Cerebroplacental ratio in predicting adverse perinatal outcome: a meta-analysis of individual participant data.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate if cerebroplacental ratio (CPR) adds to the predictive value of umbilical artery pulsatility index (UA PI) alone - standard of practice - for adverse perinatal outcome in singleton pregnancies. DESIGN AND SETTING: Meta-analysis based on individual participant data (IPD). POPULATION OR SAMPLE: Ten centres provided 17 data sets for 21 661 participants, 18 731 of which could be included. Sample sizes per data set ranged from 207 to 9215 individuals. Patient populations varied from uncomplicated to complicated pregnancies. METHODS: In a collaborative, pooled analysis, we compared the prognostic value of combining CPR with UA PI, versus UA PI only and CPR only, with a one-stage IPD approach. After multiple imputation of missing values, we used multilevel multivariable logistic regression to develop prediction models. We evaluated the classification performance of all models with receiver operating characteristics analysis. We performed subgroup analyses according to gestational age, birthweight centile and estimated fetal weight centile. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Composite adverse perinatal outcome, defined as perinatal death, caesarean section for fetal distress or neonatal unit admission. RESULTS: Adverse outcomes occurred in 3423 (18%) participants. The model with UA PI alone resulted in an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.775 (95% CI 0.709-0.828) and with CPR alone in an AUC of 0.778 (95% CI 0.715-0.831). Addition of CPR to the UA PI model resulted in an increase in the AUC of 0.003 points (0.778, 95% CI 0.714-0.831). These results were consistent across all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Cerebroplacental ratio added no predictive value for adverse perinatal outcome beyond UA PI, when assessing singleton pregnancies, irrespective of gestational age or fetal size. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Doppler measurement of cerebroplacental ratio in clinical practice has limited added predictive value to umbilical artery alone.

Adenoma detection with Endocuff colonoscopy versus conventional colonoscopy: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colonoscopy is the current reference standard for the detection of colorectal neoplasia, but nevertheless adenomas remain undetected. The Endocuff, an endoscopic cap with plastic projections, may improve colonic visualisation and adenoma detection. The aim of this study was to compare the mean number of adenomas per patient (MAP) and the adenoma detection rate (ADR) between Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and conventional colonoscopy (CC). METHODS: We performed a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in five hospitals and included fecal immonochemical test (FIT)-positive screening participants as well as symptomatic patients (>45 years). Consenting patients were randomised 1:1 to EAC or CC. All colonoscopies were performed by experienced colonoscopists (≥500 colonoscopies) who were trained in EAC. All colonoscopy quality indicators were prospectively recorded. FINDINGS: Of the 1063 included patients (52% male, median age 65 years), 530 were allocated to EAC and 533 to CC. More adenomas were detected with EAC, 722 vs 621, but the gain in MAP was not significant: on average 1.36 per patient in the EAC group versus 1.17 in the CC group (p=0.08). In a per-protocol analysis, the gain was 1.44 vs 1.19 (p=0.02), respectively. In the EAC group, 275 patients (52%) had one or more adenomas detected versus 278 in the CC group (52%; p=0.92). For advanced adenomas these numbers were 109 (21%) vs 117 (22%). The adjusted caecal intubation rate was lower with EAC (94% vs 99%; p<0.001), however when allowing crossover from EAC to CC, they were similar in both groups (98% vs 99%; p value=0.25). INTERPRETATION: Though more adenomas are detected with EAC, the routine use of Endocuff does not translate in a higher number of patients with one or more adenomas detected. Whether increased detection ultimately results in a lower rate of interval carcinomas is not yet known. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: http://www.trialregister.nl Dutch Trial Register: NTR3962.

Quantitative fetal fibronectin testing in combination with cervical length measurement in the prediction of spontaneous preterm delivery in symptomatic women.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether in symptomatic women, the combination of quantitative fetal fibronectin (fFN) testing and cervical length (CL) improves the prediction of preterm delivery (PTD) within 7 days compared with qualitative fFN and CL. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of frozen fFN samples of a nationwide cohort study. SETTING: Ten perinatal centres in the Netherlands. POPULATION: Symptomatic women between 24 and 34 weeks of gestation. METHODS: The risk of PTD <7 days was estimated in predefined CL and fFN strata. We used logistic regression to develop a model including quantitative fFN and CL, and one including qualitative fFN (threshold 50 ng/ml) and CL. We compared the models' capacity to identify women at low risk (<5%) for delivery within 7 days using a reclassification table. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Spontaneous delivery within 7 days after study entry. RESULTS: We studied 350 women, of whom 69 (20%) delivered within 7 days. The risk of PTD in <7 days ranged from 2% in the lowest fFN group (<10 ng/ml) to 71% in the highest group (>500 ng/ml). Multivariable logistic regression showed an increasing risk of PTD in <7 days with rising fFN concentration [10-49 ng/ml: odds ratio (OR) 1.3, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.23-7.0; 50-199 ng/ml: OR 3.2, 95% CI 0.79-13; 200-499 ng/ml: OR 9.0, 95% CI 2.3-35; >500 ng/ml: OR 39, 95% CI 9.4-164] and shortening of the CL (OR 0.86 per mm, 95% CI 0.82-0.90). Use of quantitative fFN instead of qualitative fFN resulted in reclassification of 18 (5%) women from high to low risk, of whom one (6%) woman delivered within 7 days. CONCLUSION: In symptomatic women, quantitative fFN testing does not improve the prediction of PTD within 7 days compared with qualitative fFN testing in combination with CL measurement in terms of reclassification from high to low (<5%) risk, but it adds value across the risk range. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Quantitative fFN testing adds value to qualitative fFN testing with CL measurement in the prediction of PTD.