Comparison Study of Cervical Lengths between Preterm and Term Pregnant Women among the Low-Risk Women with Normal Mid-trimester Cervical Length
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Universal mid-trimester cervical length screening protocol by transvaginal ultrasonography has showed the cost-effectiveness for prevention of preterm birth. However, low-risk pregnant women with normal cervical lengths may not get the benefit from this protocol. The possible detection of the differences of cervical lengths between preterm and term pregnant women in this group could empower this universal screening protocol.
Objective: To compare the mid-trimester cervical lengths between preterm and term pregnant women among the low-risk women who had normal cervical lengths measured by a transvaginal ultrasound screening.
Materials and methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among 1,117 low-risk pregnant women with 18 to 24 weeks of gestational age (GA) who had cervical length ≥ 25 mm, from transvaginal ultrasonography at Lampang Hospital between September 2016 and September 2019. The delivery
outcomes were recorded. The cervical lengths were compared between the preterm and term birth groups. The logistic regression analysis was used to determine the correlation of cervical length and preterm birth.
Results: The mean cervical lengths of preterm and term pregnant women were not significantly different (40.2 ± 6.4 vs 41.6 ± 6.7 mm, p=0.052). The mean cervical length in preterm with GA less than 34 weeks was 40.9 ± 7.1 mm and that of preterm with GA 34 to 36 weeks was 40.0 ± 6.1 mm, comparable with term pregnant women (p=0.598 and p=0.047 respectively). The number of preterm births decreased when an increasing of cervical length was observed.
Conclusion: Among the low-risk women with mid-trimester cervical length ≥25 mm from the universal transvaginal ultrasound, the mean cervical length was not different between those with preterm birth and those with term birth.
Article Details
บทความที่ส่งมาลงพิมพ์ต้องไม่เคยพิมพ์หรือกำลังได้รับการพิจารณาตีพิมพ์ในวารสารอื่น เนื้อหาในบทความต้องเป็นผลงานของผู้นิพนธ์เอง ไม่ได้ลอกเลียนหรือตัดทอนจากบทความอื่น โดยไม่ได้รับอนุญาตหรือไม่ได้อ้างอิงอย่างเหมาะสม การแก้ไขหรือให้ข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมแก่กองบรรณาธิการ จะต้องเสร็จสิ้นเป็นที่เรียบร้อยก่อนจะได้รับพิจารณาตีพิมพ์ และบทความที่ตีพิมพ์แล้วเป็นสมบัติ ของลำปางเวชสาร
References
Chawanpaiboon S, Vogel JP, Moller A-B, Lumbiganon P, Petzold M, Hogan D, et al. Global, regional, and national estimates of levels of preterm birth in 2014: a systematic review and modelling analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(1):e37–46.
Petrou S, Mehta Z, Hockley C, Cook-Mozaffari P, Henderson J, Goldacre M. The impact of preterm birth on hospital inpatient admissions and costs during the first 5 years of life. Pediatrics. 2003;112:1290–7.
Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice bulletin no. 130:prediction and prevention of preterm birth. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(4):964–73.
Werner EF, Han CS, Pettker CM, Buhimschi CS, Copel JA, Funai EF, et al. Universal cervicallength screening to prevent preterm birth: a costeffectiveness analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(1):32–7.
Cahill AG, Odibo AO, Caughey AB, Stamilio DM, Hassan SS, Macones GA, et al. Universal cervical length screening and treatment with vaginal progesterone to prevent preterm birth: a decision and economic analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(6):548 e1–8.
Maerdan M, Shi C, Zhang X, Fan L. The prevalence of short cervix between 20 and 24 weeks of gestation and vaginal progesterone for prolonging of gestation. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017;30(14):1646–9.
Parry S, Simhan H, Elovitz M, Iams J. Universal maternal cervical length screening during the second trimester: pros and cons of a strategy to identify women at risk of spontaneous preterm delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(2):101–6.
Facco FL, Simhan HN. Short ultrasonographic cervical length in women with low-risk obstetric history. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(4):858–62.
The Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecologists. The Management of Preterm Labour and Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes. RTCOG Clinical Practice Guideline [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2020 Dec 11]. Available from: http://www.rtcog.or.th/home/cpg/1380/
Iams JD, Goldenberg RL, Meis PJ, Mercer BM, Moawad A, Das A, et al. The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(9):567–72.
van der Ven J, van Os MA, Kazemier BM, Kleinrouweler E, Verhoeven CJ, de Miranda E, et al. The capacity of mid-pregnancy cervical length to predict preterm birth in low-risk women: a national cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94(11):1223–34.
Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63.
Manuck TA, Rice MM, Bailit JL, Grobman WA, Reddy UM, Wapner RJ, et al. Preterm neonatal morbidity and mortality by gestational age: a contemporary cohort. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(1):103e1–14.
Wayne WD. Biostatistics: a foundations of analysis in the health sciences. 6th ed. New York: Wiley&Sons; 1995.
Kuusela P, Wennerholm UB, Fadl H, Wesstrom J, Lindgren P, Hagberg H, et al. Second trimester cervical length measurements with transvaginal ultrasound: A prospective observational agreement and reliability study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99(11):1476–85.
Care AG, Sharp AN, Lane S, Roberts D, Watkins L, Alfirevic Z. Predicting preterm birth in women with previous preterm birth and cervical length ≥ 25 mm. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(6):681–6.
Owen J, Szychowski JM, Hankins G, Iams JD, Sheffield JS, Perez-Delboy A, et al. Does midtrimester cervical length ≥25 mm predict preterm birth in high-risk women? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(4):393 e1–5.
Banos N, Murillo-Bravo C, Julia C, Migliorelli F, Perez-Moreno A, Rios J, et al. Mid-trimester sonographic cervical consistency index to predict spontaneous preterm birth in a low-risk population. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(5):629–36.