Cervical cerclage for prevention of preterm birth and adverse perinatal outcome in twin pregnancies with short cervical length or cervical dilatation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Journal
PLoS medicine
ISSN: 1549-1676
Titre abrégé: PLoS Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101231360
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2023
08 2023
Historique:
received:
03
12
2022
accepted:
23
06
2023
revised:
25
08
2023
medline:
28
8
2023
pubmed:
3
8
2023
entrez:
3
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The optimal approach to prevent preterm birth (PTB) in twins has not been fully established yet. Recent evidence suggests that placement of cervical cerclage in twin pregnancies with short cervical length at ultrasound or cervical dilatation at physical examination might be associated with a reduced risk of PTB. However, such evidence is based mainly on small studies thus questioning the robustness of these findings. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the role of cervical cerclage in preventing PTB and adverse maternal or perinatal outcomes in twin pregnancies. Key databases searched and date of last search: MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL were searched electronically on 20 April 2023. Eligibility criteria: Inclusion criteria were observational studies assessing the risk of PTB among twin pregnancies undergoing cerclage versus no cerclage and randomized trials in which twin pregnancies were allocated to cerclage for the prevention of PTB or to a control group (e.g., placebo or treatment as usual). The primary outcome was PTB <34 weeks of gestation. The secondary outcomes were PTB <37, 32, 28, 24 weeks of gestation, gestational age at birth, the interval between diagnosis and birth, preterm prelabor rupture of the membranes (pPROM), chorioamnionitis, perinatal loss, and perinatal morbidity. Subgroup analyses according to the indication for cerclage (short cervical length or cervical dilatation) were also performed. Risk of bias assessment: The risk of bias of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials, while that of the observational studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Statistical analysis: Summary risk ratios (RRs) of the likelihood of detecting each categorical outcome in exposed versus unexposed women, and (b) summary mean differences (MDs) between exposed and unexposed women (for each continuous outcome), with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed using head-to-head meta-analyses. Synthesis of the results: Eighteen studies (1,465 twin pregnancies) were included. Placement of cervical cerclage in women with a twin pregnancy with a short cervix at ultrasound or cervical dilatation at physical examination was associated with a reduced risk of PTB <34 weeks of gestation (RR: 0.73, 95% CI [0.59, 0.91], p = 0.005 corresponding to a 16% difference in the absolute risk, AR), <32 (RR: 0.69, 95% CI [0.57, 0.84], p < 0.001; AR: 16.92%), <28 (RR: 0.54, 95% [CI 0.43, 0.67], 0.001; AR: 18.29%), and <24 (RR: 0.48, 95% CI [0.23, 0.97], p = 0.04; AR: 15.57%) weeks of gestation and a prolonged gestational age at birth (MD: 2.32 weeks, 95% [CI 0.99, 3.66], p < 0.001). Cerclage in twin pregnancy with short cervical length or cervical dilatation was also associated with a reduced risk of perinatal loss (RR: 0.38, 95% CI [0.25, 0.60], p < 0.001; AR: 19.62%) and composite adverse outcome (RR: 0.69, 95% CI [0.53, 0.90], p = 0.007; AR: 11.75%). Cervical cerclage was associated with a reduced risk of PTB <34 weeks both in women with cervical length <15 mm (RR: 0.74, 95% CI [0.58, 0.95], p = 0.02; AR: 29.17%) and in those with cervical dilatation (RR: 0.68, 95% CI [0.57, 0.80], p < 0.001; AR: 35.02%). The association between cerclage and prevention of PTB and adverse perinatal outcomes was exclusively due to the inclusion of observational studies. The quality of retrieved evidence at GRADE assessment was low. Emergency cerclage for cervical dilation or short cervical length <15 mm may be potentially associated with a reduction in PTB and improved perinatal outcomes. However, these findings are mainly based upon observational studies and require confirmation in large and adequately powered RCTs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The optimal approach to prevent preterm birth (PTB) in twins has not been fully established yet. Recent evidence suggests that placement of cervical cerclage in twin pregnancies with short cervical length at ultrasound or cervical dilatation at physical examination might be associated with a reduced risk of PTB. However, such evidence is based mainly on small studies thus questioning the robustness of these findings. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the role of cervical cerclage in preventing PTB and adverse maternal or perinatal outcomes in twin pregnancies.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
Key databases searched and date of last search: MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL were searched electronically on 20 April 2023. Eligibility criteria: Inclusion criteria were observational studies assessing the risk of PTB among twin pregnancies undergoing cerclage versus no cerclage and randomized trials in which twin pregnancies were allocated to cerclage for the prevention of PTB or to a control group (e.g., placebo or treatment as usual). The primary outcome was PTB <34 weeks of gestation. The secondary outcomes were PTB <37, 32, 28, 24 weeks of gestation, gestational age at birth, the interval between diagnosis and birth, preterm prelabor rupture of the membranes (pPROM), chorioamnionitis, perinatal loss, and perinatal morbidity. Subgroup analyses according to the indication for cerclage (short cervical length or cervical dilatation) were also performed. Risk of bias assessment: The risk of bias of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials, while that of the observational studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Statistical analysis: Summary risk ratios (RRs) of the likelihood of detecting each categorical outcome in exposed versus unexposed women, and (b) summary mean differences (MDs) between exposed and unexposed women (for each continuous outcome), with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed using head-to-head meta-analyses. Synthesis of the results: Eighteen studies (1,465 twin pregnancies) were included. Placement of cervical cerclage in women with a twin pregnancy with a short cervix at ultrasound or cervical dilatation at physical examination was associated with a reduced risk of PTB <34 weeks of gestation (RR: 0.73, 95% CI [0.59, 0.91], p = 0.005 corresponding to a 16% difference in the absolute risk, AR), <32 (RR: 0.69, 95% CI [0.57, 0.84], p < 0.001; AR: 16.92%), <28 (RR: 0.54, 95% [CI 0.43, 0.67], 0.001; AR: 18.29%), and <24 (RR: 0.48, 95% CI [0.23, 0.97], p = 0.04; AR: 15.57%) weeks of gestation and a prolonged gestational age at birth (MD: 2.32 weeks, 95% [CI 0.99, 3.66], p < 0.001). Cerclage in twin pregnancy with short cervical length or cervical dilatation was also associated with a reduced risk of perinatal loss (RR: 0.38, 95% CI [0.25, 0.60], p < 0.001; AR: 19.62%) and composite adverse outcome (RR: 0.69, 95% CI [0.53, 0.90], p = 0.007; AR: 11.75%). Cervical cerclage was associated with a reduced risk of PTB <34 weeks both in women with cervical length <15 mm (RR: 0.74, 95% CI [0.58, 0.95], p = 0.02; AR: 29.17%) and in those with cervical dilatation (RR: 0.68, 95% CI [0.57, 0.80], p < 0.001; AR: 35.02%). The association between cerclage and prevention of PTB and adverse perinatal outcomes was exclusively due to the inclusion of observational studies. The quality of retrieved evidence at GRADE assessment was low.
