Cervical cerclage in combination with other treatments for preventing preterm birth in singleton pregnancies

Prevalence and associated factors of recurrent pregnancy loss in Nigeria according to different national and international criteria (ASRM/ESHRE vs. WHO/RCOG)

Background

In low-and middle-income countries, no conclusive research explains the prevalence and associated factors of women with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). Some authorities have recommended further scientific research on the effect of various definitions of RPL.

Objective

To assess prevalence and associated factors of RPL among pregnant women in Nigeria according to different national and international criteria: the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/ European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ASRM/ESHRE; two losses) and the World Health Organization/ Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (WHO/RCOG; three consecutive losses) criteria.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional analytical study wherein, pregnant women with prior RPL were investigated. The outcome measures were prevalence and risk factors. The associations between independent variables and outcome variable were explored using bivariate and multivariable logistic regression models. The results of these analyses were reported as adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Factors associated with RPL were identified using multivariate regression models.

Result

Of the 378 pregnant women interviewed, the overall prevalence of RPL in this study was found to be 15.34% (95% confidence interval = 11.65%-19.84%). The prevalence of RPL was 15.34% (58/378; 95%CI = 11.65%-19.84%) and 5.29% (20/378; 95%CI = 3.23%-8.17) according to the ASRM and the WHO criterion respectively. Regardless of diagnostic criteria, unexplained (AOR = 23.04; 95%CI: 11.46-36.32), endocrine disturbances (AOR = 9.76; 95%CI: 1.61-63.19), uterine abnormalities (AOR = 13.57; 95%CI: 3.54-50.60), and antiphospholipid syndrome (AOR = 24.59; 95%CI: 8.45-71.04) were positively and independently associated with RPL. No significant risk factors were seen when the ASRM/ ESHRE criterion vs. WHO/RCOG criterion were compared. Advanced maternal age was significantly higher in secondary than in primary type of RPL.

Conclusion

The prevalence of RPL was 15.34% and 5.29% according to ASRM/ESHRE and WHO/RCOG criterion respectively, with secondary type predominating. No significant differences with regard to risk factors were seen according to diagnostic criteria studied, though advanced maternal age was significantly higher in secondary RPL. Further research is needed to confirm our findings and to better characterize the magnitude of differences.

Cervical stitch (cerclage) in combination with other treatments for preventing spontaneous preterm birth in singleton pregnancies

BACKGROUND

Preterm birth (PTB) remains the foremost global cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Thus, the prevention of spontaneous PTB still remains of critical importance. In an attempt to prevent PTB in singleton pregnancies, cervical cerclage, in combination with other treatments, has been advocated. This is because, cervical cerclage is an intervention that is commonly recommended in women with a short cervix at high risk of preterm birth but, despite this, many women still deliver prematurely, as the biological mechanism is incompletely understood. Additionally, previous Cochrane Reviews have been published on the effectiveness of cervical cerclage in singleton and multiple pregnancies, however, none has evaluated the effectiveness of using cervical cerclage in combination with other treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether antibiotics administration, vaginal pessary, reinforcing or second cerclage placement, tocolytic, progesterone, or other interventions at the time of cervical cerclage placement prolong singleton gestation in women at high risk of pregnancy loss based on prior history and/or ultrasound finding of 'short cervix' and/or physical examination. History-indicated cerclage is defined as a cerclage placed usually between 12 and 15 weeks gestation based solely on poor prior obstetrical history, e.g. multiple second trimester losses due to painless dilatation. Ultrasound-indicated cerclage is defined as a cerclage placed usually between 16 and 23 weeks gestation for transvaginal ultrasound cervical length < 20 mm in a woman without cervical dilatation. Physical exam-indicated cerclage is defined as a cerclage placed usually between 16 and 23 weeks gestation because of cervical dilatation of one or more centimetres detected on physical (manual) examination.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (26 September 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published, unpublished or ongoing randomised controlled trial (RCTs). Studies using a cluster-RCT design were also eligible for inclusion in this review but none were identified. We excluded quasi-RCTs (e.g. those randomised by date of birth or hospital number) and studies using a cross-over design. We also excluded studies that specified addition of the combination therapy after cervical cerclage because the woman subsequently became symptomatic. We included studies comparing cervical cerclage in combination with one, two or more interventions with cervical cerclage alone in singleton pregnancies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of all retrieved articles, selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and evaluated the certainty of the evidence for this review's main outcomes. Data were checked for accuracy. Standard Cochrane review methods were used throughout.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two studies (involving a total of 73 women) comparing cervical cerclage alone to a different comparator. We also identified three ongoing studies (one investigating vaginal progesterone after cerclage, and two investigating cerclage plus pessary). One study (20 women), conducted in the UK, comparing cervical cerclage in combination with a tocolytic (salbutamol) with cervical cerclage alone in women with singleton pregnancy did not provide any useable data for this review. The other study (involving 53 women, with data from 50 women) took place in the USA and compared cervical cerclage in combination with a tocolytic (indomethacin) and antibiotics (cefazolin or clindamycin) versus cervical cerclage alone - this study did provide useable data for this review (and the study authors also provided additional data on request) but meta-analyses were not possible. This study was generally at a low risk of bias, apart from issues relating to blinding. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for serious risk of bias and imprecision (few participants, few events and wide 95% confidence intervals). Cervical cerclage in combination with an antibiotic and tocolytic versus cervical cerclage alone (one study, 50 women/babies) We are unclear about the effect of cervical cerclage in combination with antibiotics and a tocolytic compared with cervical cerclage alone on the risk of serious neonatal morbidity (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.24; very low-certainty evidence); perinatal loss (data for miscarriage and stillbirth only - data not available for neonatal death) (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.64; very low-certainty evidence) or preterm birth < 34 completed weeks of pregnancy (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.40; very low-certainty evidence). There were no stillbirths (intrauterine death at 24 or more weeks). The trial authors did not report on the numbers of babies discharged home healthy (without obvious pathology) or on the risk of neonatal death.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is insufficient evidence to evaluate the effect of combining a tocolytic (indomethacin) and antibiotics (cefazolin/clindamycin) with cervical cerclage compared with cervical cerclage alone for preventing spontaneous PTB in women with singleton pregnancies. Future studies should recruit sufficient numbers of women to provide meaningful results and should measure neonatal death and numbers of babies discharged home healthy, as well as other important outcomes listed in this review. We did not identify any studies looking at other treatments in combination with cervical cerclage. Future research needs to focus on the role of other interventions such as vaginal support pessary, reinforcing or second cervical cerclage placement, 17-alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate or dydrogesterone or vaginal micronised progesterone, omega-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation and bed rest.