Clean glove

    Clean glove is usually not used or in the event of an emergency or lack of access to sterile gloves in the United States.

    Procedure: Cervical examination to assess labor

Interventions

  • ProcedureCervical examination to assess labor

    Patients were randomized to receive cervical examinations to assess progression in labor with either sterile or clean gloves.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Chorioamnionitis or intraamniotic or intrauterine infection

    As defined by ACOG committee opinion 712

    Time frame: Through study completion, usually withing 72 hours after admission to labor and delivery

Secondary outcomes

  1. Postpartum endometritis

    As defined by ACOG committee opinion 712

    Time frame: Through study completion, usually withing 72 hours after admission to labor and delivery

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Eastern Virginia Medical School
    Norfolk, Virginia 23507, United States
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Lamont RF, Sobel JD, Akins RA, Hassan SS, Chaiworapongsa T, Kusanovic JP, Romero R. The vaginal microbiome: new information about genital tract flora using molecular based techniques. BJOG. 2011 Apr;118(5):533-49. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02840.x. Epub 2011 Jan 20. PubMed 21251190 ↗
  • Larsen B, Monif GR. Understanding the bacterial flora of the female genital tract. Clin Infect Dis. 2001 Feb 15;32(4):e69-77. doi: 10.1086/318710. Epub 2001 Feb 9. PubMed 11181139 ↗
  • Perez-Munoz ME, Arrieta MC, Ramer-Tait AE, Walter J. A critical assessment of the "sterile womb" and "in utero colonization" hypotheses: implications for research on the pioneer infant microbiome. Microbiome. 2017 Apr 28;5(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s40168-017-0268-4. PubMed 28454555 ↗
  • Committee Opinion No. 712: Intrapartum Management of Intraamniotic Infection. Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Aug;130(2):e95-e101. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002236. PubMed 28742677 ↗
  • Rouse DJ, Landon M, Leveno KJ, Leindecker S, Varner MW, Caritis SN, O'Sullivan MJ, Wapner RJ, Meis PJ, Miodovnik M, Sorokin Y, Moawad AH, Mabie W, Conway D, Gabbe SG, Spong CY; National Institute of Child Health And Human Development, Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. The Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units cesarean registry: chorioamnionitis at term and its duration-relationship to outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Jul;191(1):211-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.03.003. PubMed 15295368 ↗
  • Sweeney EL, Dando SJ, Kallapur SG, Knox CL. The Human Ureaplasma Species as Causative Agents of Chorioamnionitis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2016 Dec 14;30(1):349-379. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00091-16. Print 2017 Jan. PubMed 27974410 ↗
  • Cahill AG, Duffy CR, Odibo AO, Roehl KA, Zhao Q, Macones GA. Number of cervical examinations and risk of intrapartum maternal fever. Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jun;119(6):1096-101. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318256ce3f. PubMed 22617572 ↗
  • Gluck O, Mizrachi Y, Ganer Herman H, Bar J, Kovo M, Weiner E. The correlation between the number of vaginal examinations during active labor and febrile morbidity, a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020 Apr 25;20(1):246. doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-02925-9. PubMed 32334543 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — If contacted, can share deidentified participant data.

Supporting information: Study protocol, Statistical analysis plan, Informed consent form, Clinical study report, Analytic code

Time frame: After analysis and upon request; for undetermined amount of time.

Access criteria: If contacted, can share deidentified participant data.

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reached

Ran from Sep 2021 to primary completion in Sep 2022, 11 months.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Oct 28, 2022
First posted
Nov 2, 2022
StartActual
Sep 2, 2021
Primary completionActual
Sep 1, 2022
CompletionActual
Sep 1, 2022
Last update
Aug 25, 2023
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Aug 25, 2023, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT05603624
Lead sponsor
Eastern Virginia Medical School
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Nov 2, 2022
Start date
Sep 2, 2021
Primary completion
Sep 1, 2022
Completion
Sep 1, 2022
Last update
Aug 25, 2023

Study contacts

Stacy Slat, MD
principal investigator · Eastern Virginia Medical School

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is terminated, as verified in Aug 2023. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion