Outcomes after periviable ultrasound-indicated cerclage

被引:6
|
作者
Drassinower, Daphnie [1 ]
Coviello, Elizabeth [1 ]
Landy, Helain J. [1 ]
Gyamfi-Bannerman, Cynthia [2 ]
Perez-Delboy, Annette [2 ]
Friedman, Alexander M. [2 ]
机构
[1] MedStar Georgetown Univ Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Washington, DC USA
[2] Columbia Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, New York, NY USA
来源
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Ultrasound-indicated cerclage; periviability; perioperative complications; CERVICAL CERCLAGE; TRANSVAGINAL ULTRASOUND; PREVENTION; LENGTH; BIRTH; WOMEN;
D O I
10.1080/14767058.2017.1395848
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Background: Cerclage placed for a sonographically short cervix has been shown to reduce the risk of preterm delivery in women with a history of prior preterm birth. While short cervix is traditionally placed before viability, the threshold gestational age at which viability is achieved continues to decrease, and, as a result, a larger subset of women may be ineligible to receive this potentially beneficial procedure. Objective: To evaluate the association between obstetric outcomes and perioperative complications after placement of an ultrasound-indicated cerclage at periviability compared to placement in the previable period. Methods: This retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent ultrasound-indicated cerclage evaluated obstetric outcomes and perioperative complications based on gestational age at cerclage placement. Ultrasound-indicated cerclage was considered to have been placed at periviability if placed at 22 to <24 weeks (exposed) and at previability if placed at 16 to <22 weeks gestational age (unexposed). The primary outcome was preterm delivery <36 weeks. Secondary outcomes included mean gestational age at delivery, preterm delivery <32 weeks, <28, and <24 weeks, preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), chorioamnionitis, and perioperative complications. Adjusted analyses were performed to account for demographic and obstetric factors. Results: Of the 426 patients included in the analysis, 94 (22%) had cerclage placed between >= 22 weeks to <24 weeks, while 332 (78%) had cerclage placed at <22 weeks. On univariate analysis, women who had a periviable cerclage placed were less likely to have a recurrent preterm delivery <36 weeks compared to women with previable cerclage placement (26.6 versus 38.3%, respectively, p = .04). The adjusted model did not demonstrate a significant difference in risk for preterm delivery <36 weeks associated with periviable versus previable cerclage (odds ratio 0.66, 95%CI 0.37-1.17). Secondary outcomes were similar between the previable and periviable groups, including mean gestational age at delivery (35.1 versus 36.2 weeks, respectively, p = .08) and preterm delivery before 32-week gestation (20.7 versus 13.8%, respectively, p = .17). Intraoperative and postoperative complications were rare and rates were similar between groups. Conclusions: Obstetric outcomes between patients receiving periviable and previable cerclage are similar. Ultrasound-indicated cerclage placement is associated with a relatively low rate of complications. Given the evidence supporting benefit of cerclage for women with short ultrasound cervical length and prior preterm birth, our findings demonstrate that benefits of placement at >= 22 weeks to <24 weeks may outweigh risks.
引用
收藏
页码:932 / 938
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Outcomes after Exam-Indicated Cerclage and Ultrasound-Indicated Cerclage in Triplet Gestations.
    Tabsh, Kareem K.
    Gaw, Stephanie L.
    Tabsh, Khalil M. A.
    [J]. REPRODUCTIVE SCIENCES, 2018, 25 : 193A - 193A
  • [2] Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in ultrasound-indicated cerclage: a retrospective
    Contreras Vergara, Ana Lucia
    Diaz Lozano, Aida
    Pastor Lorca, Maria
    Izquierdo, Montserrat
    Dolores Gomez-Roig, Maria
    Palacio, Montse
    Cobo, Teresa
    Ferrero, Silvia
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2023, 228 (01) : S262 - S262
  • [3] Is Ultrasound Evaluation of the Cervical Stroma After Ultrasound-Indicated Cerclage Useful to Predict Outcomes?
    Jackson, Araba A.
    Seif, Karl E.
    Awosika, Olubukunola
    Alawneh, Maysarah
    Khoury, Alfred
    Gomez, Luis M.
    [J]. OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2019, 133 : 210S - 211S
  • [4] Endocervical hyaluronan and ultrasound-indicated cerclage
    Eglinton, G. S.
    Herway, C.
    Skupski, D. W.
    Bongiovanni, A. M.
    Witkin, S. S.
    [J]. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2011, 37 (02) : 214 - 218
  • [5] The role of ultrasound-indicated cerclage in triplets
    Moragianni, V. A.
    Cohen, J. D.
    Smith, S. J.
    Rosenn, M. F.
    Craparo, F. J.
    [J]. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2009, 34 (01) : 43 - 46
  • [6] Outcomes of ultrasound-indicated cerclage in twin pregnancies with a short cervical length
    Wu, Fang-Tzu
    Chen, Ying-Yu
    Chen, Chie-Pein
    Sun, Fang-Ju
    Chen, Chen-Yu
    [J]. TAIWANESE JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2020, 59 (04): : 508 - 513
  • [7] Efficacy of ultrasound-indicated cerclage in twin pregnancies
    Roman, Amanda
    Rochelson, Burton
    Fox, Nathan S.
    Hoffman, Matthew
    Berghella, Vincenzo
    Patel, Vrunda
    Calluzzo, Ilia
    Saccone, Gabriele
    Fleischer, Adiel
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2015, 212 (06)
  • [8] Suture type and ultrasound-indicated cerclage efficacy
    Berghella, Vincenzo
    Szychowski, Jeff M.
    Owen, John
    Hankins, Gary
    Iams, Jay D.
    Sheffield, Jeanne S.
    Perez-Delboy, Annette
    Wing, Deborah A.
    Guzman, Edwin R.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE, 2012, 25 (11): : 2287 - 2290
  • [9] Factors Associated with Spontaneous Preterm Birth after Ultrasound-Indicated Cerclage
    Lee, Kyong-No
    Yun, Sangho
    Park, So-Yoon
    Kim, Kyoungseon
    Lee, Keun-Young
    Lee, Jae Jun
    Son, Ga-Hyun
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE, 2023, 13 (12):
  • [10] Perioperative complications of history-indicated and ultrasound-indicated cervical cerclage
    Drassinower, Daphnie
    Poggi, Sarah H.
    Landy, Helain J.
    Gilo, Noridelle
    Benson, James E.
    Ghidini, Alessandro
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2011, 205 (01) : 53.e1 - 53.e5