Comparison of Pregnancy Outcomes of History-Indicated and Ultrasound-Indicated Cervical Cerclage: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background. Cervical cerclage is the procedure of choice for preventing preterm delivery due to cervical insufficiency. The indication for its application may be based on the woman’s reproductive history, findings at ultrasound, or clinical findings on vaginal examination. Pregnancy outcomes from these indications are variable according to the available literature. Objective. To compare the effectiveness and reproductive outcomes (miscarriage, preterm birth rates, and birth weights) of McDonald’s cervical cerclage after history-indicated and ultrasound-indicated cervical cerclage in pregnant women. Methods. The retrospective cohort study was conducted at Life International Hospital Awka, Nigeria and Life Specialist Hospital Nnewi, Nigeria. Pregnant women, who had a McDonald’s cervical cerclage performed due to either history or ultrasound indication between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2020, were included in the study. Women with multiple pregnancies and those with physical examination-indicated or emergency cerclages were excluded. The main outcome measures included the prevalence of cervical cerclage, miscarriage, and preterm delivery rates. Outcomes were compared between groups with the chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test, or Student’s t test. p value of < 0.5 was set as significant value. Results. Overall, during the study period, 5392 deliveries occurred in the study sites, of which 103 women had a history-indicated or ultrasound-indicated cervical cerclage. This resulted in a 1.91% prevalence rate for history-indicated and ultrasound-indicated cervical cerclage. Of these, 68 (66%) had history indicated, while 35 (34%) had ultrasound-indicated cerclage. There was no difference in the sociodemographic characteristics of both groups. Both groups had similar miscarriage rates: 1.18 in 1000 and 1.04 in 1000 deliveries, respectively (RR 1.160, 95% CI: 0.3824 to 3.5186, p=0.793). There was more preterm delivery in history-indicated cerclage than ultrasound-indicated cervical cerclage (26.50% vs. 17.10%; p=0.292), though the difference was not statistically significant. The ultrasound group had a higher average birthweight than the history group (2.67±0.99 vs. 2.53±0.74). However, this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion. The effectiveness and reproductive outcomes (miscarriage, preterm birth rates, and birth weights) of pregnant women with cervical cerclage due to history-indicated and ultrasound-indicated cervical cerclage appear similar. When needed, cervical cerclage should be freely applied for cervical insufficiency, irrespective of the type of indication

Intravenous versus intramuscular oxytocin injection for preventing uterine atonic primary postpartum haemorrhage in third stage of labour: A double-blind randomised controlled trial

Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous and intramuscular oxytocin in preventing atonic primary postpartum haemorrhage in the third stage of labour. Methods: A double-blind randomised clinical study on consenting women without risk factors for primary postpartum haemorrhage in labour at term. Two hundred and thirty-two women were randomly allotted into intravenous ( n  = 115) and intramuscular ( n  = 117) oxytocin groups in the active management of the third stage of labour. All participants received 10 IU of oxytocin, either IV or IM, and 1 ml of water for injection as a placebo via a route alternate to that of administration of oxytocin within 1 min of the baby’s delivery. The primary outcome measures were mean postpartum blood loss and haematocrit change. Trial Registration No.: PACTR201902721929705. Results: The baseline socio-demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between the two groups ( p  > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups with regards to the mean postpartum blood loss (254.17 ± 34.85 ml versus 249.4 ± 39.88 ml; p  = 0.210), haematocrit change (2.4 (0.8%) versus 2.1 (0.6%); p  = 0.412) or adverse effects ( p  > 0.05). However, the use of additional uterotonics was significantly higher in the intravenous group (25 (21.73%) versus 17 (14.53%); p  = 0.032). Conclusion: Although oxytocin in both study groups showed similar efficacy in terms of preventing atonic primary postpartum haemorrhage, participants who received intravenous oxytocin were more likely to require additional uterotonics to reduce their likelihood of having an atonic primary postpartum haemorrhage. However, both routes have similar side effect profiles