Childhood outcomes after induction of labor or expectant management for preterm prelabor rupture of membranes: a 10-year follow-up of the PPROMEXIL trials.

BACKGROUND: Management of late preterm prelabor rupture of membranes between 34+0 and 36+6 weeks' gestation balances the risks of preterm birth with the risks of infection for both the mother and the neonate. Expectant management to prolong pregnancy showed similar risks of neonatal sepsis, but children at 2 years of age showed more neurodevelopmental delay when compared with induction of labor. Long-term outcomes on child development after 2 years of age are unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the long-term outcomes of children born after singleton pregnancies complicated by late preterm prelabor rupture of membranes managed by induction of labor in comparison with expectant management. STUDY DESIGN: This was a follow-up study of the Preterm Prelabor Rupture of Membranes Expectant Management Versus Induction of Labor (PPROMEXIL) trials (randomized controlled trials between 2007 to 2011) evaluating children at 10 to 12 years of age (Netherlands Trial Register 6953). The primary outcomes were cognition, motor function, and behavior as assessed by the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-V-NL, Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2, and Child Behavior Checklist, respectively. The secondary outcomes were sensory processing, respiratory problems, educational attainment, and general health. Mild delay was defined as -1 standard deviation or corresponding percentile. The relative risk and confidence intervals were calculated using standard methods. RESULTS: This follow-up study invited 711 surviving children of the 714 singleton pregnancies randomized in the original trials. In total, 248 (35%) children participated (127 induction of labor, 121 expectant management). Children born after induction of labor had no significant differences in the primary outcomes when compared with those born after expectant management. Mild cognitive delay was observed in 7 of 122 (5.7%) children born after induction of labor in comparison with in 12 of 120 (10.0%) children born after expectant management (relative risk, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.41). A mild delay in motor function was observed in 42 of 122 (34.4%) children born after induction of labor vs in 55 of 120 (45.8%) children born after expectant management (relative risk, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-1.03). Mild abnormal behavior was observed in 37 of 125 (29.6%) children born after induction of labor compared with in 33 of 118 (28.0%) children born after expectant management (relative risk, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.57). Secondary outcomes were also comparable between the induction of labor and the expectant management groups except that more children born after expectant management had a hospital admission (relative risk, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.89) or a surgery (relative risk, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.82). CONCLUSION: In children born after pregnancies with late preterm prelabor rupture of membranes, expectant management did not improve long-term outcomes at 10 to 12 years when compared with induction of labor.

Evaluation of low-dose aspirin in the prevention of recurrent spontaneous preterm labour (the APRIL study): A multicentre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is the leading cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality. The recurrence rate of spontaneous preterm birth is high, and additional preventive measures are required. Our objective was to assess the effectiveness of low-dose aspirin compared to placebo in the prevention of preterm birth in women with a previous spontaneous preterm birth. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We performed a parallel multicentre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial (the APRIL study). The study was performed in 8 tertiary and 26 secondary care hospitals in the Netherlands. We included women with a singleton pregnancy and a history of spontaneous preterm birth of a singleton between 22 and 37 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned to aspirin 80 mg daily or placebo initiated between 8 and 16 weeks of gestation and continued until 36 weeks or delivery. Randomisation was computer generated, with allocation concealment by using sequentially numbered medication containers. Participants, their healthcare providers, and researchers were blinded for treatment allocation. The primary outcome was preterm birth <37 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes included a composite of poor neonatal outcome (bronchopulmonary dysplasia, periventricular leukomalacia > grade 1, intraventricular hemorrhage > grade 2, necrotising enterocolitis > stage 1, retinopathy of prematurity, culture proven sepsis, or perinatal death). Analyses were performed by intention to treat. From May 31, 2016 to June 13, 2019, 406 women were randomised to aspirin (n = 204) or placebo (n = 202). A total of 387 women (81.1% of white ethnic origin, mean age 32.5 ± SD 3.8) were included in the final analysis: 194 women were allocated to aspirin and 193 to placebo. Preterm birth <37 weeks occurred in 41 (21.2%) women in the aspirin group and 49 (25.4%) in the placebo group (relative risk (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 1.20, p = 0.32). In women with ≥80% medication adherence, preterm birth occurred in 24 (19.2%) versus 30 (24.8%) women (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.25, p = 0.29). The rate of the composite of poor neonatal outcome was 4.6% (n = 9) versus 2.6% (n = 5) (RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 5.25, p = 0.29). Among all randomised women, serious adverse events occurred in 11 out of 204 (5.4%) women allocated to aspirin and 11 out of 202 (5.4%) women allocated to placebo. None of these serious adverse events was considered to be associated with treatment allocation. The main study limitation is the underpowered sample size due to the lower than expected preterm birth rates. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that low-dose aspirin did not significantly reduce the preterm birth rate in women with a previous spontaneous preterm birth. However, a modest reduction of preterm birth with aspirin cannot be ruled out. Further research is required to determine a possible beneficial effect of low-dose aspirin for women with a previous spontaneous preterm birth. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register (NL5553, NTR5675) https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/5553.

