共0篇 平均IF=NaN (-) 更多分析

    加载中

    logo
    History-indicated cervical cerclage in management of twin pregnancy. Rottenstreich A,Levin G,Kleinstern G,Zigron R,Rottenstreich M,Elchalal U,Yagel S Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology OBJECTIVE:Cervical cerclage, when performed in twin gestation, has been reported to be associated with poor outcome. However, the role of first-trimester history-indicated cerclage among women with a twin pregnancy and a history of preterm birth has not been evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess pregnancy outcomes among women with a twin pregnancy who underwent first-trimester history-indicated cervical cerclage compared with outcomes in those managed expectantly. METHODS:This was a retrospective matched case-control study. The study group comprised all women with a twin pregnancy who had undergone first-trimester history-indicated cerclage during the period 2006 to 2017 at Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center. A control group of women with a twin pregnancy who were managed expectantly was established by matching age, history of spontaneous preterm birth (20-36 weeks' gestation) and year of delivery. Pregnancy and delivery characteristics and neonatal outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS:Data from 82 women with a twin gestation were analyzed, of whom 41 underwent first-trimester history-indicated cerclage and 41 were matched controls who were managed expectantly. Gestational age at delivery was higher in the cerclage group than in those managed expectantly (median 35 vs 30 weeks; P < 0.0001). Rates of spontaneous preterm birth before 24 weeks (2.4% vs 19.5%; odds ratio (OR), 0.10 (95% CI, 0.01-0.87); P = 0.03), before 28 weeks (12.2% vs 34.1%; OR, 0.27 (95% CI, 0.09-0.84); P = 0.03), before 32 weeks (22.0% vs 56.1%; OR, 0.22 (95% CI, 0.08-0.58); P = 0.003) and before 34 weeks (34.1% vs 82.9%; OR, 0.11 (95% CI, 0.04-0.30); P < 0.0001) were significantly lower in the cerclage group than in the control group. Median birth weight was higher in the cerclage group (2072 g vs 1750 g; P = 0.003), with lower rates of low birth weight (< 2500 g) (65.0% vs 89.4%; P = 0.001) and very low birth weight (< 1500 g) (21.3% vs 37.9%; P = 0.03) than in the group managed expectantly. Rates were also lower in the cerclage group for stillbirth, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, sepsis, neonatal mortality and composite adverse neonatal outcome. CONCLUSIONS:History-indicated cerclage performed in the first trimester, as compared with expectant management, in women with a twin pregnancy had an overall positive effect on pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. These findings suggest the need for adequate randomized trials on cerclage placement in this subset of women. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 10.1002/uog.20192
    Pregnancy outcomes and factors affecting the clinical effects of cervical cerclage when used for different indications: A retrospective study of 326 cases. Chen Ruizhe,Huang Xiaoxiu,Li Baohua Taiwanese journal of obstetrics & gynecology OBJECTIVE:To compare pregnancy outcomes resulting from the use of cervical cerclage for different indications and investigate factors that might influence the clinical effects of cervical cerclage. MATERIALS AND METHODS:This was a retrospective study of pregnant women who received cervical cerclage in The Women's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, China. Patients were divided into three groups: a history-indicated group; an ultrasound-indicated group and a physical examination-indicated group. The pregnancy outcomes of the three groups were then compared. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to assess the independent risk factors. RESULTS:Statistical differences were evident when the history-indicated group and the ultrasound-indicated group were compared with the physical examination-indicated group for gestational age at delivery [37.3(33.3-38.9), 35.4(28.9-38.4) vs. 26.1 (24.3-28.4) weeks, respectively, P < 0.05], percentage of cases delivered at < 28 weeks of gestation (13.4%, 20.3% vs. 74.3%, respectively, P < 0.05), percentage of cases delivered at < 37 weeks of gestation (42.7%, 54.2% vs. 91.4%, respectively, P < 0.05) and fetal survival rate (88.4%, 81.4% vs. 40.0%, respectively, P < 0.05). The history-indicated group and the ultrasound-indicated group were similar with regards to these outcomes. The independent risk factors affecting the clinical effects of cervical cerclage include age, body mass index (BMI), history of prior preterm birth and second-trimester loss, C-reactive protein (CRP) >5 mg/L and cervical dilation ≥3 cm (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION:Pregnancy outcomes were similar when compared between history-indicated and ultrasound-indicated cerclage. Serial cervical surveillance is beneficial for pregnant with a history of cervical insufficiency, and the placement of cervical cerclages in response to ultrasonographically detected shortening of the cervical length is a medically acceptable alternative to the use of history-indicated cerclage. 10.1016/j.tjog.2019.11.004