CONCLUSIONS
Emergency cerclage for cervical dilation or short cervical length <15 mm may be potentially associated with a reduction in PTB and improved perinatal outcomes. However, these findings are mainly based upon observational studies and require confirmation in large and adequately powered RCTs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37535682
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004266
pii: PMEDICINE-D-22-03921
pmc: PMC10456178
doi:
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1004266Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 D’Antonio et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018 Aug;31(16):2195-2201
pubmed: 28597706
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Dec;56(6):811-820
pubmed: 32330342
Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2023 Mar;5(3):100847
pubmed: 36638868
Front Med (Lausanne). 2022 Nov 09;9:1023507
pubmed: 36438045
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jul;59(4):508-513
pubmed: 32653121
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Sep 10;(9):CD009166
pubmed: 25208049
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jun;41(6):632-6
pubmed: 23208731
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Oct;54(4):517-523
pubmed: 30549119
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jul;215(1):98.e1-98.e11
pubmed: 26827881
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Aug;203(2):128.e1-12
pubmed: 20576253
J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci. 2017 Apr;37(2):237-242
pubmed: 28397052
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015 Apr;94(4):352-8
pubmed: 25644964
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022 Dec;35(25):9112-9118
pubmed: 34906023
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Feb;47(2):247-63
pubmed: 26577371
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jun;212(6):788.e1-6
pubmed: 25637840
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Apr;186(4):634-40
pubmed: 11967484
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Nov;185(5):1106-12
pubmed: 11717642
J Ultrasound Med. 2005 Jun;24(6):763-8; quiz 770-1
pubmed: 15914680
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jan;53(1):36-46
pubmed: 30207011
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021 May;100(5):832-842
pubmed: 33337543
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020 Sep;99(9):1121-1134
pubmed: 32162305
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Nov;50(5):559-568
pubmed: 27859836
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022 Jan;35(1):39-45
pubmed: 31878811
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Oct;183(4):830-5
pubmed: 11035321
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 06;6:CD008991
pubmed: 28586127
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Apr 01;14:45
pubmed: 24690082
Nephrology (Carlton). 2010 Sep;15(6):617-24
pubmed: 20883282
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Dec;223(6):902.e1-902.e11
pubmed: 32592693
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Aug;67(8):897-903
pubmed: 24794697
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Dec;48(6):752-756
pubmed: 26990136
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2023 Dec;36(1):2198632
pubmed: 37031971
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2022 May;157(2):313-321
pubmed: 34076897
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Aug;60(2):176-184
pubmed: 35233861
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018 Apr;31(8):1092-1098
pubmed: 28320233
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021 Jun;261:166-177
pubmed: 33946019
Int J Gen Med. 2022 Mar 02;15:2377-2387
pubmed: 35264875
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019 Jul;32(13):2143-2151
pubmed: 29363371
BJOG. 2019 Apr;126(5):556-567
pubmed: 30480871
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021 Nov;100(11):2003-2008
pubmed: 34476806
JAMA. 2000 Apr 19;283(15):2008-12
pubmed: 10789670
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan;55(1):32-38
pubmed: 31613412
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Nov;50(5):569-577
pubmed: 28295722
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jan;208(1):42.e1-42.e18
pubmed: 23157855
BJOG. 2016 May;123(6):877-84
pubmed: 26333191
BMJ. 2014 Sep 24;349:g5630
pubmed: 25252733
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jul;52(1):11-23
pubmed: 29155475
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021 Mar;303(3):665-676
pubmed: 32886234
Minerva Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Feb;73(1):111-120
pubmed: 32315128
PLoS One. 2011;6(9):e24384
pubmed: 21915319
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;220(6):543-557.e1
pubmed: 30527942
BJOG. 2017 Jul;124(8):1163-1173
pubmed: 28176485
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010 Dec;23(12):1365-76
pubmed: 21067303