Pessary or Progesterone to Prevent Preterm delivery in women with short cervical length: the Quadruple P randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is in quantity and in severity the most important topic in obstetric care in the developed world. Progestogens and cervical pessaries have been studied as potential preventive treatments with conflicting results. So far, no study has compared both treatments. METHODS/DESIGN: The Quadruple P study aims to compare the efficacy of vaginal progesterone and cervical pessary in the prevention of adverse perinatal outcome associated with preterm birth in asymptomatic women with a short cervix, in singleton and multiple pregnancies separately. It is a nationwide open-label multicentre randomized clinical trial (RCT) with a superiority design and will be accompanied by an economic analysis. Pregnant women undergoing the routine anomaly scan will be offered cervical length measurement between 18 and 22 weeks in a singleton and at 16-22 weeks in a multiple pregnancy. Women with a short cervix, defined as less than, or equal to 35 mm in a singleton and less than 38 mm in a multiple pregnancy, will be invited to participate in the study. Eligible women will be randomly allocated to receive either progesterone or a cervical pessary. Following randomization, the silicone cervical pessary will be placed during vaginal examination or 200 mg progesterone capsules will be daily self-administered vaginally. Both interventions will be continued until 36 weeks gestation or until delivery, whichever comes first. Primary outcome will be composite adverse perinatal outcome of perinatal mortality and perinatal morbidity including bronchopulmonary dysplasia, intraventricular haemorrhage grade III and IV, periventricular leukomalacia higher than grade I, necrotizing enterocolitis higher than stage I, Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) or culture proven sepsis. These outcomes will be measured up until 10 weeks after the expected due date. Secondary outcomes will be, among others, time to delivery, preterm birth rate before 28, 32, 34 and 37 weeks, admission to neonatal intensive care unit, maternal morbidity, maternal admission days for threatened preterm labour and costs. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence on whether vaginal progesterone or a cervical pessary is more effective in decreasing adverse perinatal outcome in both singletons and multiples. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number: NTR 4414 . Date of registration January 29th 2014.

Women's opinions on the offer and use of nuchal translucency screening for Down syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To study the attitude of Dutch women to the offer and subsequent (non)use of nuchal translucency (NT) screening for Down syndrome in the first trimester of pregnancy, in a country where screening is not routinely offered under 36 years of age. METHODS: An experimental NT screening programme offered to pregnant women, together with a series of questionnaires to be completed before and after the offer and (non)use of screening, in 12 midwife practices in three different health districts. PARTICIPANTS: Cohort of pregnant women who had their first prenatal care visit in the participating midwife practices between 1 June 1999 and 1 January 2001. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Women's knowledge and understanding of prenatal screening tests; attitude towards screening offer; perceived freedom of choice; satisfaction with information given; change in attitude over time. RESULTS: Eighty-six percent of women accepted the offer of NT screening. Seventy percent had previous knowledge of NT screening and 92% considered the information given before screening clear and sufficient. Thirty-nine percent of women felt worried to some extent after being given the information, but only 3% would have preferred not to have been informed at all. Ninety percent of women (including 68% of decliners) agree that information on Down syndrome screening should be extended to all pregnant women and feel competent in deciding on screening participation. CONCLUSION: When NT screening is offered as a new screening strategy its concept is understood and well accepted. The large majority of women, including the decliners, are in favour of its standard offer.

A comparison of the impact of screen-positive results obtained from ultrasound and biochemical screening for Down syndrome in the first trimester: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the experiences of women who received a screen-positive test result for Down syndrome after nuchal translucency screening or after biochemical screening in the first trimester of pregnancy in the Netherlands. METHOD: Semi-quantitative questionnaires were sent to 40 women with a screen-positive test result for Down syndrome in the first trimester of pregnancy: 20 had undergone nuchal translucency screening (NT group) and 20 had undergone serum screening (PAPP-A and free beta-hCG) (SS group). In all the cases, chorionic villus sampling (CVS) had not revealed any chromosomal abnormalities. RESULTS: The major reason for undergoing the screening test in both groups of women was to be more reassured about the health of the baby. In the NT group, 5 out of the 20 women stated that they had suddenly been confronted with the NT measurement during the ultrasound examination without even being asked, or had been caught by surprise about the possibility. Together with two other women, they felt that at that stage they had been insufficiently informed about what the test meant. In the SS group, two women also held this opinion. In 10 out of the 20 women in the SS group, the positive-screening result had caused (a great deal of) anxiety. In the NT group, this proportion was as high as 18 out of the 20. Six of the women in the NT group mentioned that 'seeing the baby' had been an important factor in their decision to undergo CVS. Even after a favourable result of CVS, a proportion of the pregnant women were still feeling anxious about the health of their baby (5 women in the SS group and 12 in the NT group). Nevertheless, a large proportion of the women in both groups was pleased that they had undergone the screening test. Only a few of them stated that they would not choose the same screening test again in a future pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: An unfavourable screening result after NT screening appeared to have a greater impact than an unfavourable result after serum screening. This might partly be explained by the ultrasound examination visualising the increased risk during NT screening. An additional important role may have been played by the fact that an abnormal NT screening result implies an increased risk of other disorders besides Down syndrome, which the women should be informed about beforehand. Several factors place special demands on the counselling prior to NT screening.