Cervical Pessary and Vaginal Progesterone in Twin Pregnancies With a Short Cervix

2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (2) ◽  
pp. 407-408
Author(s):  
Christopher Folterman
2016 ◽  
Vol 127 (4) ◽  
pp. 625-630 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan S. Fox ◽  
Simi Gupta ◽  
Jennifer Lam-Rachlin ◽  
Andrei Rebarber ◽  
Chad K. Klauser ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e036587
Author(s):  
Vinh Q Dang ◽  
Yen TN He ◽  
Ha NH Pham ◽  
Tuyen TT Trieu ◽  
Trung Q Bui ◽  
...  

IntroductionWomen with twin pregnancies and a short cervix are at increased risk for preterm birth (PTB). Given the burden of prematurity and its attendant risks, the quest for effective interventions in twins has been an area of considerable research. Studies investigating the effectiveness of cervical cerclage, cervical pessary and vaginal progesterone in preventing PTB have yielded conflicting results. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of cervical pessary and cervical cerclage with or without vaginal progesterone to prevent PTB in women with twin pregnancies and a cervical length (CL) ≤ 28 mm.Methods and analysisThis multicentre, randomised clinical trial will be conducted at My Duc Hospital and My Duc Phu Nhuan Hospital, Vietnam. Asymptomatic women with twin pregnancies and a CL ≤28 mm, measured at 16–22 weeks’ gestation, will be randomised in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive a cerclage, pessary, cerclage plus progesterone or pessary plus progesterone. Primary outcome will be PTB <34 weeks. Secondary outcomes will be maternal and neonatal complications. We preplanned a subgroup analysis according to CL from all women after randomisation and divided into four quartiles. Analysis will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. The rate of PTB <34 weeks’ gestation in women with twin pregnancies and a cervix ≤28 mm and treated with pessary in our previous study at My Duc Hospital was 24.2%. A sample size of 340 women will be required to show or refute that cervical cerclage decreases the rate of PTB <34 weeks by 50% compared with pessary (from 24.2% to 12.1%, α level 0.05, power 80%, 5% lost to follow-up and protocol deviation). This study is not to be powered to assess interactions between interventions.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee of My Duc Hospital and informed patient consent was obtained before study enrolment. Results of the study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNCT03863613 (date of registration: 4 March 2019).


2019 ◽  
Vol 220 (1) ◽  
pp. S368-S369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jared T. Roeckner ◽  
Melanie Mitta ◽  
Luis Sanchez-Ramos ◽  
Andrew M. Kaunitz

2014 ◽  
Vol 44 (S1) ◽  
pp. 53-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.M. Goya ◽  
C. Rodo ◽  
M. De la Calle ◽  
L. Pratcorona ◽  
C. Merced ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 715-718 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariarosaria Di Tommaso ◽  
Viola Seravalli ◽  
Silvana Arduino ◽  
Carlotta Bossotti ◽  
Giovanni Sisti ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 98 (4) ◽  
pp. 487-493 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Fichera ◽  
Federico Prefumo ◽  
Giorgia Mazzoni ◽  
Valentina Molinaris ◽  
Cristina Zanardini ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 214 (1) ◽  
pp. S149
Author(s):  
Nathan S. Fox ◽  
Simi Gupta ◽  
Jennifer Lam-Rachlin ◽  
Andrei Rebarbr ◽  
Chad Klauser ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document