Wojcieszek Aleena M, Shepherd Emily, Middleton Philippa, Lassi Zohra S, Wilson Trish, Murphy Margaret M, Heazell Alexander Ep, Ellwood David A, Silver Robert M, Flenady Vicki
NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Stillbirth, Mater Research Institute - The University of Queensland (MRI-UQ), Level 3 Aubigny Place, Mater Health Services, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 4101.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Dec 17;12(12):CD012203. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012203.pub2.
Stillbirth affects at least 2.6 million families worldwide every year and has enduring consequences for parents and health services. Parents entering a subsequent pregnancy following stillbirth face a risk of stillbirth recurrence, alongside increased risks of other adverse pregnancy outcomes and psychosocial challenges. These parents may benefit from a range of interventions to optimise their short- and longer-term medical health and psychosocial well-being.
To assess the effects of different interventions or models of care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth on maternal, fetal, neonatal and family health outcomes, and health service utilisation.
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (6 June 2018), along with ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 June 2018).
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials (qRCTs). Trials using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion, but we found no such reports. We included trials published as abstract only, provided sufficient information was available to allow assessment of trial eligibility and risk of bias. We excluded cross-over trials.
Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and undertook data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments. We extracted data from published reports, or sourced data directly from trialists. We checked the data for accuracy and resolved discrepancies by discussion or correspondence with trialists, or both. We conducted an assessment of the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
We included nine RCTs and one qRCT, and judged them to be at low to moderate risk of bias. Trials were carried out between the years 1964 and 2015 and took place predominantly in high-income countries in Europe. All trials assessed medical interventions; no trials assessed psychosocial interventions or incorporated psychosocial aspects of care. Trials evaluated the use of antiplatelet agents (low-dose aspirin (LDA) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), or both), third-party leukocyte immunisation, intravenous immunoglobulin, and progestogen. Trial participants were women who were either pregnant or attempting to conceive following a pregnancy loss, fetal death, or adverse outcome in a previous pregnancy.We extracted data for 222 women who had experienced a previous stillbirth of 20 weeks' gestation or more from the broader trial data sets, and included them in this review. Our GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low, due largely to serious imprecision in effect estimates as a result of small sample sizes, low numbers of events, and wide confidence intervals (CIs) crossing the line of no effect. Most of the analyses in this review were not sufficiently powered to detect differences in the outcomes assessed. The results presented are therefore largely uncertain.Main comparisonsLMWH versus no treatment/standard care (three RCTs, 123 women, depending on the outcome)It was uncertain whether LMWH reduced the risk of stillbirth (risk ratio (RR) 2.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 16.62; 3 trials; 122 participants; low-quality evidence), adverse perinatal outcome (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.32; 2 trials; 77 participants; low-quality evidence), adverse maternal psychological effects (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 1 trial; 40 participants; very low-quality evidence), perinatal mortality (RR 2.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 16.62; 3 trials; 122 participants; low-quality evidence), or any preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (RR 1.01, 0.58 to 1.74; 3 trials; 114 participants; low-quality evidence). No neonatal deaths were reported in the trials assessed and no data were available for maternal-infant attachment. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups among the remaining secondary outcomes.LDA versus placebo (one RCT, 24 women)It was uncertain whether LDA reduced the risk of stillbirth (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.01), neonatal death (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.38), adverse perinatal outcome (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.34), perinatal mortality, or any preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (both of the latter RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.06; all very low-quality evidence). No data were available for adverse maternal psychological effects or maternal-infant attachment. LDA appeared to be associated with an increase in birthweight (mean difference (MD) 790.00 g, 95% CI 295.03 to 1284.97 g) when compared to placebo, but this result was very unstable due to the extremely small sample size. Whether LDA has any effect on the remaining secondary outcomes was also uncertain.Other comparisonsLDA appeared to be associated with an increase in birthweight when compared to LDA + LMWH (MD -650.00 g, 95% CI -1210.33 to -89.67 g; 1 trial; 29 infants), as did third-party leukocyte immunisation when compared to placebo (MD 1195.00 g, 95% CI 273.35 to 2116.65 g; 1 trial, 4 infants), but these results were again very unstable due to extremely small sample sizes. The effects of the interventions on the remaining outcomes were also uncertain.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence in this review to inform clinical practice about the effectiveness of interventions to improve care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following a stillbirth. There is a clear and urgent need for well-designed trials addressing this research question. The evaluation of medical interventions such as LDA, in the specific context of stillbirth prevention (and recurrent stillbirth prevention), is warranted. However, appropriate methodologies to evaluate such therapies need to be determined, particularly where clinical equipoise may be lacking. Careful trial design and multicentre collaboration is necessary to carry out trials that would be sufficiently large to detect differences in statistically rare outcomes such as stillbirth and neonatal death. The evaluation of psychosocial interventions addressing maternal-fetal attachment and parental anxiety and depression is also an urgent priority. In a randomised-trial context, such trials may allocate parents to different forms of support, to determine which have the greatest benefit with the least financial cost. Importantly, consistency in nomenclature and in data collection across all future trials (randomised and non-randomised) may be facilitated by a core outcomes data set for stillbirth research. All future trials should assess short- and longer-term psychosocial outcomes for parents and families, alongside economic costs of interventions.
