Cerclage suture type to prevent pregnancy loss in women requiring a vaginal cervical cerclage: the C-STICH RCT.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Victoria Hodgetts Morton, Catherine A Moakes, Jane Daniels, Lee Middleton, Andrew Shennan, Peter Brocklehurst, Fidan Israfil-Bayli, Andrew K Ewer, James Gray, Nigel Ab Simpson, Jane E Norman, Christoph Lees, Konstantinos Tryposkiadis, Clive Stubbs, Max Hughes, R Katie Morris, Philip Toozs-Hobson
{"title":"Cerclage suture type to prevent pregnancy loss in women requiring a vaginal cervical cerclage: the C-STICH RCT.","authors":"Victoria Hodgetts Morton, Catherine A Moakes, Jane Daniels, Lee Middleton, Andrew Shennan, Peter Brocklehurst, Fidan Israfil-Bayli, Andrew K Ewer, James Gray, Nigel Ab Simpson, Jane E Norman, Christoph Lees, Konstantinos Tryposkiadis, Clive Stubbs, Max Hughes, R Katie Morris, Philip Toozs-Hobson","doi":"10.3310/YKTW8402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Second trimester miscarriage and preterm birth is a significant global problem. Surgical cervical cerclage is performed to prevent pregnancy loss and preterm birth. It utilises either a monofilament or braided suture. It is hypothesised that a braided material becomes colonised with pathogenic bacteria that causes vaginal dysbiosis, infection and cerclage failure.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The primary objective of the study was to examine the effectiveness of using a monofilament suture material as opposed to a braided suture material on pregnancy loss in women requiring a vaginal cervical cerclage.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Superiority open randomised controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Seventy-five maternity sites across the UK.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Women experiencing a singleton pregnancy requiring a cervical cerclage.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Monofilament suture or braided suture.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome was pregnancy loss (miscarriage and perinatal mortality, including any stillbirth or neonatal death in the first week of life). Secondary outcomes included the core outcome set for preterm birth.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Women were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis to monofilament or braided cerclage utilising a bespoke randomisation service with minimisation dependent on the site, indication for cerclage, intention to use progesterone and planned surgical technique. The inclusion criteria were three or more previous mid-trimester losses or preterm births, insertion of a cerclage in a previous pregnancy, a history of a mid-trimester loss or preterm birth with a shortened cervical length in the current pregnancy or in women who clinicians deemed at risk of preterm birth. The exclusion criteria were an emergency or rescue cerclage, age of < 18 years, being unable to give informed consent or the cerclage having to be placed abdominally. The original sample size was calculated based on a relative risk reduction of 41% from a pregnancy loss rate of 19% in the braided group to 11% in the monofilament group with 90% power and alpha at <i>p</i> = 0.05. The independent data monitoring committee noted a lower-than-anticipated pooled event rate within the trial and recommended an increase in sample size to 2050. The outcome data were collected using clinical record forms from the maternal and neonatal medical records and reported to Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2049 women were randomised, after withdrawals and loss to follow-up, data on 1005 women in the monofilament group and 993 women in the braided group were included. The baseline demographics between the groups were similar. There was no evidence of a difference in pregnancy loss rates between the monofilament and braided groups (80/1003 vs. 75/993; adjusted risk ratio: 1.05, 95% confidence interval: 0.79 to 1.40; adjusted risk difference: 0.002, 95% confidence interval: -0.02 to 0.03).</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The trial did not collect long-term paediatric outcomes. There were no safety concerns.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was no evidence of a difference in pregnancy loss between a monofilament suture and a braided suture.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>Long-term follow-up of neonates born within the C-STICH (cerclage suture type for an insufficient cervix and its effects on health outcomes) trial.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This trial is registered as ISRCTN15373349.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/04/107) and is published in full in <i>Health Technology Assessment</i>; Vol. 28, No. 40. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>","PeriodicalId":12898,"journal":{"name":"Health technology assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11403380/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/YKTW8402","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Second trimester miscarriage and preterm birth is a significant global problem. Surgical cervical cerclage is performed to prevent pregnancy loss and preterm birth. It utilises either a monofilament or braided suture. It is hypothesised that a braided material becomes colonised with pathogenic bacteria that causes vaginal dysbiosis, infection and cerclage failure.

Objectives: The primary objective of the study was to examine the effectiveness of using a monofilament suture material as opposed to a braided suture material on pregnancy loss in women requiring a vaginal cervical cerclage.

Design: Superiority open randomised controlled trial.

Setting: Seventy-five maternity sites across the UK.

Participants: Women experiencing a singleton pregnancy requiring a cervical cerclage.

Interventions: Monofilament suture or braided suture.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was pregnancy loss (miscarriage and perinatal mortality, including any stillbirth or neonatal death in the first week of life). Secondary outcomes included the core outcome set for preterm birth.

