Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

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

  • 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
  • *Corresponding author for this work
  • My Duc Phu Nhuan Hospital
  • My Duc Hospital
  • University of New South Wales
  • Monash University
  • University of Amsterdam
  • University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

34 Downloads (Pure)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere1004526
JournalPLoS medicine
Volume22
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2025

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of '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'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this