• Agustin Conde-Agudelo, Roberto Romero, and Kypros H Nicolaides.
• Perinatology Research Branch, Division of Obstetrics and Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Division of Intramural Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD and Detroit, MI; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI.
• Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020 Jul 1; 223 (1): 42-65.e2.

BackgroundRandomized controlled trials that have assessed the efficacy of cervical pessary to prevent preterm birth in asymptomatic high-risk women have reported conflicting results.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of cervical pessary to prevent preterm birth and adverse perinatal outcomes in asymptomatic high-risk women.Data SourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, CINAHL, and LILACS (from their inception to October 31, 2019), Cochrane databases, Google Scholar, bibliographies, and conference proceedings.Study Eligibility CriteriaRandomized controlled trials that compared cervical pessary with standard care (no pessary) or alternative interventions in asymptomatic women at high risk for preterm birth.Study Appraisal And Synthesis MethodsThe systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook guidelines. The primary outcome was spontaneous preterm birth <34 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes included adverse pregnancy, maternal, and perinatal outcomes. Pooled relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE methodology.ResultsTwelve studies (4687 women and 7167 fetuses/infants) met the inclusion criteria: 8 evaluated pessary vs no pessary in women with a short cervix, 2 assessed pessary vs no pessary in unselected multiple gestations, and 2 compared pessary vs vaginal progesterone in women with a short cervix. There were no significant differences between the pessary and no pessary groups in the risk of spontaneous preterm birth <34 weeks of gestation among singleton gestations with a cervical length ≤25 mm (relative risk, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.49; 6 trials, 1982 women; low-quality evidence), unselected twin gestations (relative risk, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.41; 1 trial, 1177 women; moderate-quality evidence), twin gestations with a cervical length <38 mm (relative risk, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-1.36; 3 trials, 1128 women; low-quality evidence), and twin gestations with a cervical length ≤25 mm (relative risk; 0.72, 95% confidence interval, 0.25-2.06; 2 trials, 348 women; low-quality evidence). Overall, no significant differences were observed between the pessary and no pessary groups in preterm birth <37, <32, and <28 weeks of gestation, and most adverse pregnancy, maternal, and perinatal outcomes (low- to moderate-quality evidence for most outcomes). There were no significant differences in the risk of spontaneous preterm birth <34 weeks of gestation between pessary and vaginal progesterone in singleton gestations with a cervical length ≤25 mm (relative risk, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-1.83; 1 trial, 246 women; low-quality evidence) and twin gestations with a cervical length <38 mm (relative risk, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.18; 1 trial, 297 women; very low-quality evidence). Vaginal discharge was significantly more frequent in the pessary group than in the no pessary and vaginal progesterone groups (relative risks, ∼2.20; high-quality evidence).ConclusionCurrent evidence does not support the use of cervical pessary to prevent preterm birth or to improve perinatal outcomes in singleton or twin gestations with a short cervix and in unselected twin gestations.Published by Elsevier Inc.

19 keywords...

hide…