| Literature DB >> 35931999 |
Piengbulan Yapan1, Prapat Wanitpongpan2, Nawiya Sripang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preterm labour prediction has been relied on history of previous preterm birth and cervical length of current pregnancy. However, universal cervical length measurement has some limitation. We aim to find a surrogate marker of cervical length to close the gap in preterm prevention program and lower uterine wall thickness seems promising. We generate the nomogram of lower uterine wall thickness during 18-22 weeks of gestation and evaluate the accuracy of LUW thickness as a predictor of preterm delivery before 37 weeks.Entities:
Keywords: Lower uterine wall thickness; Prediction; Pregnancy; Preterm labour
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35931999 PMCID: PMC9354291 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-022-04902-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.105
Fig. 1The measurement of the LUW thickness. a An ultrasound transducer was placed in sagittal plane just above the pubic symphysis to visualize the urinary bladder, cervix with visible cervical canal, and LUW. b The picture was enlarged until LUW and the urinary bladder occupied the majority of the screen. c A virtual red dashed line was drawn in horizontal plane between the dome of urinary bladder and LUW to mark a point for measurement. The yellow line represented the peritoneum that covered the LUW. d The calipers were placed in inner-to-inner fashion to measure the LUW thickness
Fig. 2Flowchart summarizing the process of the study
Characteristics of the participants (n = 500)
| Term Delivery ( | Preterm Delivery ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 29.5 ± 6.5 | 30.3 ± 6.4 | 0.413a | ||
| 18-24.9 | 117 (26.8) | 21.3 ± 2.0 | 15 (23.4) | 21.5 ± 2.1 | 0.646a |
| 25-34.9 | 199 (45.6) | 29.5 ± 2.9 | 28 (43.8) | 29.6 ± 2.9 | 0.832a |
| ≥ 35 | 120 (27.5) | 37.6 ± 2.3 | 21 (32.8) | 37.3 ± 6.3 | 0.538a |
|
| |||||
| 0 | 252 (57.8) | 0 | 33 (51.6) | 0 | 0.348b |
| ≥ 1 | 184 (42.2) | 1 (1,2) | 31 (48.4) | 1 (1,2) | 0.210b |
|
| 22.1 ± 4.0 | 22.9 ± 4.9 | 0.183a | ||
| ≤ 18 | 50 (11.5) | 16.8 ± 0.8 | 5 (7.8) | 16.1 ± 1.0 | 0.091a |
| 18–25 | 300 (68.8) | 21.2 ± 1.8 | 41 (64.1) | 20.8 ± 1.9 | 0.246a |
| > 25 | 86 (19.7) | 28.5 ± 3.3 | 18 (28.1) | 29.4 ± 3.4 | 0.289a |
|
| 58.9 ± 10.7 | 61.0 ± 13.5 | 0.156a | ||
| ≤ 60 | 268 (61.4) | 52.3 ± 4.8 | 35 (54.7) | 51.4 ± 5.4 | 0.292a |
| 60.1–80 | 146 (33.4) | 66.4 ± 4.8 | 20 (31.3) | 65.8 ± 3.9 | 0.540a |
| > 80 | 22 (5.0) | 88.7 ± 7.4 | 9 (14.1) | 87.9 ± 4.1 | 0.743a |
|
| |||||
| Anterior | 186 (42.7) | - | 32 (50.0) | 0.283b | |
| Posterior | 237 (54.4) | - | 30 (45.9) | 0.285b | |
| Fundus | 13 (3.0) | - | 2 (3.1) | > 0.99b | |
|
| 6.25 ± 1.46 | 6.02 ± 1.37 | 0.230a | ||
| < 4.5 | 31 (7.1) | 3.9 ± 0.4 | 9 (14.1) | 3.9 ± 0.3 | 0.785a |
| ≥ 4.5 | 405 (92.9) | 6.4 ± 1.3 | 55 (85.9) | 6.3 ± 1.1 | 0.687a |
|
| |||||
| Spontaneous vaginal delivery | 263 (60.3) | - | 38 (59.4) | - | 0.892b |
| Cesarean section | 164 (37.6) | - | 25 (39.1) | - | 0.890b |
| Vacuum extraction | 9 (2.1) | - | 0 | - | - |
| Forceps extraction | 0 | - | 1 (1.6) | - | - |
|
| 3134.4 ± 429.2 | 2417.2 ± 480.2 | < 0.005a | ||
| < 1,500 | 0 | - | 3 (4.7) | 1173.3 ± 324.7 | - |
| 1,500–2,499 | 18 (10.8) | 2368.3 ± 145.6 | 36 (56.3) | 2224.0 ± 229.2 | 0.019a |
| 2,500–3,999 | 402 (85.4) | 3119.1 ± 320.4 | 25 (39.1) | 2844.7 ± 283.2 | < 0.005a |
| ≥ 4,000 | 16 (3.2) | 4380.0 ± 456.2 | 0 | - | - |
P value < 0.05 is considered statistically significant
at-test
bChi-square test
The value of the lower uterine wall thickness measured at 18–22 weeks in Thai singleton pregnant women
| Mean | Median | Range | Percentile | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
( | 6.2 ± 1.45 | 6.0 (5.2, 7.1) | 3.1–12.0 | 4.10 | 4.50 | 6.00 | 8.80 |
Fig. 3The interquartile range of LUW thickness between the two groups
Fig. 4The ROC curve and AUC of LUW thickness
Fig. 5The ROC curve and AUC of LUW thickness in predicting no-preterm events
Factors associated with preterm delivery (N = 500)
| Factors | Mean ± SD or n (%) | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||||
| 18–24.9 | 117 (88.6) | 15 (11.4) | 1 | |||
| 25–34.9 | 199 (87.7) | 28 (12.3) | 0.785 | 1.10 (0.56, 2.14) | ||
| ≥ 35 | 120 (85.1) | 21 (14.9) | 0.390 | 1.37 (0.67, 2.78) | ||
|
| ||||||
| 0 | 252 (88.4) | 33 (11.6) | 1 | 1 | ||
| ≥ 1 | 184 (85.6) | 31 (14.4) | 0.348 | 1.29 (0.76, 2.18) | 0.359 | 1.29 (0.75, 2.22) |
|
| ||||||
| ≤ 18 | 50 (90.9) | 5 (9.1) | 1 | 1 | ||
| 18–25 | 300 (88.0) | 41 (12.0) | 0.530 | 1.37 (0.52, 3.63) | 0.627 | 1.28 (0.48, 3.42) |
| > 25 | 86 (82.7) | 18 (17.3) | 0.168 | 2.09 (0.73, 5.98) | 0.205 | 2.00 (0.69, 5.81) |
|
| ||||||
| ≥ 4.5 mm | 405 (88.0) | 55 (12.0) | 1 | 1 | ||
| < 4.5 mm | 31 (77.5) | 9 (22.5) | 0.061 | 2.14 (0.97, 4.73) | 0.037 | 2.37 (1.05, 5.32) |