Methods: Women were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis to monofilament or braided cerclage utilising a bespoke randomisation service with minimisation dependent on the site, indication for cerclage, intention to use progesterone and planned surgical technique. The inclusion criteria were three or more previous mid-trimester losses or preterm births, insertion of a cerclage in a previous pregnancy, a history of a mid-trimester loss or preterm birth with a shortened cervical length in the current pregnancy or in women who clinicians deemed at risk of preterm birth. The exclusion criteria were an emergency or rescue cerclage, age of < 18 years, being unable to give informed consent or the cerclage having to be placed abdominally. The original sample size was calculated based on a relative risk reduction of 41% from a pregnancy loss rate of 19% in the braided group to 11% in the monofilament group with 90% power and alpha at p = 0.05. The independent data monitoring committee noted a lower-than-anticipated pooled event rate within the trial and recommended an increase in sample size to 2050. The outcome data were collected using clinical record forms from the maternal and neonatal medical records and reported to Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit.

Results: A total of 2049 women were randomised, after withdrawals and loss to follow-up, data on 1005 women in the monofilament group and 993 women in the braided group were included. The baseline demographics between the groups were similar. There was no evidence of a difference in pregnancy loss rates between the monofilament and braided groups (80/1003 vs. 75/993; adjusted risk ratio: 1.05, 95% confidence interval: 0.79 to 1.40; adjusted risk difference: 0.002, 95% confidence interval: -0.02 to 0.03).

Limitations: The trial did not collect long-term paediatric outcomes. There were no safety concerns.

Conclusions: There was no evidence of a difference in pregnancy loss between a monofilament suture and a braided suture.

Future work: Long-term follow-up of neonates born within the C-STICH (cerclage suture type for an insufficient cervix and its effects on health outcomes) trial.

Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN15373349.

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/04/107) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 40. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

需要进行阴道宫颈环扎术的妇女为防止妊娠丢失而采用的环扎缝合方式:C-STICH RCT。
背景:第二孕期流产和早产是一个严重的全球性问题。宫颈环扎术可预防妊娠流产和早产。它使用单丝或编织缝合线。据推测,编织材料会被致病菌定植,导致阴道菌群失调、感染和宫颈环扎失败:本研究的主要目的是探讨使用单丝缝合材料和编织缝合材料对需要进行阴道宫颈环扎术的妇女妊娠失败的影响:设计:优越性开放随机对照试验:地点:英国75个产科医院:干预:干预措施:单丝缝合或编织缝合:主要结果为妊娠损失(流产和围产期死亡率,包括任何死产或新生儿出生后第一周死亡)。次要结果包括早产的核心结果:采用定制随机化服务,根据部位、宫颈环扎适应症、使用黄体酮的意向和计划采用的手术技术,按1:1的比例将妇女随机分为单丝或编织宫颈环扎术。纳入标准为曾有过三次或三次以上的中期妊娠流产或早产史、曾在前次妊娠中植入过宫颈环扎器、曾有过中期妊娠流产或早产史且本次妊娠中宫颈长度缩短或临床医生认为有早产风险的妇女。排除标准包括紧急或抢救性宫颈环扎术、年龄小于 18 岁、无法做出知情同意或必须在腹部放置宫颈环扎术。最初的样本量是根据妊娠损失率从编织组的19%降至单丝组的11%,相对风险降低41%计算得出的,功率为90%,α值为p = 0.05。独立数据监测委员会注意到试验中的集合事件发生率低于预期,建议将样本量增加到 2050 个。结果数据通过产妇和新生儿病历中的临床记录表收集,并报告给伯明翰临床试验组:共有 2049 名妇女被随机选中,在退出和失去随访机会后,单丝组中有 1005 名妇女的数据被纳入,编织组中有 993 名妇女的数据被纳入。两组的基线人口统计学特征相似。没有证据表明单丝组和编织组的妊娠损失率存在差异(80/1003 vs. 75/993;调整后风险比:1.05,95% 置信区间:0.79 至 1.40;调整后风险差异:0.002,95% 置信区间:0.002):局限性:该试验没有收集儿科的长期结果。结论没有证据表明单丝缝合线和编织缝合线在妊娠损失方面存在差异:未来工作:在C-STICH(宫颈环扎缝合类型对宫颈机能不全及其对健康结果的影响)试验范围内对新生儿进行长期随访:该试验的注册号为 ISRCTN15373349:该奖项由美国国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)健康技术评估项目资助(NIHR奖项编号:13/04/107),全文发表于《健康技术评估》(Health Technology Assessment)第28卷第40期。如需了解更多奖项信息,请访问 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health technology assessment
Health technology assessment 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) publishes research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信