Download PDF
Am J Perinatol
DOI: 10.1055/a-2502-7225
Original Article

Indomethacin and Cefazolin for Physical Exam-Indicated Cerclage to Improve Latency: A Protocol Validation Study

Nicola R. Young 
1   School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
,
Luke A. Gatta 
2   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
,
Sarahn M. Wheeler 
2   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
,
Jerome J. Federspiel 
2   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
,
Sarah K. Dotters-Katz 
2   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
› Author Affiliations Funding S.M.W. has received research grants or contracts from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Foundation (AAOGF), and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) Foundation. J.J.F. has received funding support from the National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), K12HD103083.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective A single-center randomized trial showed improved latency with use of indomethacin and cefazolin (I/C) during and following exam-indicated cerclage (EIC). The same center recently published a pre/post comparison demonstrating similar results. This research aimed to validate the protocol in a different setting.

Study Design Retrospective cohort study of singleton pregnancies undergoing EIC at a single center between 2013 and 2022. EIC was performed for painless cervical dilation between 16 and 23 weeks' gestation with dilation ≥1 cm. Exposure was defined as receipt of I/C during and following EIC. The primary outcome was latency ≥ 28 days after cerclage placement. Secondary outcomes included latency; gestational age at delivery; delivery ≤ 28 weeks; preterm premature rupture of membranes; intra-amniotic infection (IAI); and median birth weight. Bivariate statistics were used to analyze data; multivariable regression analyses were used to control for confounders (progesterone use, cervical dilation at time of cerclage placement, history of preterm birth, and prolapsing membranes).

Results EIC was placed in 81 pregnancies and 48 (59%) received I/C. Baseline characteristics did not differ between groups, except that prolapsing membranes were significantly less likely in patients receiving I/C (6.2 vs. 21.2%; p = 0.04). Latency ≥ 28 days occurred in 90% of I/C recipients and 82% of the controls (p = 0.32); this difference remained nonsignificant after controlling for confounders (adjusted relative risk: 1.02 [95% confidence interval: 0.85, 1.21]). I/C recipients had lower rates of IAI (4.2 vs. 24.2%, p = 0.007), even after adjustment (adjusted relative risk: 0.18 [95% confidence interval: 0.04, 0.74]). Other secondary outcomes did not differ.

Conclusion Use of I/C at the time of EIC at this center was not associated with increased latency to delivery (albeit in a small cohort) but was associated with lower rates of intra-amniotic infection. Larger-scale validation studies would be helpful to confirm the value of this intervention.

Key Points

  • Indomethacin/cefazolin (I/C) increased latency for exam-indicated cerclage in a trial.

  • We performed an observational comparison to validate these findings.

  • I/C use for exam-indicated cerclages was associated with decreased intra-amniotic infection.

  • I/C was not associated with change in latency.

  • Larger-scale validation studies needed to confirm the value of intervention.

Keywords

cefazolin - cerclage - indomethacin - intra-amniotic infection - latency


Publication History

Received: 11 October 2024

Accepted: 13 December 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
16 December 2024

Article published online:
09 January 2025

© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Ehsanipoor RM, Seligman NS, Saccone G. et al. Physical examination-indicated cerclage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126 (01) 125-135
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Terkildsen MF, Parilla BV, Kumar P, Grobman WA. Factors associated with success of emergent second-trimester cerclage. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101 (03) 565-569
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Mitra AG, Katz VL, Bowes Jr. WA, Carmichael S. Emergency cerclages: a review of 40 consecutive procedures. Am J Perinatol 1992; 9 (03) 142-145
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Stupin JH, David M, Siedentopf JP, Dudenhausen JW. Emergency cerclage versus bed rest for amniotic sac prolapse before 27 gestational weeks. A retrospective, comparative study of 161 women. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008; 139 (01) 32-37
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Novy MJ. Transabdominal cervicoisthmic cerclage: a reappraisal 25 years after its introduction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 164 (6 Pt 1): 1635-1641 , discussion 1641–1642
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Althuisius SM, Dekker GA, Hummel P, van Geijn HP. Cervical Incompetence Prevention Randomized Cerclage Trial. Cervical incompetence prevention randomized cerclage trial: emergency cerclage with bed rest versus bed rest alone. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189 (04) 907-910
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 ACOG Practice Bulletin No. ACOG Practice Bulletin No.142: cerclage for the management of cervical insufficiency. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123 (2 Pt 1): 372-379
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Olatunbosun OA, al-Nuaim L, Turnell RW. Emergency cerclage compared with bed rest for advanced cervical dilatation in pregnancy. Int Surg 1995; 80 (02) 170-174
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Miller ES, Grobman WA, Fonseca L, Robinson BK. Indomethacin and antibiotics in examination-indicated cerclage: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123 (06) 1311-1316
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Aarts JM, Brons JTJ, Bruinse HW. Emergency cerclage: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1995; 50 (06) 459-469
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Wong GP, Farquharson DF, Dansereau J. Emergency cervical cerclage: a retrospective review of 51 cases. Am J Perinatol 1993; 10 (05) 341-347
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Premkumar A, Sinha N, Miller ES, Peaceman AM. Perioperative use of cefazolin and indomethacin for physical examination-indicated cerclages to improve gestational latency. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 135 (06) 1409-1416
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Committee Opinion No. Committee opinion no. 712: intrapartum management of intraamniotic infection. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 130 (02) e95-e101
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Tita ATN, Andrews WW. Diagnosis and management of clinical chorioamnionitis. Clin Perinatol 2010; 37 (02) 339-354
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Berghella V, Prasertcharoensuk W, Cotter A. et al. Does indomethacin prevent preterm birth in women with cervical dilatation in the second trimester?. Am J Perinatol 2009; 26 (01) 13-19
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Agúndez JAG, Formea C, Gaedigk A. et al. Editorial: NSAIDs pharmacogenomics. Front Pharmacol 2021; 12: 798447
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Oh KJ, Romero R, Park JY. et al. Evidence that antibiotic administration is effective in the treatment of a subset of patients with intra-amniotic infection/inflammation presenting with cervical insufficiency. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 221 (02) 140.e1-140.e18
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 King J, Flenady V, Cole S, Thornton S. Cyclo-oxygenase (COX) inhibitors for treating preterm labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; (02) CD001992
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar