Rescue Cerclage in Women With Acute Cervical Insufficiency and Intra-Amniotic Inflammation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Kyo Hoon Park, Kyong-No Lee, Bo Young Choi, Min Jung Lee, Da Eun Jeong
{"title":"Rescue Cerclage in Women With Acute Cervical Insufficiency and Intra-Amniotic Inflammation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.","authors":"Kyo Hoon Park, Kyong-No Lee, Bo Young Choi, Min Jung Lee, Da Eun Jeong","doi":"10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To assess the effectiveness of rescue cerclage concerning pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in women with acute cervical insufficiency (CI) complicated with intra-amniotic inflammation (IAI) compared with those managed expectantly.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study included 87 consecutive singleton pregnant women (17-25 weeks) with acute CI who underwent amniocentesis to assess IAI. Amniotic fluid (AF) samples were assayed for interleukin-6 to define IAI (≥ 2.6 ng/mL). Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed in a subset of CI patients with IAI. The primary outcome measures were spontaneous preterm birth (SPTB) at < 28 and < 34 weeks, and the secondary outcomes were interval from sampling to delivery, neonatal survival, neonatal birth weight, and histologic and clinical chorioamnionitis. Macrolide antibiotics were prescribed depending on the type of microorganism isolated from the AF, clinically suspected IAI, and the discretion of the attending clinician.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>IAI was identified in 65.5% (57/87) of patients with CI, of whom 73.6% (42/57) were treated with macrolide antibiotics. Among the CI patients with IAI (n = 57), 40 underwent rescue cerclage and 17 were expectantly managed. The rates of SPTBs at < 28 and < 34 weeks were significantly lower and the latency period was significantly longer in the cerclage group than in the group that was managed expectantly. The median birth weight and neonatal survival rate were significantly higher in the cerclage group than in the group that was managed expectantly. However, the rates of histologic and clinical chorioamnionitis did not differ between the groups. Multivariable analyses revealed that rescue cerclage placement and administration of macrolide antibiotics were significantly associated with a decrease in SPTBs at < 28 and < 34 weeks, prolonged gestational latency, and increased likelihood of neonatal survival, after adjusting for possible confounding parameters; however, macrolide antibiotic administration did not reach statistical significance with respect to SPTB at < 34 weeks and neonatal survival (<i>P</i> = 0.076 and 0.063, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Rescue cerclage along with macrolide antibiotic treatment may positively impact pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in women with CI complicated by IAI, compared with expectant management. These findings suggest the benefit of cerclage placement even in patients with CI complicated by IAI.</p>","PeriodicalId":16249,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Korean Medical Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11538575/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Korean Medical Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e310","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To assess the effectiveness of rescue cerclage concerning pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in women with acute cervical insufficiency (CI) complicated with intra-amniotic inflammation (IAI) compared with those managed expectantly.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 87 consecutive singleton pregnant women (17-25 weeks) with acute CI who underwent amniocentesis to assess IAI. Amniotic fluid (AF) samples were assayed for interleukin-6 to define IAI (≥ 2.6 ng/mL). Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed in a subset of CI patients with IAI. The primary outcome measures were spontaneous preterm birth (SPTB) at < 28 and < 34 weeks, and the secondary outcomes were interval from sampling to delivery, neonatal survival, neonatal birth weight, and histologic and clinical chorioamnionitis. Macrolide antibiotics were prescribed depending on the type of microorganism isolated from the AF, clinically suspected IAI, and the discretion of the attending clinician.

Results: IAI was identified in 65.5% (57/87) of patients with CI, of whom 73.6% (42/57) were treated with macrolide antibiotics. Among the CI patients with IAI (n = 57), 40 underwent rescue cerclage and 17 were expectantly managed. The rates of SPTBs at < 28 and < 34 weeks were significantly lower and the latency period was significantly longer in the cerclage group than in the group that was managed expectantly. The median birth weight and neonatal survival rate were significantly higher in the cerclage group than in the group that was managed expectantly. However, the rates of histologic and clinical chorioamnionitis did not differ between the groups. Multivariable analyses revealed that rescue cerclage placement and administration of macrolide antibiotics were significantly associated with a decrease in SPTBs at < 28 and < 34 weeks, prolonged gestational latency, and increased likelihood of neonatal survival, after adjusting for possible confounding parameters; however, macrolide antibiotic administration did not reach statistical significance with respect to SPTB at < 34 weeks and neonatal survival (P = 0.076 and 0.063, respectively).

Conclusion: Rescue cerclage along with macrolide antibiotic treatment may positively impact pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in women with CI complicated by IAI, compared with expectant management. These findings suggest the benefit of cerclage placement even in patients with CI complicated by IAI.

急性宫颈机能不全和妊娠内炎症妇女的抢救性宫颈环扎术:回顾性队列研究
背景:目的:评估急性宫颈机能不全(CI)并发羊膜腔内炎症(IAI)与期待治疗相比,抢救性宫颈环扎术对妊娠和新生儿预后的有效性:这项回顾性队列研究纳入了 87 名急性宫颈机能不全的连续单胎孕妇(17-25 周),她们都接受了羊膜腔穿刺术以评估 IAI。对羊水样本进行白细胞介素-6检测,以确定IAI(≥ 2.6 ng/mL)。对具有 IAI 的 CI 患者子集的主要和次要结果进行评估。主要结果指标为<28周和<34周的自发性早产(SPTB),次要结果指标为取样到分娩的间隔时间、新生儿存活率、新生儿出生体重以及组织学和临床绒毛膜羊膜炎。大环内酯类抗生素的处方取决于从腹腔积液中分离出的微生物类型、临床怀疑的IAI以及主治医生的判断:结果:65.5%(57/87)的 CI 患者发现了 IAI,其中 73.6%(42/57)的患者接受了大环内酯类抗生素治疗。在有 IAI 的 CI 患者(57 人)中,40 人接受了抢救性环扎术,17 人接受了预期管理。宫颈环扎组在小于 28 周和小于 34 周时的 SPTB 发生率明显降低,潜伏期明显长于预期处理组。宫颈环扎组的出生体重中位数和新生儿存活率明显高于预期管理组。然而,组织学和临床绒毛膜羊膜炎的发生率在两组之间并无差异。多变量分析显示,在调整了可能的混杂参数后,放置抢救性宫颈环扎和使用大环内酯类抗生素与小于28周和小于34周的SPTB减少、妊娠潜伏期延长和新生儿存活率增加有明显关系;然而,使用大环内酯类抗生素与小于34周的SPTB和新生儿存活率没有统计学意义(P=0.076和0.063):结论:与预产期管理相比,抢救性宫颈环扎和大环内酯类抗生素治疗可能会对妊娠和新生儿预后产生积极影响。这些研究结果表明,即使是并发有 IAI 的 CI 患者,放置环扎也是有益的。
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
Journal of Korean Medical Science
Journal of Korean Medical Science 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
8.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Korean Medical Science (JKMS) is an international, peer-reviewed Open Access journal of medicine published weekly in English. The Journal’s publisher is the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences (KAMS), Korean Medical Association (KMA). JKMS aims to publish evidence-based, scientific research articles from various disciplines of the medical sciences. The Journal welcomes articles of general interest to medical researchers especially when they contain original information. Articles on the clinical evaluation of drugs and other therapies, epidemiologic studies of the general population, studies on pathogenic organisms and toxic materials, and the toxicities and adverse effects of therapeutics are welcome.
×
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