MAVRIC: a multicenter randomized controlled trial of transabdominal vs transvaginal cervical cerclage.


Journal

American journal of obstetrics and gynecology
ISSN: 1097-6868
Titre abrégé: Am J Obstet Gynecol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370476

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 2020
Historique:
received: 04 07 2019
revised: 30 08 2019
accepted: 16 09 2019
pubmed: 5 10 2019
medline: 6 5 2020
entrez: 5 10 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Vaginal cerclage (a suture around the cervix) commonly is placed in women with recurrent pregnancy loss. These women may experience late miscarriage or extreme preterm delivery, despite being treated with cerclage. Transabdominal cerclage has been advocated after failed cerclage, although its efficacy is unproved by randomized controlled trial. The objective of this study was to compare transabdominal cerclage or high vaginal cerclage with low vaginal cerclage in women with a history of failed cerclage. Our primary outcome was delivery at <32 completed weeks of pregnancy. This was a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Women were assigned randomly (1:1:1) to receive transabdominal cerclage, high vaginal cerclage, or low vaginal cerclage either before conception or at <14 weeks of gestation. The data for 111 of 139 women who were recruited and who conceived were analyzed: 39 had transabdominal cerclage; 39 had high vaginal cerclage, and 33 had low vaginal cerclage. Rates of preterm birth at <32 weeks of gestation were significantly lower in women who received transabdominal cerclage compared with low vaginal cerclage (8% [3/39] vs 33% [11/33]; relative risk, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.76; P=.0157). The number needed to treat to prevent 1 preterm birth was 3.9 (95% confidence interval, 2.32-12.1). There was no difference in preterm birth rates between high and low vaginal cerclage (38% [15/39] vs 33% [11/33]; relative risk, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-2.16; P=.81). No neonatal deaths occurred. In an exploratory analysis, women with transabdominal cerclage had fewer fetal losses compared with low vaginal cerclage (3% [1/39] vs 21% [7/33]; relative risk, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.016-0.93; P=.02). The number needed to treat to prevent 1 fetal loss was 5.3 (95% confidence interval, 2.9-26). Transabdominal cerclage is the treatment of choice for women with failed vaginal cerclage. It is superior to low vaginal cerclage in the reduction of risk of early preterm birth and fetal loss in women with previous failed vaginal cerclage. High vaginal cerclage does not confer this benefit. The numbers needed to treat are sufficiently low to justify transabdominal surgery and cesarean delivery required in this select cohort.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Vaginal cerclage (a suture around the cervix) commonly is placed in women with recurrent pregnancy loss. These women may experience late miscarriage or extreme preterm delivery, despite being treated with cerclage. Transabdominal cerclage has been advocated after failed cerclage, although its efficacy is unproved by randomized controlled trial.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to compare transabdominal cerclage or high vaginal cerclage with low vaginal cerclage in women with a history of failed cerclage. Our primary outcome was delivery at <32 completed weeks of pregnancy.
STUDY DESIGN
This was a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Women were assigned randomly (1:1:1) to receive transabdominal cerclage, high vaginal cerclage, or low vaginal cerclage either before conception or at <14 weeks of gestation.
RESULTS
The data for 111 of 139 women who were recruited and who conceived were analyzed: 39 had transabdominal cerclage; 39 had high vaginal cerclage, and 33 had low vaginal cerclage. Rates of preterm birth at <32 weeks of gestation were significantly lower in women who received transabdominal cerclage compared with low vaginal cerclage (8% [3/39] vs 33% [11/33]; relative risk, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.76; P=.0157). The number needed to treat to prevent 1 preterm birth was 3.9 (95% confidence interval, 2.32-12.1). There was no difference in preterm birth rates between high and low vaginal cerclage (38% [15/39] vs 33% [11/33]; relative risk, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-2.16; P=.81). No neonatal deaths occurred. In an exploratory analysis, women with transabdominal cerclage had fewer fetal losses compared with low vaginal cerclage (3% [1/39] vs 21% [7/33]; relative risk, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.016-0.93; P=.02). The number needed to treat to prevent 1 fetal loss was 5.3 (95% confidence interval, 2.9-26).
CONCLUSION
Transabdominal cerclage is the treatment of choice for women with failed vaginal cerclage. It is superior to low vaginal cerclage in the reduction of risk of early preterm birth and fetal loss in women with previous failed vaginal cerclage. High vaginal cerclage does not confer this benefit. The numbers needed to treat are sufficiently low to justify transabdominal surgery and cesarean delivery required in this select cohort.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31585096
pii: S0002-9378(19)31206-2
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.040
pii:
doi:

Banques de données

ISRCTN
['ISRCTN33404560', 'ISCRTN89971375']

Types de publication

Journal Article Multicenter Study Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

261.e1-261.e9

Subventions

Organisme : Department of Health
ID : CDRF-2013-04-026
Pays : United Kingdom

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Andrew Shennan (A)

Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK. Electronic address: Andrew.shennan@kcl.ac.uk.

Manju Chandiramani (M)

Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.

Phillip Bennett (P)

Parturition Research Group, Institute of Reproductive and Development Biology, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Anna L David (AL)

UCL EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.

Joanna Girling (J)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, West Middlesex University Hospital, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesex, UK.

Alexandra Ridout (A)

Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.

Paul T Seed (PT)

Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.

Nigel Simpson (N)

Department of Women's and Children's Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Steven Thornton (S)

Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Graham Tydeman (G)

Forth Park Hospital, Fife Hayfield House, Kirkcaldy, UK.

Siobhan Quenby (S)

Division of Biomedical Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.

Jenny Carter (J)

Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH