Repeat prenatal corticosteroid prior to preterm birth: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis for the PRECISE study group (prenatal repeat corticosteroid international IPD study group: assessing the effects using the best level of evidence) - study protocol

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.BACKGROUND The aim of this individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis is to assess whether the effects of repeat prenatal corticosteroid treatment given to women at risk of preterm birth to benefit their babies are modified in a clinically meaningful way by factors related to the women or the trial protocol. METHODS/DESIGN The Prenatal Repeat Corticosteroid International IPD Study Group: assessing the effects using the best level of Evidence (PRECISE) Group will conduct an IPD meta-analysis. The PRECISE International Collaborative Group was formed in 2010 and data collection commenced in 2011. Eleven trials with up to 5,000 women and 6,000 infants are eligible for the PRECISE IPD meta-analysis. The primary study outcomes for the infants will be serious neonatal outcome (defined by the PRECISE International IPD Study Group as one of death (foetal, neonatal or infant); severe respiratory disease; severe intraventricular haemorrhage (grade 3 and 4); chronic lung disease; necrotising enterocolitis; serious retinopathy of prematurity; and cystic periventricular leukomalacia); use of respiratory support (defined as mechanical ventilation or continuous positive airways pressure or other respiratory support); and birth weight (Z-scores). For the children, the primary study outcomes will be death or any neurological disability (however defined by trialists at childhood follow up and may include developmental delay or intellectual impairment (developmental quotient or intelligence quotient more than one standard deviation below the mean), cerebral palsy (abnormality of tone with motor dysfunction), blindness (for example, corrected visual acuity worse than 6/60 in the better eye) or deafness (for example, hearing loss requiring amplification or worse)). For the women, the primary outcome will be maternal sepsis (defined as chorioamnionitis; pyrexia after trial entry requiring the use of antibiotics; puerperal sepsis; intrapartum fever requiring the use of antibiotics; or postnatal pyrexia). DISCUSSION Data analyses are expected to commence in 2011 with results publicly available in 2012.Caroline A Crowther ... Tanya K Bubner ... Philippa F Middleton ... Lisa Yelland ... Sasha Zhang ... et al

Long-term risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND:Cesarean birth rates continue to rise worldwide with recent (2016) reported rates of 24.5% in Western Europe, 32% in North America, and 41% in South America. The objective of this systematic review is to describe the long-term risks and benefits of cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies. The primary maternal outcome was pelvic floor dysfunction, the primary baby outcome was asthma, and the primary subsequent pregnancy outcome was perinatal death. METHODS AND FINDINGS:Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases were systematically searched for published studies in human subjects (last search 25 May 2017), supplemented by manual searches. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and large (more than 1,000 participants) prospective cohort studies with greater than or equal to one-year follow-up comparing outcomes of women delivering by cesarean delivery and by vaginal delivery. Two assessors screened 30,327 abstracts. Studies were graded for risk of bias by two assessors using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) Methodology Checklist and the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-Randomized Studies. Results were pooled in fixed effects meta-analyses or in random effects models when significant heterogeneity was present (I2 ≥ 40%). One RCT and 79 cohort studies (all from high income countries) were included, involving 29,928,274 participants. Compared to vaginal delivery, cesarean delivery was associated with decreased risk of urinary incontinence, odds ratio (OR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.66; n = 58,900; 8 studies) and pelvic organ prolapse (OR 0.29, 0.17 to 0.51; n = 39,208; 2 studies). Children delivered by cesarean delivery had increased risk of asthma up to the age of 12 years (OR 1.21, 1.11 to 1.32; n = 887,960; 13 studies) and obesity up to the age of 5 years (OR 1.59, 1.33 to 1.90; n = 64,113; 6 studies). Pregnancy after cesarean delivery was associated with increased risk of miscarriage (OR 1.17, 1.03 to 1.32; n = 151,412; 4 studies) and stillbirth (OR 1.27, 1.15 to 1.40; n = 703,562; 8 studies), but not perinatal mortality (OR 1.11, 0.89 to 1.39; n = 91,429; 2 studies). Pregnancy following cesarean delivery was associated with increased risk of placenta previa (OR 1.74, 1.62 to 1.87; n = 7,101,692; 10 studies), placenta accreta (OR 2.95, 1.32 to 6.60; n = 705,108; 3 studies), and placental abruption (OR 1.38, 1.27 to 1.49; n = 5,667,160; 6 studies). This is a comprehensive review adhering to a registered protocol, and guidelines for the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology were followed, but it is based on predominantly observational data, and in some meta-analyses, between-study heterogeneity is high; therefore, causation cannot be inferred and the results should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSIONS:When compared with vaginal delivery, cesarean delivery is associated with a reduced rate of urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, but this should be weighed against the association with increased risks for fertility, future pregnancy, and long-term childhood outcomes. This information could be valuable in counselling women on mode of delivery

Cesarean delivery or induction of labor in pre-labor twin gestations: a secondary analysis of the twin birth study

Abstract Background In the Twin Birth Study, women at 320/7–386/7 weeks of gestation, in whom the first twin was in cephalic presentation, were randomized to planned vaginal delivery or cesarean section. The study found no significant differences in neonatal or maternal outcomes in the two planned mode of delivery groups. We aimed to compare neonatal and maternal outcomes of twin gestations without spontaneous onset of labor, who underwent induction of labor or pre-labor cesarean section as the intervention of induction may affect outcomes. Methods In this secondary analysis of the Twin Birth Study we compared those who had an induction of labor with those who had a pre-labor cesarean section. The primary outcome was a composite of fetal or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity. Secondary outcome was a composite of maternal morbidity and mortality. Trial Registration: NCT00187369. Results Of the 2804 women included in the Twin Birth Study, a total of 1347 (48%) women required a delivery before a spontaneous onset of labor occurred: 568 (42%) in the planned vaginal delivery arm and 779 (58%) in the planned cesarean arm. Induction of labor was attempted in 409 (30%), and 938 (70%) had a pre-labor cesarean section. The rate of intrapartum cesarean section in the induction of labor group was 41.3%. The rate of the primary outcome was comparable between the pre-labor cesarean section group and induction of labor group (1.65% vs. 1.97%; p = 0.61; OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.43–1.62). The maternal composite outcome was found to be lower with pre-labor cesarean section compared to induction of labor (7.25% vs. 11.25%; p = 0.01; OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.41–0.91). Conclusion In women with twin gestation between 320/7–386/7 weeks of gestation, induction of labor and pre-labor cesarean section have similar neonatal outcomes. Pre-labor cesarean section is associated with favorable maternal outcomes which differs from the overall Twin Birth Study results. These data may be used to better counsel women with twin gestation who are faced with the decision of interventional delivery