The FOAM study: is Hysterosalpingo foam sonography (HyFoSy) a cost-effective alternative for hysterosalpingography (HSG) in assessing tubal patency in subfertile women? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tubal pathology is a causative factor in 20% of subfertile couples. Traditionally, tubal testing during fertility work-up is performed by hysterosalpingography (HSG). Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) is a new technique that is thought to have comparable accuracy as HSG, while it is less expensive and more patient friendly. HyFoSy would be an acceptable alternative for HSG, provided it has similar effectiveness in terms of patient outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: We aim to compare the effectiveness and costs of management guided by HyFoSy or by HSG. Consenting women will undergo tubal testing by both HyFoSy and HSG in a randomized order during fertility work-up. The study group will consist of 1163 subfertile women between 18 and 41 years old who are scheduled for tubal patency testing during their fertility work-up. Women with anovulatory cycles not responding to ovulation induction, endometriosis, severe male subfertility or a known contrast (iodine) allergy will be excluded. We anticipate that 7 % (N = 82) of the participants will have discordant test results for HyFoSy and HSG. These participants will be randomly allocated to either a management strategy based on HyFoSy or a management strategy based on HSG, resulting in either a diagnostic laparoscopy with chromopertubation or a strategy that assumes tubal patency (intrauterine insemination or expectant management). The primary outcome is ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth within 12 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes are patient pain scores, time to pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage rate, multiple pregnancy rate, preterm birth rate and number of additional treatments. Costs will be estimated by counting resource use and calculating unit prices. DISCUSSION: This trial will compare the effectiveness and costs of HyFoSy versus HSG in assessing tubal patency in subfertile women. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register (NTR 4746, http://www.trialregister.nl ). Date of registration: 19 August 2014.

Risks and benefits of the skin-to-skin cesarean section - a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Comparing maternal and neonatal outcomes after conventional cesarean section (CS) versus a "natural" or "skin-to-skin" cesarean section (SSCS). METHODS: Retrospective cohort of women who underwent a SSCS (01-2013 until 12-2013) compared to conventional CS (08-2011 to 08-2012). CS before 37 weeks, under general anesthesia and in case of fetal distress were excluded. Main outcome measures were maternal blood loss, post-operative infection and admission; neonatal infection and admission; procedural outcomes. RESULTS: We analyzed 285 (44%) women in the SSCS-group and 365 (56%) in the conventional CS-group. There were no significant differences in surgical site infection (2.1% versus 1.6%; RR 1.1; 95%CI 0.64-2.0), or other maternal outcomes. Fewer neonates born after SSCS were admitted to the pediatric ward (9.5% versus 18%; RR 0.58; 95%CI 0.41-0.80) and fewer neonates had a suspected neonatal infection (2.0% versus 7.3%; RR 0.40; 95%CI 0.19-0.83). No differences were observed for other outcomes. Mean operation time was 4m42s longer in the SSCS-group compared to the conventional CS-group (58m versus 53m; 95%CI 2m44s-6m40s). Mean recovery time was 14m46s shorter (114m versus 129m; 95%CI 3m20s-26m). CONCLUSION: Adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes were not increased after skin-to-skin cesarean compared to conventional cesarean delivery.