Removal vs. retention of cervical cerclage in pregnancies complicated by preterm premature rupture of membranes: a retrospective study
Dana Vitner,Nir Melamed,David Elhadad,Michael Phang,Maya Ram,Elizabeth Asztalos,Arthur Zaltz,Prakesh S Shah,Jon Barrett
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05642-y
Abstract:Purpose: To compare pregnancy outcomes in women with pPROM and a cervical cerclage in whom the cerclage was removed within 24 h and those in whom the cerclage was retained in situ. Methods: A two-center retrospective cohort study of women with a singleton gestation with pPROM at < 340/7 weeks of gestation in the presence of cervical cerclage (January 1, 2012-July 30, 2016). Maternal and perinatal outcomes were compared between women in whom cerclage was removed within 24 h from pPROM and those in whom cerclage was retained until the onset of delivery. The primary outcome was time from pPROM to delivery. Results: Seventy women met inclusion criteria. Cerclage was left in situ in 47 (67.1%) and removed in 23 (32.9%) women. Women in the cerclage retention group had a higher pPROM-to-delivery interval (7.0 ± 7.2 vs. 6.0 ± 10.9 days, p = 0.03), and were more likely to have a latency period > 48 h (87.2% vs. 65.2%, p = 0.03; aOR 3.9, 95% CI 3.1-4.9) or > 7 days (29.8% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.04; aOR 7.0, 95% CI 2.5-19.6) compared with women in whom cerclage was removed. Furthermore, chorioamnionitis rate was lower in the cerclage retention group compared to cerclage removal group (aOR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-1.0). There were no differences between the groups in early neonatal sepsis, severe brain injury, or composite neonatal outcome. Conclusion: In women with pPROM and cervical cerclage, retention of cerclage may be associated with a longer latency period, and a lower chorioamnionitis rate, without an associated increase in the risk of neonatal infectious morbidity. Presentation information: The abstract of this study was presented as a poster at the 38th SMFM (Society of Maternal and Fetal Medicine) annual meeting, February 2018, Dallas, Texas, USA.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?