Cervical Cerclage Versus Cervical Pessary with or Without Vaginal Progesterone for Preterm Birth Prevention in Twin Pregnancies and a Short Cervix: A Two-by-two Factorial Randomised Clinical Trial

Overview

Journal PLoS Med

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2025 Feb 21

PMID 39982935

Authors

Yen T N He

Ha N H Pham

Tri C Nguyen

Trung Q Bui

Nhu T Vuong

Diem T N Nguyen

Thanh V Le

Wentao Li

Cam H Le

Tuong M Ho

Ben W Mol

Vinh Q Dang

Lan N Vuong

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Pregnant women with twins and a short cervical length (CL) are at greater risk of preterm birth (PTB). The comparative efficacy of cervical cerclage and cervical pessary with or without additional progesterone to prevent PTB is unknown. We aimed to assess, in women with twin pregnancies and a short CL, the effectiveness of cerclage versus pessary and the additional treatment with 400 mg vaginal progesterone versus no progesterone in preventing PTB.

Methods And Findings: This multicenter, two-by-two factorial randomised trial was conducted in 2 hospitals in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Asymptomatic women with twin pregnancies and a CL ≤28 mm at 16 to 22 gestational weeks were recruited. Between March 2019 and July 2023, we randomised 219 participants (64.4% of the planned sample size) to cerclage plus progesterone (n = 55), Arabin pessary plus progesterone (n = 56), cerclage alone (n = 54) or Arabin pessary alone (n = 54). Primary outcome was any PTB <34 weeks. Following the second interim analysis, the study was terminated due to significantly lower rates of perinatal deaths and deliveries <28 weeks in the cerclage group. The primary outcome occurred in 20 (19.8%) participants receiving cerclage versus 20 (19%) participants receiving pessary (relative risk [RR] 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 1.8). Delivery <28 weeks occurred in 1% versus 8.6% (RR 0.12; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.52) and perinatal death occurred in 1% versus 5.8% (RR 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.62) in the cerclage group and the pessary group, respectively. However, PTB <24 weeks, <32 weeks, and other neonatal outcomes were not significantly different between the 2 groups. For maternal side effects, vaginal discharge was significantly less frequent in the cerclage group. In participants allocated to progesterone, PTB <34 weeks occurred in 19 (18.4%) versus 21 (20.4%) participants who did not have progesterone (RR 0.90; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.6).

Conclusions: In this prematurely halted study on pregnant women with twins and a CL ≤28 mm, cerclage and cervical pessary were comparably effective on PTB <34 weeks prevention. However, compared to pessary, cerclage was associated with significantly lower rates of PTB <28 weeks and perinatal mortality. ClinicalTrials.gov Registration: NCT03863613 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03863613).

References

Hoffman M, Clifton R, Biggio J, Saade G, Ugwu L, Longo M . Cervical Pessary for Prevention of Preterm Birth in Individuals With a Short Cervix: The TOPS Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2023; 330(4):340-348. PMC: 10369212. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.10812. View

Brizot M, Hernandez W, Liao A, Bittar R, Francisco R, Krebs V . Vaginal progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth in twin gestations: a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 213(1):82.e1-82.e9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.02.021. View

. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 195: Prevention of Infection After Gynecologic Procedures. Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 131(6):e172-e189. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002670. View

Liem S, Schuit E, Hegeman M, Bais J, de Boer K, Bloemenkamp K . Cervical pessaries for prevention of preterm birth in women with a multiple pregnancy (ProTWIN): a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013; 382(9901):1341-9. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61408-7. View

Goya M, de la Calle M, Pratcorona L, Merced C, Rodo C, Munoz B . Cervical pessary to prevent preterm birth in women with twin gestation and sonographic short cervix: a multicenter randomized controlled trial (PECEP-Twins). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 214(2):145-152. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.11.012. View

Agresti A . Exact inference for categorical data: recent advances and continuing controversies. Stat Med. 2001; 20(17-18):2709-22. DOI: 10.1002/sim.738. View

Crowther C, Ashwood P, McPhee A, Flenady V, Tran T, Dodd J . Vaginal progesterone pessaries for pregnant women with a previous preterm birth to prevent neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (the PROGRESS Study): A multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2017; 14(9):e1002390. PMC: 5614421. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002390. View

Rafael T, Berghella V, Alfirevic Z . Cervical stitch (cerclage) for preventing preterm birth in multiple pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; (9):CD009166. PMC: 10629495. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009166.pub2. View

Nicolaides K, Syngelaki A, Poon L, Picciarelli G, Tul N, Zamprakou A . A Randomized Trial of a Cervical Pessary to Prevent Preterm Singleton Birth. N Engl J Med. 2016; 374(11):1044-52. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1511014. View

10.

Cao G, Liu J, Liu M . Global, Regional, and National Incidence and Mortality of Neonatal Preterm Birth, 1990-2019. JAMA Pediatr. 2022; 176(8):787-796. PMC: 9157382. DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.1622. View

11.

Kindinger L, Poon L, Cacciatore S, MacIntyre D, Fox N, Schuit E . The effect of gestational age and cervical length measurements in the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth in twin pregnancies: an individual patient level meta-analysis. BJOG. 2015; 123(6):877-84. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13575. View

12.

Liu Y, Chen M, Cao T, Zeng S, Chen R, Liu X . Cervical cerclage in twin pregnancies: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021; 260:137-149. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.03.013. View

13.

Hezelgrave N, Suff N, Seed P, Robinson V, Carter J, Watson H . Comparing cervical cerclage, pessary and vaginal progesterone for prevention of preterm birth in women with a short cervix (SuPPoRT): A multicentre randomised controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2024; 21(7):e1004427. PMC: 11288449. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004427. View

14.

Zafarmand M, Goossens S, Tajik P, Bossuyt P, Asztalos E, Gardener G . Planned Cesarean or planned vaginal delivery for twins: secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 57(4):582-591. PMC: 8048696. DOI: 10.1002/uog.21907. View

15.

Conde-Agudelo A, Romero R, Hassan S, Yeo L . Transvaginal sonographic cervical length for the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth in twin pregnancies: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 203(2):128.e1-12. PMC: 3147231. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.02.064. View

16.

Dang V, He Y, Pham H, Trieu T, Bui T, Vuong N . Effectiveness of cervical pessary compared to cervical cerclage with or without vaginal progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth in women with twin pregnancies and a short cervix: study protocol for a two-by-two factorial randomised clinical.... BMJ Open. 2020; 10(6):e036587. PMC: 7304826. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036587. View

17.

Saccone G, Rust O, Althuisius S, Roman A, Berghella V . Cerclage for short cervix in twin pregnancies: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials using individual patient-level data. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015; 94(4):352-8. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12600. View

18.

Cruz-Melguizo S, San-Frutos L, Martinez-Payo C, Ruiz-Antoran B, Adiego-Burgos B, Campillos-Maza J . Cervical Pessary Compared With Vaginal Progesterone for Preventing Early Preterm Birth: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 132(4):907-915. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002884. View

19.

Dang V, Nguyen L, Pham T, He Y, Vu K, Phan M . Pessary Compared With Vaginal Progesterone for the Prevention of Preterm Birth in Women With Twin Pregnancies and Cervical Length Less Than 38 mm: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 133(3):459-467. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003136. View

20.

Berghella V, Dugoff L, Ludmir J . Prevention of preterm birth with pessary in twins (PoPPT): a randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 49(5):567-572. DOI: 10.1002/uog.17430. View