Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2020; 37(14): 1400-1410
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1712962
SMFM Fellowship Series Article

Association of Cerclage with Composite Adverse Outcomes among Women Delivered at 36 Weeks or Later

Angela J. Stephens
1   Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas
,
Han-Yang Chen
1   Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas
,
Suneet P. Chauhan
1   Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas
,
Baha Sibai
1   Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to compare the maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes among singletons delivered at 36 weeks or later with cerclage during index pregnancy versus those without cerclage.

Study Design This retrospective cohort study utilized the U.S. vital statistics datasets from 2011 to 2013. Inclusion criteria were women with nonanomalous singletons, with and without cerclage placement, without diabetes or hypertensive disorders, and delivered at 36 to 41 weeks. The coprimary outcomes were composite maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes. Composite maternal adverse outcome included admission to intensive care unit, maternal transfusion, ruptured uterus, unplanned hysterectomy, or unplanned operating room procedure. Composite neonatal adverse outcome included Apgar score less than 5 at 5 minutes, assisted ventilation for more than 6 hours, neonatal seizure, birth injury, or neonatal death. Secondary outcomes were chorioamnionitis and cesarean delivery. Multivariable Poisson's regression models with error variance were used while adjusting for confounders. Adjusted relative risk (aRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

Results Of the 8,508,228 women who met inclusion criteria, 0.2% had a cerclage and reached 36 weeks. Composite maternal (aRR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.76–2.36) and neonatal (aRR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.11–1.47) adverse outcomes were significantly higher among those with cerclage than those without cerclage. Chorioamnionitis (aRR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.30–1.67) and cesarean delivery (aRR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.08–1.12) were also significantly higher in women with cerclage than those without cerclage.

Conclusion There is an association between increased composite maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes among women with cerclage who delivered at 36 to 41 weeks as compared with those without cerclage.

Key Points

  • Cerclage is associated with increased composite maternal adverse outcome in women at 36–41 weeks.

  • Cerclage is associated with increased composite neonatal adverse outcome in women at 36–41 weeks.

  • Increased chorioamnionitis and cesarean delivery rates are associated with cerclage in women at 36–41 weeks.

