| Literature DB >> 27085320 |
Sophie Pils1, Wolfgang Eppel1, Regina Promberger2, Max-Paul Winter3, Rudolf Seemann4, Johannes Ott5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are few valid predictors for preterm delivery after cerclage. Experience with a screening program that included four sequential cervical length measurements in singleton pregnancies after cerclage is reviewed.Entities:
Keywords: Cerclage; Cervical insufficiency; Cervical length; Delivery; Preterm delivery
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27085320 PMCID: PMC4833952 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-016-0866-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.007
Basic patient characteristics: comparison of the analysed study population and patients lost to follow-up
| Analzyed patients | Lost to follow-up |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | |||
| Age (years)c | 31 (29;36) | 32 (27;38) | 0.828 | |
| Body mass index (kg/m2)c | 24.1 (20.9; 28.5) | 22.2 (21.1;26.4) | 0.604 | |
| Previous preterm deliveryd | 40 (45.5) | 15 (45.5) | 1.000 | |
| Previous second trimester miscarriaged | 59 (67.0) | 20 (60.6) | 0.508 | |
| Previous conizationd | 15 (17.0) | 4 (12.1) | 0.587 | |
| Pregnancy after IVF treatmentd | 5 (5.7) | 4 (12.1) | 0.254 | |
| Urinary tract infection during pregnancyd | 2 (2.3) | 3 (9.1) | 0.124 | |
| Parity | 0 | 19 (21.6) | 8 (24.2) | 0.932 |
| 1 | 31 (35.2) | 11 (33.3) | ||
| ≥2 | 38 (43.2) | 14 (42.4) | ||
| Cigarette smokingd | 15 (17.0) | 3 (9.1) | 0.392 | |
| Gestational age at cerclagec | 16 (16;18) | 16 (16;18) | 0.496 | |
Fig. 1Dynamics in cervical lengths in the course of routine screening in women with (n = 24, white dots) and without early preterm delivery (n = 64, black dots). All women - regardless of cerclage indication - are included. The group of women with early preterm delivery includes those with a second trimester miscarriage. Gestational age is plotted on the x-axis
Prediction of early preterm delivery in women who had undergone cerclage for cervical shortening. Results of the univariate and multivariate analysis
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delivery <35 week ( | Delivery ≥35 week ( | OR (95 % CI)a | P | P | Adjusted OR (95 % CI) a | P | P | ||
| (Wald’s test) | (LR test)b | (Wald’s test) | (LR test)b | ||||||
| Age (years)c | 33 (27;38) | 31 (29;36) | 1.01 (0.92,1.12) | 0.758 | 0.757 | - | - | - | |
| Body mass index (kg/m2)c | 24.8 (21.0; 30.4) | 23.2 (20.2;27.2) | 1.09 (0.96,1.23) | 0.189 | 0.183 | - | - | - | |
| Previous preterm deliveryd | 7 (36.8) | 22 (59.5) | 0.4 (0.13,1.24) | 0.113 | 0.107 | - | - | - | |
| Previous second trimester miscarriaged | 13 (68.4) | 20 (54.1) | 1.84 (0.58,5.9) | 0.304 | 0.297 | - | - | - | |
| Previous conizationd | 3 (15.8) | 9 (24.3) | 0.33 (0.09,1.21) | 0.094 | 0.072 | - | - | - | |
| Pregnancy after IVF treatmentd | 3 (15.8) | 2 (5.4) | 3.28 (0.5,21.6) | 0.217 | 0.211 | - | - | - | |
| Urinary tract infection during pregnancyd | 0 (0) | 1 (2.7) | 0 (0,Inf) | 0.992 | 0.360 | - | - | - | |
| Parityc | 0 | 8 (42.1) | 4 (10.8) | reference | reference | 0.292 | - | - | - |
| 1 | 6 (31.6) | 15 (40.5) | 0.33 (0.02;5.03) | 0.427 | - | - | - | ||
| ≥2 | 5 (26.3) | 18 (48.6) | 0 (0;inf) | 0.996 | - | - | - | ||
| Cigarette smokingd | 3 (15.8) | 7 (18.9) | 0.8 (0.18,3.54) | 0.772 | 0.770 | - | - | - | |
| Gestational age at cerclagec | 16 (16;18) | 16 (16;18) | 1.14 (0.66,1.96) | 0.634 | 0.633 | - | - | - | |
| CLe before cerclage (mm)c | 17 (14;20) | 23 (17;24) | 0.89 (0.8,0.99) |
|
| 0.98 (0.86,1.13) | 0.808 | 0.809 | |
| CLe after cerclage (mm)c | 14 (9;19) | 27 (22;32) | 0.82 (0.74,0.91) |
|
