MEDLINE/PubMed Journal Browser Search

Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

Title: Cervical pessary to prevent preterm birth in asymptomatic high-risk women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Author: Conde-Agudelo A, Romero R, Nicolaides KH.
Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2020 Jul; 223(1):42-65.e2. PubMed ID: 32027880.
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials that have assessed the efficacy of cervical pessary to prevent preterm birth in asymptomatic high-risk women have reported conflicting results. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of cervical pessary to prevent preterm birth and adverse perinatal outcomes in asymptomatic high-risk women. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, CINAHL, and LILACS (from their inception to October 31, 2019), Cochrane databases, Google Scholar, bibliographies, and conference proceedings. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials that compared cervical pessary with standard care (no pessary) or alternative interventions in asymptomatic women at high risk for preterm birth. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook guidelines. The primary outcome was spontaneous preterm birth <34 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes included adverse pregnancy, maternal, and perinatal outcomes. Pooled relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE methodology. RESULTS: Twelve studies (4687 women and 7167 fetuses/infants) met the inclusion criteria: 8 evaluated pessary vs no pessary in women with a short cervix, 2 assessed pessary vs no pessary in unselected multiple gestations, and 2 compared pessary vs vaginal progesterone in women with a short cervix. There were no significant differences between the pessary and no pessary groups in the risk of spontaneous preterm birth <34 weeks of gestation among singleton gestations with a cervical length ≤25 mm (relative risk, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.49; 6 trials, 1982 women; low-quality evidence), unselected twin gestations (relative risk, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.41; 1 trial, 1177 women; moderate-quality evidence), twin gestations with a cervical length <38 mm (relative risk, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-1.36; 3 trials, 1128 women; low-quality evidence), and twin gestations with a cervical length ≤25 mm (relative risk; 0.72, 95% confidence interval, 0.25-2.06; 2 trials, 348 women; low-quality evidence). Overall, no significant differences were observed between the pessary and no pessary groups in preterm birth <37, <32, and <28 weeks of gestation, and most adverse pregnancy, maternal, and perinatal outcomes (low- to moderate-quality evidence for most outcomes). There were no significant differences in the risk of spontaneous preterm birth <34 weeks of gestation between pessary and vaginal progesterone in singleton gestations with a cervical length ≤25 mm (relative risk, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-1.83; 1 trial, 246 women; low-quality evidence) and twin gestations with a cervical length <38 mm (relative risk, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.18; 1 trial, 297 women; very low-quality evidence). Vaginal discharge was significantly more frequent in the pessary group than in the no pessary and vaginal progesterone groups (relative risks, ∼2.20; high-quality evidence). CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not support the use of cervical pessary to prevent preterm birth or to improve perinatal outcomes in singleton or twin gestations with a short cervix and in unselected twin gestations.

[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]