Keywords

cerclage - maternal outcomes - neonatal outcomes - cervical insufficiency

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 11 February 2020

Accepted: 24 April 2020

Article published online:
10 June 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 McDonald IA. Suture of the cervix for inevitable miscarriage. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp 1957; 64 (03) 346-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Shirodkar VN. A new method of operative treatment of habitual abortion. Antiseptic 1955; 52: 299
    Google Scholar
  • 3 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No.142: cerclage for the management of cervical insufficiency. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123 (2 Pt 1): 372-379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Chan LL, Leung TW, Lo TK, Lau WL, Leung WC. Indications for and pregnancy outcomes of cervical cerclage: 11-year comparison of patients undergoing history-indicated, ultrasound-indicated, or rescue cerclage. Hong Kong Med J 2015; 21 (04) 310-317
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Alfirevic Z, Stampalija T, Medley N. Cervical stitch (cerclage) for preventing preterm birth in singleton pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 6: CD008991
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Fox NS, Rebarber A, Bender S, Saltzman DH. Labor outcomes after Shirodkar cerclage. J Reprod Med 2009; 54 (06) 361-365
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Nelson L, Dola T, Tran T, Carter M, Luu H, Dola C. Pregnancy outcomes following placement of elective, urgent and emergent cerclage. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2009; 22 (03) 269-273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Brown RG, Chan D, Terzidou V. et al. Prospective observational study of vaginal microbiota pre- and post-rescue cervical cerclage. BJOG 2019; 126 (07) 916-925
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Çavuş Y, Uysal A, Balsak D, Acar Z, İnce Z, Uysal F. Emergency cervical cerclage: effect on pregnancy outcome and mode of delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2014; 27 (01) 80-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Pang Q, Jia X, Chen L. Perinatal outcomes after emergency cervical cerclage for cervical insufficiency with prolapsed membranes. Med Sci Monit 2019; 25: 4202-4206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Costa MMF, Amorim Filho AG, Barros MF. et al. Emergency cerclage: gestational and neonatal outcomes. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) 2019; 65 (05) 598-602
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Wang SW, Ma LL, Huang S, Liang L, Zhang JR. Role of cervical cerclage and vaginal progesterone in the treatment of cervical incompetence with/without preterm birth history. Chin Med J (Engl) 2016; 129 (22) 2670-2675
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Greenberg JA, Clark RM. Advances in suture material for obstetric and gynecologic surgery. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2009; 2 (03) 146-158
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Wang S, Wang Y, Feng L. Pregnancy outcomes following transvaginal cerclage for cervical insufficiency: results from a single-center retrospective study. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci 2017; 37 (02) 237-242
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Liu Y, Ke Z, Liao W. et al. Pregnancy outcomes and superiorities of prophylactic cervical cerclage and therapeutic cervical cerclage in cervical insufficiency pregnant women. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2018; 297 (06) 1503-1508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Ragab A, Mesbah Y. To do or not to do emergency cervical cerclage (a rescue stitch) at 24-28 weeks gestation in addition to progesterone for patients coming early in labor? A prospective randomized trial for efficacy and safety. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015; 292 (06) 1255-1260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Landy HJ, Laughon SK, Bailit JL. et al; Consortium on Safe Labor. Characteristics associated with severe perineal and cervical lacerations during vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117 (03) 627-635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Osterman MJ, Martin JA, Mathews TJ, Hamilton BE. Expanded data from the new birth certificate, 2008. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2011; 59 (07) 1-28
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Diamant H, Mastrolia SA, Weintraub AY, Sheizaf B, Zilberstein T, Yohay D. Effectiveness and safety of late midtrimester cervical cerclage. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2019; 32 (18) 3007-3011
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ozgur Akkurt M, Yavuz A, Sezik M, Okan Ozkaya M. Infant outcomes following midtrimester emergency cerclage in the presence of fully dilated cervix and prolapsing amniotic membranes into the vagina. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016; 29 (15) 2438-2442
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Doger E, Cakiroglu Y, Ceylan Y, Kole E, Ozkan S, Caliskan E. Obstetric and neonatal outcomes of delayed interval delivery in cerclage and non-cerclage cases: an analysis of 20 multiple pregnancies. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2014; 40 (07) 1853-1861
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Bernabeu A, Goya M, Martra M. et al. Physical examination-indicated cerclage in singleton and twin pregnancies: maternal-fetal outcomes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016; 29 (13) 2109-2113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Jarde A, Lutsiv O, Park CK. et al. Effectiveness of progesterone, cerclage and pessary for preventing preterm birth in singleton pregnancies: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BJOG 2017; 124 (08) 1176-1189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Gluck O, Mizrachi Y, Ginath S, Bar J, Sagiv R. Obstetrical outcomes of emergency compared with elective cervical cerclage. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2017; 30 (14) 1650-1654
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Rust OA, Atlas RO, Jones KJ, Benham BN, Balducci J. A randomized trial of cerclage versus no cerclage among patients with ultrasonographically detected second-trimester preterm dilatation of the internal os. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183 (04) 830-835
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Young CB, Liu S, Muraca GM. et al; Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. Mode of delivery after a previous cesarean birth, and associated maternal and neonatal morbidity. CMAJ 2018; 190 (18) E556-E564
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Abenhaim HA, Benjamin A. Effect of prior cesarean delivery on neonatal outcomes. J Perinat Med 2011; 39 (03) 241-244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Haghighat N, Hu M, Laurent O, Chung J, Nguyen P, Wu J. Comparison of birth certificates and hospital-based birth data on pregnancy complications in Los Angeles and Orange County, California. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2016; 16: 93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Northam S, Knapp TR. The reliability and validity of birth certificates. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2006; 35 (01) 3-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Martin JA, Wilson EC, Osterman MJ, Saadi EW, Sutton SR, Hamilton BE. Assessing the quality of medical and health data from the 2003 birth certificate revision: results from two states. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2013; 62 (02) 1-19
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Grimes DA, Schulz KF. False alarms and pseudo-epidemics: the limitations of observational epidemiology. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120 (04) 920-927
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar