ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2024
Rescue Cerclage in Women With Acute Cervical Insufficiency and Intra-Amniotic Inflammation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Predictive Value of First Amniotic Sac IL-6 and Maternal Blood CRP for Emergency Cerclage Success in Twin Pregnancies.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the effectiveness of rescue cerclage concerning pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in women with acute cervical insufficiency (CI) complicated with intra-amniotic inflammation (IAI) compared with those managed expectantly.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 87 consecutive singleton pregnant women (17-25 weeks) with acute CI who underwent amniocentesis to assess IAI. Amniotic fluid (AF) samples were assayed for interleukin-6 to define IAI (≥ 2.6 ng/mL). Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed in a subset of CI patients with IAI. The primary outcome measures were spontaneous preterm birth (SPTB) at < 28 and < 34 weeks, and the secondary outcomes were interval from sampling to delivery, neonatal survival, neonatal birth weight, and histologic and clinical chorioamnionitis. Macrolide antibiotics were prescribed depending on the type of microorganism isolated from the AF, clinically suspected IAI, and the discretion of the attending clinician.
resultsIAI was identified in 65.5% (57/87) of patients with CI, of whom 73.6% (42/57) were treated with macrolide antibiotics. Among the CI patients with IAI (n = 57), 40 underwent rescue cerclage and 17 were expectantly managed. The rates of SPTBs at < 28 and < 34 weeks were significantly lower and the latency period was significantly longer in the cerclage group than in the group that was managed expectantly. The median birth weight and neonatal survival rate were significantly higher in the cerclage group than in the group that was managed expectantly. However, the rates of histologic and clinical chorioamnionitis did not differ between the groups. Multivariable analyses revealed that rescue cerclage placement and administration of macrolide antibiotics were significantly associated with a decrease in SPTBs at < 28 and < 34 weeks, prolonged gestational latency, and increased likelihood of neonatal survival, after adjusting for possible confounding parameters; however, macrolide antibiotic administration did not reach statistical significance with respect to SPTB at < 34 weeks and neonatal survival (
conclusionRescue cerclage along with macrolide antibiotic treatment may positively impact pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in women with CI complicated by IAI, compared with expectant management. These findings suggest the benefit of cerclage placement even in patients with CI complicated by IAI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.