| 0.85 (0.73,0.99) | 0.041 |
| |
| Decrease in CLe after cerclaged | 13 (68.4) | 7 (18.9) | 9.29 (2.61,33.06) |
|
| Not included due to redundancy | |||
| CLe at the 20 gestational week (mm)c | 16 (10;23) | 24 (21;31) | 0.84 (0.76,0.93) | 0.001 |
| 0.98 (0.82,1.16) | 0.803 | 0.803 | |
| CLe at the 22 gestational week (mm)c | 15 (5;23) | 20 (16;29) | 0.89 (0.83;0.97) | 0.007 |
| 0.97 (0.87,1.08) | 0.595 | 0.593 | |
a OR (95 % CI) = odds ratio (95 % confidence interval), b LR test = likelihood ratio test, c Continuous variable, provided in median (interquartile range); d nominal variable, provided in n (%); e CL = cervical length; f Italic letters indicate statistical significance; g despite its significant predictive value in the univariate analysis, the parameter “cervical length before cerclage” was not included in the multivariate model due to its co-linear association with the parameter “cervical length after cerclage” that was more predictive in the univariate analysis
Prediction of early preterm delivery in women who had undergone cerclage regardless of cervical length. Results of the univariate and multivariate analysis
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delivery <35 week ( | Delivery ≥35 week ( | OR (95 % CI)a | P | P | Adjusted OR (95 % CI) a | P | P | ||
| (Wald’s test) | (LR test)b | (Wald’s test) | (LR test)b | ||||||
| Age (years)c | 31 (29;39) | 31 (29;35) | 1.09 (0.89;1.34) | 0.413 | 0.401 | - | - | - | |
| Body mass index (kg/m2)c | 23.2 (19.6;24.4) | 25.7 (21.4;29.4) | 0.84 (0.65;1.09) | 0.191 | 0.124 | - | - | - | |
| Previous preterm deliveryd | 2 (40.0) | 9 (33.3) | 1.33 (0.19;9.47) | 0.774 | 0.775 | - | - | - | |
| Previous second trimester miscarriaged | 4 (80) | 22 (81.5) | 1.27 (0.10;34.76) | 1.000 | 1.000 | - | - | - | |
| Previous conizationd | 1 (20.0) | 2 (7.4) | 3.12 (0.23,43.02) | 0.394 | 0.420 | - | - | - | |
| Pregnancy after IVF treatmentd | 0 | 0 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Urinary tract infection during pregnancyd | 0 | 1 (3.7) | 0 (0;inf) | 0.995 | 0.557 | - | - | - | |
| Parityd | 0 | 2 (40.0) | 5 (18.5) | 0.63 (0.19,2.06) | 0.447 | 0.583 | - | - | - |
| 1 | 1 (20.0) | 9 (33.3) | 0.28 (0.02;3.88) | 0.341 | - | - | - | ||
| ≥2 | 2 (40.0) | 13 (48.2) | 0.38 (0.04;3.52) | 0.398 | - | - | - | ||
| Cigarette smokingd | 1 (20.0) | 4 (14.8) | 1.44 (0.13;16.41) | 0.770 | 0.750 | - | - | - | |
| Gestational age at cerclagec | 15 (14;18) | 16 (14;17) | 1.02 (0.58;1.82) | 0.941 | 0.942 | - | - | - | |
| CLe before cerclage (mm)c | 33 (31;35) | 37 (34;40) | 0.82 (0.65;1.04) | 0.098 |
| 1.06 (0.95,1.19) | 0.283 | 0.260 | |
| CLe after cerclage (mm)c | 30 (19;33) | 42 (35;47) | 0.72 (0.51;1.01) | 0.055 |
| 0.85 (0.75;0.96) | 0.007 |
| |
| Decrease in CLe after cerclaged | 4 (80.0) | 5 (18.5) | 17.6 (1.60;193.34) | 0.019 |
| Not included due to redundancy | |||
| CLe at the 20 gestational week (mm)c | 30 (19;31) | 40 (29;45) | 0.91 (0.83;1.01) | 0.069 |
| 1.01 (0.90:1.14) | 0.875 | 0.876 | |
| CLe at the 22 gestational week (mm)c | 19 (12;25) | 38 (26;43) | 0.89 (0.79;0.99) | 0.049 |
| 0.94 (0.86;1.03) | 0.170 | 0.157 | |
a OR (95 % CI) = odds ratio (95 % confidence interval), b LR test = likelihood ratio test, c Continuous variable, provided in median (interquartile range); d nominal variable, provided in n (%); e CL = cervical length; f Italic letters indicate statistical significance; g despite its significant predictive value in the univariate analysis, the parameter “cervical length before cerclage” was not included in the multivariate model due to its co-linear association with the parameter “cervical length after cerclage” that was more predictive in the univariate analysis