PDF herunterladen
Am J Perinatol 2016; 33(01): 040-046
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1556067
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Midpregnancy Cervical Length in Nulliparous Women and its Association with Postterm Delivery and Intrapartum Cesarean Delivery

A. J. van der Ven
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
M. A. van Os
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
C. E. Kleinrouweler
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
C. J. M. Verhoeven
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Máxima Medical Center, Veldhoven, The Netherlands
4   Department of Midwifery Science, AVAG/EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
E. de Miranda
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
P. M. Bossuyt
5   Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (KEBB), Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
C. J. M. de Groot
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
M. C. Haak
6   Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
,
E. Pajkrt
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
B. W. J. Mol
7   The Robinson Institute, School of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health, University of Adelaide, Australia
,
B. M. Kazemier
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

29. April 2015

08. Mai 2015

Publikationsdatum:
26. Juni 2015 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the association between midpregnancy cervical length and postterm delivery and cesarean delivery during labor.

Study Design In a multicenter cohort study, cervical length was measured in low-risk singleton pregnancies between 16 and 22 weeks of gestation. From this cohort, we identified nulliparous women who delivered beyond 34 weeks and calculated cervical length quartiles. We performed logistic regression to compare the risk of postterm delivery and intrapartum cesarean delivery to cervical length quartiles, using the lowest quartile as a reference. We adjusted for induction of labor, maternal age, ethnicity, cephalic position, preexisting hypertension, and gestational age at delivery.

Results We studied 5,321 nulliparous women. Women with cervical length in the 3rd and 4th quartile were more likely to deliver at 42+0 to 42+6 weeks (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07–3.79 and aOR 1.97, 95% CI 1.06–3.67, respectively). The frequency of intrapartum cesarean delivery increased with cervical length quartile from 9.4% in the 1st to 14.9% in the 4th quartile (p = 0.01). This increase was only present in intrapartum cesarean delivery because of failure to progress and not because of fetal distress.

Conclusion The longer the cervix at midtrimester the higher the risk of both postterm delivery and intrapartum cesarean delivery.

