Preterm Birth In Low-risk Women Research Articles

Randomized trial of screening for preterm birth in low-risk women - the preterm birth screening study

Preterm birth is a major cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality. It is unclear whether the introduction of a universal transvaginal ultrasound cervical length screening program in women at low risk for preterm delivery is associated with a reduction in the frequency of preterm birth. To test the hypothesis that the introduction of a midtrimester universal transvaginal ultrasound cervical length screening program in asymptomatic singleton pregnancies without prior preterm delivery would reduce the rate of preterm birth at <37 weeks of gestation. This study was a multicenter nonblinded randomized trial of screening of asymptomatic singleton pregnancies without prior spontaneous preterm birth, who were randomized to either cervical length screening program (ie, intervention group) or no screening (ie, control group). Participants were randomized at the time of their routine anatomy scan between 18 0/7 and 23 6/7 weeks of gestation. Women randomized in the screening group received cervical length measurement. Those who were found to have cervical length ≤25 mm were offered 200 mg vaginal progesterone daily along with cervical pessary. The primary outcome was preterm birth at <37 weeks. The risk of primary outcome was quantified by the relative risk with 95% confidence interval, and was based on the intention-to-screen principle. A total of 1334 asymptomatic women with singleton pregnancies and without prior preterm birth, were included in the trial. Out of the 675 women randomized in the transvaginal ultrasound cervical length screening group, 13 (1.9%) were found to have transvaginal ultrasound cervical length ≤25 mm during the screening. Preterm birth at <37 weeks of gestation occurred in 48 women in the transvaginal ultrasound cervical length screening group (7.5%), and 54 women in the control group (8.7%) (relative risk, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.25). Women randomized in the transvaginal ultrasound cervical length screening group had no significant differences in the incidence of preterm birth at less than 34, 32, 30, 28, and 24 weeks of gestation. The introduction of a universal transvaginal ultrasound cervical length screening program at 18 0/6 to 23 6/7 weeks of gestation in singleton pregnancies without prior spontaneous preterm birth, with treatment for those with cervical length ≤25 mm, did not result in significant lower incidence of preterm delivery than the incidence without the screening program.

LB03 Randomized trial of screening for preterm birth in low-risk women. The Preterm Birth Screening Study

LB03 Randomized trial of screening for preterm birth in low-risk women. The Preterm Birth Screening Study

Uterocervical angle and cervical length as predictors for preterm birth in low-risk women

Uterocervical angle and cervical length as predictors for preterm birth in low-risk women

Cervical length as a predictor for preterm birth in low-risk women

Cervical length as a predictor for preterm birth in low-risk women

Optimal gestational age at cervical length measurement for predicting preterm birth in low-risk women

Optimal gestational age at cervical length measurement for predicting preterm birth in low-risk women

Cervical consistency index is a valid predictor of preterm birth in low-risk pregnant women

Background Preterm birth (PTB) remains a global problem associated with perinatal morbidity, including low birth weight, growth retardation and irreversible damage to the nervous system. The objective of this study was to determine the predictive value of cervical consistency index (CCI) to indicate the occurrence of PTB in mid trimester screening of low risk pregnant women. MethodsThis was a prospective study conducted on low-risk pregnant women at 14-28 weeks of pregnancy. The cervical length (CL) and AP cervical diameter were measured and the CCI determined according to the formula AP2/AP1*100. The ROC curves were drawn according to gestational age and the sensitivity and the specificity were calculated for optimal cut-off for 1st, 5th, 10th, 21th, and 24th centiles of CCI. The inter-observer agreement was validated by interclass correlation coefficients (ICC).ResultsA total of 149 participants were enrolled in this study. Among them, 12.08% had PTB (&lt;37weeks) and 87.92% had normal birth. Mean CCI for all subjects was 68.60%, but was lower in PTB (48.9%). The best cutoff for predicting PTB based on CCI was 59.46% with 99.18% sensitivity and 85% specificity. The AUC for CCI for prediction of PTB &lt;37weeks was 0.936. There was no inter-observer difference in measurement of CCI and CL (ICC values for CCI and CL were 0.997 and 0.990 respectively).ConclusionIn women with normal CL the CCI could predict PTB in the second trimester in low risk women. So, CCI is a valid predictor of PTB in low risk women.

