Pericerclage tocolytics, antibiotics, or their combination and risk of preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Ilaria Paladino MD, Carly Feldman, Teresa Cobo MD, PhD, Vincenzo Berghella MD
{"title":"Pericerclage tocolytics, antibiotics, or their combination and risk of preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Ilaria Paladino MD,&nbsp;Carly Feldman,&nbsp;Teresa Cobo MD, PhD,&nbsp;Vincenzo Berghella MD","doi":"10.1016/j.ajogmf.2026.102140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>OBJECTIVE</h3><div>To evaluate whether adjunctive pericerclage therapy with tocolytics, antibiotics, or combination therapy is associated with reduced preterm birth (PTB) and improved maternal and neonatal outcomes according to therapy type and cerclage indication.</div></div><div><h3>DATA SOURCES</h3><div>A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL was conducted from database inception through March 4, 2026.</div></div><div><h3>STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA</h3><div>Randomized and nonrandomized controlled studies evaluating singleton or twin pregnancies undergoing transvaginal cervical cerclage were included. Eligible studies compared perioperative adjunctive therapy, including tocolytics, antibiotics, or both, administered within 24 hours before, during, or within 48 hours after cerclage placement, with cerclage without adjunctive therapy. Studies involving transabdominal cerclage, higher-order multifetal gestations, or nonextractable cerclage-specific data were excluded.</div></div><div><h3>STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS</h3><div>Risk of bias was assessed using RoB-2 and ROBINS-I tools. Random-effects meta-analyses with restricted maximum likelihood estimation were performed to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary analysis compared any adjunctive pericerclage therapy vs no adjunctive therapy. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted according to adjunctive therapy type (tocolytics and antibiotics alone or in combination) and cerclage indication, including ultrasound-indicated cerclage (UIC) and physical examination-indicated cerclage (PEIC). The primary outcome was PTB&lt;37 weeks of gestation.</div></div><div><h3>RESULTS</h3><div>Seven studies met inclusion criteria, and 6 were included in the quantitative analysis, involving 878 patients. Adjunctive pericerclage therapy was not associated with reduced PTB&lt;37 weeks compared with cerclage alone (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.65–1.31). No significant differences were observed for PTB&lt;32, &lt;28, or &lt;24 weeks, gestational age at delivery, gestational latency, chorioamnionitis, preterm premature rupture of membranes, birthweight, or neonatal survival. Similarly, subgroup analyses according to therapy type, including tocolytics alone, antibiotics alone, and combination therapy, similarly showed no significant effect. In the UIC subgroup, no association between adjunctive therapy and PTB&lt;37 weeks was observed (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.71–1.85). In the PEIC subgroup, adjunctive therapy was associated with a nonsignificant trend toward reduced PTB&lt;37 weeks (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.43–1.21), PTB&lt;28 weeks (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.37–1.34), and PTB&lt;24 weeks (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.18–1.08), as well a longer (by &gt;1 week) latency.</div></div><div><h3>CONCLUSION</h3><div>Adjunctive pericerclage therapy with tocolysis and/or antibiotics was not associated with reduced PTB or improved maternal and neonatal outcomes. Indication-specific analyses did not demonstrate a significant benefit in either UIC or PEIC. Point estimates for several outcomes favored adjunctive therapy in the PEIC subgroup; however, these findings are exploratory and should be interpreted cautiously. Further adequately powered, indication-specific studies are needed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36186,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Mfm","volume":"8 12","pages":"Article 102140"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Mfm","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589933326002399","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether adjunctive pericerclage therapy with tocolytics, antibiotics, or combination therapy is associated with reduced preterm birth (PTB) and improved maternal and neonatal outcomes according to therapy type and cerclage indication.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL was conducted from database inception through March 4, 2026.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomized and nonrandomized controlled studies evaluating singleton or twin pregnancies undergoing transvaginal cervical cerclage were included. Eligible studies compared perioperative adjunctive therapy, including tocolytics, antibiotics, or both, administered within 24 hours before, during, or within 48 hours after cerclage placement, with cerclage without adjunctive therapy. Studies involving transabdominal cerclage, higher-order multifetal gestations, or nonextractable cerclage-specific data were excluded.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Risk of bias was assessed using RoB-2 and ROBINS-I tools. Random-effects meta-analyses with restricted maximum likelihood estimation were performed to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary analysis compared any adjunctive pericerclage therapy vs no adjunctive therapy. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted according to adjunctive therapy type (tocolytics and antibiotics alone or in combination) and cerclage indication, including ultrasound-indicated cerclage (UIC) and physical examination-indicated cerclage (PEIC). The primary outcome was PTB<37 weeks of gestation.

