Search

Objective: To compare the long-term effects of tocolysis with nifedipine or atosiban on child outcome at age 2.5-5.5 years.Design: The APOSTEL III trial was a multicentre randomised controlled trial that compared tocolysis with nifedipine or atosiban in 503 women with threatened preterm birth. Neonatal outcomes did not differ between both treatment arms, except for a higher incidence of intubation in the atosiban group.Methods: Parents were asked to complete four questionnaires regarding neurodevelopment, executive function, behaviour problems and general health.Main Outcome Measures: The main long-term outcome measure was a composite of abnormal development at the age of 2.5-5.5 years.Results: Of the 426 women eligible for follow-up, 196 (46%) parents returned the questionnaires for 115 children in the nifedipine group and 110 children in the atosiban group. Abnormal development occurred in 32 children (30%) in the nifedipine group and in 38 children (38%) in the atosiban group (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41-1.34). The separate outcomes for neurodevelopment, executive function, behaviour, and general health showed no significant differences between the groups. Sensitivity analysis for all children of the APOSTEL III trial, including a comparison of deceased children, resulted in a higher rate of healthy survival in the nifedipine group (64 versus 54%), but there was no significant difference in the overall mortality rate (5.4 versus 2.7%). There were no significant subgroup effects.Conclusion: Outcomes on broad child neurodevelopment, executive function, behaviour and general health were comparable in both groups. Neither nifedipine nor atosiban can be considered as the preferred treatment for women with threatened preterm birth.Tweetable Abstract: Nifedipine- and atosiban-exposed children had comparable long-term outcomes, including neurodevelopment, executive function and behaviour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the risk of overall preterm birth (PTB) and spontaneous PTB in a pregnancy after a caesarean section (CS) at term.Design: Longitudinal linked national cohort study.Setting: The Dutch Perinatal Registry (1999-2009).Population: 268 495 women with two subsequent singleton pregnancies were identified.Methods: A cohort study based on linked registered data from two subsequent pregnancies in the Netherlands.Main Outcome Measures: The incidence of overall PTB and spontaneous PTB with subgroup analysis on gestational age at first delivery and type of CS (planned or unplanned).Results: Of 268 495 women with a singleton first pregnancy who delivered at term, 15.76% (n = 42 328) had a CS. The incidence of PTB in the second pregnancy was 2.79% (n = 1182) in women with a previous CS versus 2.46% (n = 5570) in women with a previous vaginal delivery (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-1.21). This increased risk is mainly driven by an increased risk of spontaneous PTB after previous CS at term (aOR 1.50, 95% CI 1.38-1.70). Analysis for type of CS compared with vaginal delivery showed an aOR on spontaneous PTB of 1.86 (95% CI 1.58-2.18) for planned CS and an aOR of 1.40 (95% CI 1.24-1.58) for unplanned CS.Conclusions: CS at term is associated with a marginally increased risk of spontaneous PTB in a subsequent pregnancy.Tweetable Abstract: Caesarean section at term is associated with a marginally increased risk of spontaneous PTB in a subsequent pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment with nifedipine compared with atosiban in women with threatened preterm birth.Design: An economic analysis alongside a randomised clinical trial (the APOSTEL III study).Setting: Obstetric departments of 12 tertiary hospitals and seven secondary hospitals in the Netherlands and Belgium.Population: Women with threatened preterm birth between 25 and 34 weeks of gestation, randomised for tocolysis with either nifedipine or atosiban.Methods: We performed an economic analysis from a societal perspective. We estimated costs from randomisation until discharge. Analyses for singleton and multiple pregnancies were performed separately. The robustness of our findings was evaluated in sensitivity analyses.Main Outcome Measures: Mean costs and differences were calculated per woman treated with nifedipine or atosiban. Health outcomes were expressed as the prevalence of a composite of adverse perinatal outcomes.Results: Mean costs per patients were significantly lower in the nifedipine group [singleton pregnancies: €34,897 versus €43,376, mean difference (MD) -€8479 [95% confidence interval (CI) -€14,327 to -€2016)]; multiple pregnancies: €90,248 versus €102,292, MD -€12,044 (95% CI -€21,607 to € -1671). There was a non-significantly higher death rate in the nifedipine group. The difference in costs was mainly driven by a lower neonatal intensive care unit admission (NICU) rate in the nifedipine group.Conclusion: Treatment with nifedipine in women with threatened preterm birth results in lower costs when compared with treatment with atosiban. However, the safety of nifedipine warrants further investigation.Tweetable Abstract: In women with threatened preterm birth, tocolysis using nifedipine results in lower costs when compared with atosiban. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Preterm birth is the leading cause of neonatal mortality and morbidity in developed countries. Whether continued tocolysis after 48 hours of rescue tocolysis improves neonatal outcome is unproven.Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of maintenance tocolytic therapy with oral nifedipine on the reduction of adverse neonatal outcomes and the prolongation of pregnancy by performing an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA).Search Strategy: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomised controlled trials of maintenance tocolysis therapy with nifedipine in preterm labour.Selection Criteria: We selected trials including pregnant women between 24 and 36(6/7)  weeks of gestation (gestational age, GA) with imminent preterm labour who had not delivered after 48 hours of initial tocolysis, and compared maintenance nifedipine tocolysis with placebo/no treatment.Data Collection and Analysis: The primary outcome was perinatal mortality. Secondary outcome measures were intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), necrotising enterocolitis (NEC), infant respiratory distress syndrome (IRDS), prolongation of pregnancy, GA at delivery, birthweight, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and number of days on ventilation support. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were performed.Main Results: Six randomised controlled trials were included in this IPDMA, encompassing data from 787 patients (n = 390 for nifedipine; n = 397 for placebo/no treatment). There was no difference between the groups for the incidence of perinatal death (risk ratio, RR 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI 0.35-5.33), intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) ≥ grade II (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.16-2.67), necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.50-2.65), infant respiratory distress syndrome (IRDS) (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.51-1.85), and prolongation of pregnancy (hazard ratio, HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.55-1.01).Conclusion: Maintenance tocolysis is not associated with improved perinatal outcome and is therefore not recommended for routine practice.Tweetable Abstract: Nifedipine maintenance tocolysis is not associated with improved perinatal outcome or pregnancy prolongation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]