The capacity of mid-pregnancy cervical length to predict preterm birth in low-risk women: a national cohort study.

We investigated the predictive capacity of mid-trimester cervical length (CL) measurement for spontaneous and iatrogenic preterm birth. We performed a prospective observational cohort study in nulliparous women and low-risk multiparous women with a singleton pregnancy between 16(+0) and 21(+6) weeks of gestation. We assessed the prognostic capacity of transvaginally measured mid-trimester CL for spontaneous and iatrogenic preterm birth (<37 weeks) using likelihood ratios (LR) and receiver-operating-characteristic analysis. We calculated numbers needed to screen to prevent one preterm birth assuming different treatment effects. Main outcome measures were preterm birth <32, <34 and <37 weeks. We studied 11,943 women, of whom 666 (5.6%) delivered preterm: 464 (3.9%) spontaneous and 202 (1.7%) iatrogenic. Mean CL was 44.1 mm (SD 7.8 mm). In nulliparous women, the LRs for spontaneous preterm birth varied between 27 (95% CI 7.7-95) for a CL ≤ 20 mm, and 2.0 (95% CI 1.6-2.5) for a CL between 30 and 35 mm. For low-risk multiparous women, these LRs were 37 (95% CI 7.5-182) and 1.5 (95% CI 0.97-2.2), respectively. Using a cut-off for CL ≤ 30 mm, 28 (6.0%) of 464 women with spontaneous preterm birth were identified. The number needed to screen to prevent one case of preterm birth was 618 in nulliparous women and 1417 for low-risk multiparous women (40% treatment effect, cut-off 30 mm). In women at low risk of preterm birth, CL predicts spontaneous preterm birth. However, its isolated use as a screening tool has limited value due to low sensitivity.

509: Does the incidence of preterm birth in low-risk women depend on the presence of additional risk factors, when analyzed by cervical length?

509: Does the incidence of preterm birth in low-risk women depend on the presence of additional risk factors, when analyzed by cervical length?

Addendum to “Is it time to rethink Healthy Start/Healthy Families”: [Child Abuse & Neglect 28(6) (2004) 589–595

Patients participating in group prenatal care gather together with women of similar gestational ages and 2 providers who cofacilitate an educational session after a brief medical assessment. The model was first described in the 1990s by a midwife for low-risk patients and is now practiced by midwives and physicians for both low-risk patients and some high-risk patients, such as those with diabetes. The majority of literature on group prenatal care uses CenteringPregnancy, the most popular model. The first randomized controlled trial of CenteringPregnancy showed that it reduced the risk of preterm birth in low-risk women. However, recent meta-analyses have shown similar rates of preterm birth, low birthweight, and neonatal intensive care unit admission between women participating in group prenatal care and individual prenatal care. There may be subgroups, such as African Americans, who benefit from this type of prenatal care with significantly lower rates of preterm birth. Group prenatal care seems to result in increased patient satisfaction and knowledge and use of postpartum family planning as well as improved weight gain parameters. The literature is inconclusive regarding breast-feeding, stress, depression, and positive health behaviors, although it is theorized that group prenatal care positively affects these outcomes. It is unclear whether group prenatal care results in cost savings, although it may in large-volume practices if each group consists of approximately 8–10 women. Group prenatal care requires a significant paradigm shift. It can be difficult to implement and sustain. More randomized trials are needed to ascertain the true benefits of the model, best practices for implementation, and subgroups who may benefit most from this innovative way to provide prenatal care. In short, group prenatal care is an innovative and promising model with comparable pregnancy outcomes to individual prenatal care in the general population and improved outcomes in some demographic groups.