RESULTS

Seven studies met inclusion criteria, and 6 were included in the quantitative analysis, involving 878 patients. Adjunctive pericerclage therapy was not associated with reduced PTB<37 weeks compared with cerclage alone (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.65–1.31). No significant differences were observed for PTB<32, <28, or <24 weeks, gestational age at delivery, gestational latency, chorioamnionitis, preterm premature rupture of membranes, birthweight, or neonatal survival. Similarly, subgroup analyses according to therapy type, including tocolytics alone, antibiotics alone, and combination therapy, similarly showed no significant effect. In the UIC subgroup, no association between adjunctive therapy and PTB<37 weeks was observed (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.71–1.85). In the PEIC subgroup, adjunctive therapy was associated with a nonsignificant trend toward reduced PTB<37 weeks (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.43–1.21), PTB<28 weeks (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.37–1.34), and PTB<24 weeks (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.18–1.08), as well a longer (by >1 week) latency.

CONCLUSION

Adjunctive pericerclage therapy with tocolysis and/or antibiotics was not associated with reduced PTB or improved maternal and neonatal outcomes. Indication-specific analyses did not demonstrate a significant benefit in either UIC or PEIC. Point estimates for several outcomes favored adjunctive therapy in the PEIC subgroup; however, these findings are exploratory and should be interpreted cautiously. Further adequately powered, indication-specific studies are needed.
围护剂、抗生素或其组合与早产风险:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:根据治疗类型和环切适应症,评估辅助环切治疗结合抗缩药、抗生素或联合治疗是否与减少早产(PTB)和改善孕产妇和新生儿结局相关。数据来源:从数据库建立到2026年3月4日,对PubMed、Scopus、MEDLINE和CENTRAL进行了系统搜索。研究资格标准:纳入评估单胎或双胎妊娠经阴道宫颈环切术的随机和非随机对照研究。符合条件的研究比较围手术期辅助治疗,包括抗早产药物、抗生素或两者兼有,在环扎术前24小时、中24小时或环扎术后48小时内给药,与不使用辅助治疗的环扎术。涉及经腹环扎术、高阶多胎妊娠或不可提取环扎术的研究被排除在外。研究评价和综合方法:使用rob2和ROBINS-I工具评估偏倚风险。采用限制性最大似然估计(REML)进行随机效应荟萃分析,计算合并优势比(OR)和95%置信区间(CI)的平均差异。初步分析比较了辅助包皮治疗和不辅助包皮治疗。根据辅助治疗类型(单独或联合使用抗胎溶药物和抗生素)和环切适应症,包括超声指征环切(UIC)和体格检查指征环切(PEIC),进行预先指定的亚组分析。结果:7项研究符合纳入标准,6项纳入定量分析,共纳入878例患者。辅助环周治疗与减少PTB潜伏期(1周)无关。结论:辅助包皮包皮治疗与胎解和/或抗生素与减少PTB或改善孕产妇和新生儿结局无关。特定适应症分析未显示UIC或PEIC的显著益处。在PEIC亚组中,一些结果的点估计倾向于辅助治疗;然而,这些发现是探索性的,应该谨慎地解释。需要进一步进行充分有力的、针对特定适应症的研究。
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
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
3.20%
发文量
254
审稿时长
40 days
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (AJOG) is a highly esteemed publication with two companion titles. One of these is the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Maternal-Fetal Medicine (AJOG MFM), which is dedicated to the latest research in the field of maternal-fetal medicine, specifically concerning high-risk pregnancies. The journal encompasses a wide range of topics, including: Maternal Complications: It addresses significant studies that have the potential to change clinical practice regarding complications faced by pregnant women. Fetal Complications: The journal covers prenatal diagnosis, ultrasound, and genetic issues related to the fetus, providing insights into the management and care of fetal health. Prenatal Care: It discusses the best practices in prenatal care to ensure the health and well-being of both the mother and the unborn child. Intrapartum Care: It provides guidance on the care provided during the childbirth process, which is critical for the safety of both mother and baby. Postpartum Issues: The journal also tackles issues that arise after childbirth, focusing on the postpartum period and its implications for maternal health. AJOG MFM serves as a reliable forum for peer-reviewed research, with a preference for randomized trials and meta-analyses. The goal is to equip researchers and clinicians with the most current information and evidence-based strategies to effectively manage high-risk pregnancies and to provide the best possible care for mothers and their unborn children.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书