Keywords

cervical length - postterm delivery - cesarean section - cohort study
 

  • References

  • 1 Kazemier BM, Ravelli AC, de Groot CJ, Mol BW. Optimal timing of near-term delivery in different ethnicities: a national cohort study. BJOG 2014; 121 (10) 1274-1282 , discussion 1283
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Alexander JM, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. Forty weeks and beyond: pregnancy outcomes by week of gestation. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96 (2) 291-294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Olesen AW, Westergaard JG, Olsen J. Perinatal and maternal complications related to postterm delivery: a national register-based study, 1978-1993. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189 (1) 222-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Caughey AB, Snegovskikh VV, Norwitz ER. Postterm pregnancy: how can we improve outcomes?. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2008; 63 (11) 715-724
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Vayssière C, Haumonte J-B, Chantry A , et al; French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF). Prolonged and post-term pregnancies: guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013; 169 (1) 10-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Divon MY, Haglund B, Nisell H, Otterblad PO, Westgren M. Fetal and neonatal mortality in the postterm pregnancy: the impact of gestational age and fetal growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 178 (4) 726-731
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Nakling J, Backe B. Pregnancy risk increases from 41 weeks of gestation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006; 85 (6) 663-668
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ayyavoo A, Derraik JGB, Hofman PL, Cutfield WS. Postterm births: are prolonged pregnancies too long?. J Pediatr 2014; 164 (3) 647-651
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice bulletin no. 146: Management of late-term and postterm pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124 (2 Pt 1) 390-396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Caesarean section. NICE guidelines [CG132]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg132 . Accessed 2 May, 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Nederlandse Vereniging voor Obstetrie en Gynaecologie (NVOG). Omschrijving van het probleem. Datum Goedkeuring: 2007-06-08, Verantwoording: NVOG, Versie: 2.0. Available at: http://nvog-documenten.nl/index.php?pagina=/richtlijn/item/pagina.php&richtlijn_id=749 . Accessed 15 April, 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Wood S, Cooper S, Ross S. Does induction of labour increase the risk of caesarean section? A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials in women with intact membranes. BJOG 2014; 121 (6) 674-685 , discussion 685
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Mishanina E, Rogozinska E, Thatthi T, Uddin-Khan R, Khan KS, Meads C. Use of labour induction and risk of cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ 2014; 186 (9) 665-673
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Gülmezoglu AM, Crowther CA, Middleton P, Heatley E. Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 6: CD004945
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Brennan DJ, Robson MS, Murphy M, O'Herlihy C. Comparative analysis of international cesarean delivery rates using 10-group classification identifies significant variation in spontaneous labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201 (3) 308.e1-308.e8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Bragg F, Cromwell DA, Edozien LC , et al. Variation in rates of caesarean section among English NHS trusts after accounting for maternal and clinical risk: cross sectional study. BMJ 2010; 341: c5065
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Coonrod DV, Drachman D, Hobson P, Manriquez M. Nulliparous term singleton vertex cesarean delivery rates: institutional and individual level predictors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 198 (6) 694.e1-694.e11 , discussion 694.e11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Taylor LK, Simpson JM, Roberts CL, Olive EC, Henderson-Smart DJ. Risk of complications in a second pregnancy following caesarean section in the first pregnancy: a population-based study. Med J Aust 2005; 183 (10) 515-519
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kok N, Ruiter L, Hof M , et al. Risk of maternal and neonatal complications in subsequent pregnancy after planned caesarean section in a first birth, compared with emergency caesarean section: a nationwide comparative cohort study. BJOG 2014; 121 (2) 216-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Silver RM. Implications of the first cesarean: perinatal and future reproductive health and subsequent cesareans, placentation issues, uterine rupture risk, morbidity, and mortality. Semin Perinatol 2012; 36 (5) 315-323
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Villar J, Carroli G, Zavaleta N , et al; World Health Organization 2005 Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health Research Group. Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. BMJ 2007; 335 (7628) 1025
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Berghella V, Tolosa JE, Kuhlman K, Weiner S, Bolognese RJ, Wapner RJ. Cervical ultrasonography compared with manual examination as a predictor of preterm delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177 (4) 723-730
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Iams JD, Goldenberg RL, Meis PJ , et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal Fetal Medicine Unit Network. The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery. N Engl J Med 1996; 334 (9) 567-572
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Miller ES, Sakowicz A, Grobman WA. Association between second-trimester cervical length and primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122 (4) 863-867
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Smith GCS, Celik E, To M, Khouri O, Nicolaides KH ; Fetal Medicine Foundation Second Trimester Screening Group. Cervical length at mid-pregnancy and the risk of primary cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2008; 358 (13) 1346-1353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 The Netherlands Perinatal Registry. Stichting Prenatale Registratie Nederland. Perinatale Zorg in Nederland 2013, Utrecht, Stichting Prenatale Registratie Nederland, 2014. Available at: http://www.perinatreg.nl/uploads/150/153/PRN_jaarboek_2013_09122014.pdf . Accesed 19 March, 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 van Os MA, van der Ven JA, Kleinrouweler CE , et al. Preventing preterm birth with progesterone: costs and effects of screening low risk women with a singleton pregnancy for short cervical length, the Triple P study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2011; 11 (1) 77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 To MS, Skentou CA, Royston P, Yu CK, Nicolaides KH. Prediction of patient-specific risk of early preterm delivery using maternal history and sonographic measurement of cervical length: a population-based prospective study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27 (4) 362-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Heath VC, Southall TR, Souka AP, Elisseou A, Nicolaides KH. Cervical length at 23 weeks of gestation: prediction of spontaneous preterm delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998; 12 (5) 312-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Protocol Pregnancy Dating NVOG . Available at: http://www.nvog-documenten.nl , Modelprotocollen, Datering van de zwangerschap. Accessed 15 April, 2015
    PubMed
  • 31 Guidelines NVOG . Available at: http://www.nvog-documenten.nl/ , GRichtlijnen, perinatologie, Preventie, recidief spontane vroeggeboorte. Accessed 15 April, 2015
    PubMed
  • 32 Fetal Medicine Foundation. Cervical assessment. Available at: https://fetalmedicine.org/cervical-assessment . Accessed 9 April, 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Ravelli ACJ, Tromp M, van Huis M , et al. Decreasing perinatal mortality in The Netherlands, 2000-2006: a record linkage study. J Epidemiol Community Health 2009; 63 (9) 761-765
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 van Os MA, van der Ven JA, Bloemendaal PM , et al. The effect of e-learning on the quality of cervical length measurements. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; (e-pub ahead of print). doi: 10.1002/uog.14764. In press
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Burger M, Weber-Rössler T, Willmann M. Measurement of the pregnant cervix by transvaginal sonography: an interobserver study and new standards to improve the interobserver variability. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997; 9 (3) 188-193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Barr WB, Pecci CC. Last menstrual period versus ultrasound for pregnancy dating. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004; 87 (1) 38-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Whitworth M, Bricker L, Neilson JP, Dowswell T. Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; (4) CD007058
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Zeitlin J, Blondel B, Alexander S, Bréart G ; PERISTAT Group. Variation in rates of postterm birth in Europe: reality or artefact?. BJOG 2007; 114 (9) 1097-1103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Kortekaas JC, Bruinsma A, Keulen JK , et al. Effects of induction of labour versus expectant management in women with impending post-term pregnancies: the 41 week - 42 week dilemma. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014; 14 (1) 350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Verhoeven CJM, Opmeer BC, Oei SG, Latour V, van der Post JA, Mol BW. Transvaginal sonographic assessment of cervical length and wedging for predicting outcome of labor induction at term: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42 (5) 500-508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Strobel E, Sladkevicius P, Rovas L, De Smet F, Karlsson ED, Valentin L. Bishop score and ultrasound assessment of the cervix for prediction of time to onset of labor and time to delivery in prolonged pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 28 (3) 298-305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Ramanathan G, Yu C, Osei E, Nicolaides KH. Ultrasound examination at 37 weeks' gestation in the prediction of pregnancy outcome: the value of cervical assessment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 22 (6) 598-603
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Euro-Peristat. The European Perinatal Health Report 2010. Available at: http://www.europeristat.com/reports/european-perinatal-health-report-2010.html . Accessed 11 April, 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar