Cervical Pessary for Preventing Preterm Birth in Singleton Pregnancies With Short Cervical Length: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Current options for mechanical prevention of preterm birth

Cervical insufficiency can be defined by a combination of obstetric history, cervical dilation on exam, and/or short cervical length in women with prior preterm birth. Options for mechanical intervention include cerclage and pessary. There is evidence to support the benefit of a cervical cerclage in women with singleton gestations who have a diagnosis of cervical insufficiency either based on second trimester painless cervical dilatation leading to recurrent early preterm births, or a history of early spontaneous preterm birth and a second trimester transvaginal ultrasound short cervical length or cervical dilation on exam. For women with multiple gestations, the benefit of a cerclage is uncertain, and further study is warranted. The pessary has also been studied for mechanical prevention of preterm birth in various populations, however the results so far have been mixed and warrants further study prior to routine use.

Cerclage for sonographic short cervix in singleton gestations without prior spontaneous preterm birth: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials using individual patient-level data

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to quantify the efficacy of cervical cerclage in preventing preterm birth (PTB) in asymptomatic singleton pregnancies with a short mid-trimester cervical length (CL) on transvaginal sonography (TVS) and without prior spontaneous PTB.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched from inception of each database until February 2017. No language restrictions were applied. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of asymptomatic singleton pregnancies without prior spontaneous PTB, found to have short CL < 25 mm on mid-trimester TVS and then randomized to management with either cerclage or no cerclage, were included. Corresponding authors of all the included trials were contacted to obtain access to the data and perform a meta-analysis of individual patient-level data. Data provided by the investigators were merged into a master database constructed specifically for the review. Primary outcome was PTB < 35 weeks. Summary measures were reported as relative risk (RR) with 95% CI. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Five RCTs, including 419 asymptomatic singleton gestations with TVS-CL < 25 mm and without prior spontaneous PTB, were analyzed. In women who were randomized to the cerclage group compared with those in the control group, no statistically significant differences were found in PTB < 35 (21.9% vs 27.7%; RR, 0.88 (95% CI 0.63-1.23); I²  = 0%; five studies, 419 participants), < 34, < 32, < 28 and < 24 weeks, gestational age at delivery, preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM) and neonatal outcomes. In women who received cerclage compared with those who did not, planned subgroup analyses revealed a significantly lower rate of PTB < 35 weeks in women with TVS-CL < 10 mm (39.5% vs 58.0%; RR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.47-0.98); I²  = 0%; five studies; 126 participants) and in women who received tocolytics (17.5% vs 32.7%; RR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.31-0.93); I²  = 0%; four studies; 169 participants) or antibiotics (18.3% vs 31.5%; RR, 0.58 (95% CI, 0.33-0.98); I²  = 0%; three studies; 163 participants) as additional therapy to cerclage. The quality of evidence was downgraded two levels because of serious imprecision and indirectness, and therefore was judged as low.

CONCLUSIONS

In singleton gestations without prior spontaneous PTB but with TVS-CL < 25 mm in the second trimester, cerclage does not seem to prevent preterm delivery or improve neonatal outcome. However, in these pregnancies, cerclage seems to be efficacious at lower CLs, such as < 10 mm, and when tocolytics or antibiotics are used as additional therapy, requiring further studies in these subgroups. Given the low quality of evidence, further well-designed RCTs are needed to confirm the findings of this study. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Interventions for treating hyperemesis gravidarum: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

While nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy are very common, affecting approximately 80% of the pregnancies, hyperemesis gravidarum is a severe form affecting 0.3-1.0% of the pregnancies. Although hyperemesis gravidarum is rarely a source of mortality, it is a significant source of morbidity. It is one of the most common indications for hospitalization in pregnancy. Beyond the maternal and fetal consequences of malnutrition, the severity of hyperemesis symptoms causes a major psychosocial burden leading to depression, anxiety, and even pregnancy termination. The aim of this meta-analysis was to examine all randomized controlled trials of interventions specifically for hyperemesis gravidarum and evaluate them based on both subjective and objective measures of efficacy, maternal and fetal/neonatal safety, and economic costs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Randomized controlled trials were identified by searching electronic databases. We included all randomized controlled trials for the treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum. The primary outcome was intervention efficacy as defined by severity, reduction, or cessation in nausea/vomiting; number of episodes of emesis; and days of hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included other measures of intervention efficacy, adverse maternal/fetal/neonatal outcomes, quality of life measures, and economic costs.

RESULTS

Twenty-five trials (2052 women) met the inclusion criteria but the majority of 18 different comparisons described in the review include data from single studies with small numbers of participants. Selected comparisons reported below: No primary outcome data were available when acupuncture was compared with placebo. There was insufficient evidence to identify clear differences between acupuncture and metoclopramide in a study with 81 participants regarding reduction/cessation in nausea or vomiting (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% CI 0.79-2.49 and RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.92-2.48, respectively). Midwife-led outpatient care was associated with fewer hours of hospital admission than routine inpatient admission (mean difference (MD) - 33.20, 95% CI -46.91 to -19.49) with no difference in pregnancy-unique quantification of emesis and nausea (PUQE) score, decision to terminate the pregnancy, miscarriage, small-for-gestational age infants, or time off work when compared with routine care. Women taking vitamin B6 had a slightly longer hospital stay compared with placebo (MD 0.80 days, 95% CI 0.08-1.52). There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a difference in other outcomes including mean number of episodes of emesis (MD 0.50, 95% CI -0.40-1.40) or side effects. A comparison between metoclopramide and ondansetron identified no clear difference in the severity of nausea or vomiting (MD 1.70, 95% CI -0.15-3.55, and MD -0.10, 95% CI -1.63-1.43; one study, 83 women, respectively). However, more women taking metoclopramide complained of drowsiness and dry mouth (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.23-4.69, and RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.10-5.11, respectively). There were no clear differences between groups for other side effects. In a single study with 146 participants comparing metoclopramide with promethazine, more women taking promethazine reported drowsiness, dizziness, and dystonia (risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.56-0.87, RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34-0.69, and RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11-0.90, respectively). There were no clear differences between groups for other important outcomes including quality of life and other side effects. In a single trial with 30 women, those receiving ondansetron had no difference in duration of hospital admission compared to those receiving promethazine (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -1.39-1.39), although there was increased sedation with promethazine (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.00-0.94). Regarding corticosteroids, in a study with 110 participants there was no difference in days of hospital admission compared to placebo (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.70-0.10), but there was a decreased readmission rate (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.94; 4 studies, 269 women). For hydrocortisone compared with metoclopramide, no data were available for primary outcomes and there was no difference in the readmission rate (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00-1.28; one study, 40 women). In a study with 80 women, compared to promethazine, those receiving prednisolone had increased nausea at 48 h (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.08-3.72), but not at 17 days (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.58-1.15). There was no clear difference in the number of episodes of emesis or subjective improvement in nausea/vomiting.

CONCLUSIONS

While there were a wide range of interventions studied, both pharmaceutical and otherwise, there were a limited number of placebo controlled trials. In comparing the efficacy of the commonly used antiemetics, metoclopramide, ondansetron, and promethazine, the results of this review do not support the clear superiority of one over the other in symptomatic relief. Other factors such as side effect profile medication safety and healthcare costs should also be considered when selecting an intervention.