死产每年影响全球至少260万个家庭,并给父母和医疗服务带来持久影响。经历过死产的父母再次怀孕时,面临死产复发的风险,以及其他不良妊娠结局风险增加和心理社会挑战。这些父母可能受益于一系列干预措施,以优化他们的短期和长期医疗健康及心理社会福祉。
评估死产后再次怀孕前及孕期不同干预措施或照护模式对孕产妇、胎儿、新生儿和家庭健康结局以及医疗服务利用的影响。
我们检索了Cochrane妊娠和分娩组试验注册库(2018年6月6日),以及ClinicalTrials.gov和世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)(2018年6月18日)。
我们纳入随机对照试验(RCT)和半随机对照试验(qRCT)。采用整群随机设计的试验符合纳入标准,但我们未找到此类报告。我们纳入仅以摘要形式发表的试验,前提是有足够信息可用于评估试验的纳入资格和偏倚风险。我们排除交叉试验。
两位综述作者独立评估试验的纳入资格,并进行数据提取和“偏倚风险”评估。我们从已发表报告中提取数据,或直接从试验者处获取数据。我们检查数据的准确性,并通过与试验者讨论或通信(或两者同时进行)解决差异。我们使用GRADE方法对证据质量进行评估。
我们纳入了9项RCT和1项qRCT,并判定它们的偏倚风险为低到中度。试验在1964年至2015年期间进行,主要在欧洲的高收入国家开展。所有试验均评估医学干预措施;没有试验评估心理社会干预措施或纳入照护的心理社会方面。试验评估了抗血小板药物(低剂量阿司匹林(LDA)或低分子量肝素(LMWH),或两者)、第三方白细胞免疫、静脉注射免疫球蛋白和孕激素的使用。试验参与者为曾经历过妊娠丢失、胎儿死亡或既往妊娠不良结局后怀孕或试图怀孕的女性。我们从更广泛的试验数据集中提取了222名曾经历过20周及以上死产的女性的数据,并将其纳入本综述。由于样本量小、事件数量少以及置信区间(CI)宽且跨越无效应线,导致效应估计存在严重不精确性,我们对证据质量的GRADE评估范围从极低到低。本综述中的大多数分析没有足够的效力来检测所评估结局的差异。因此,所呈现的结果在很大程度上是不确定的。
主要比较
LMWH与未治疗/标准照护(3项RCT,123名女性,取决于结局)
不确定LMWH是否降低死产风险(风险比(RR)2.58,95%CI 0.40至16.62;3项试验;122名参与者;低质量证据)、不良围产期结局(RR 0.81,95%CI 0.20至3.32;2项试验;77名参与者;低质量证据)、不良孕产妇心理影响(RR 1.00,95%CI 0.07至14.90;1项试验;40名参与者;极低质量证据)、围产期死亡率(RR 2.58,95%CI 0.40至16.62;3项试验;122名参与者;低质量证据)或任何早产(<37周)(RR 1.01,0.58至1.74;3项试验;114名参与者;低质量证据)。在所评估的试验中未报告新生儿死亡,且没有关于母婴依恋的数据。在其余次要结局中,两组之间没有明显差异的证据。
LDA与安慰剂(1项RCT,24名女性)
不确定LDA是否降低死产风险(RR 0.85, 95%CI 0.06至12.01)、新生儿死亡风险(RR 0.29, 95%CI 0.01至6.38)、不良围产期结局风险(RR 0.28, 95%CI 0.03至2.34)、围产期死亡率或任何早产(<37周)风险(后两者RR均为0.42, 95%CI 0.04至4.06;均为极低质量证据)。没有关于不良孕产妇心理影响或母婴依恋的数据。与安慰剂相比,LDA似乎与出生体重增加有关(平均差(MD)790.00 g,95%CI 295.03至1284.97 g),但由于样本量极小,该结果非常不稳定。LDA对其余次要结局是否有任何影响也不确定。
其他比较
与LDA + LMWH相比,LDA似乎与出生体重增加有关(MD -650.00 g,95%CI -1210.33至-89.67 g;1项试验;29名婴儿),与安慰剂相比,第三方白细胞免疫也与出生体重增加有关(MD 1195.00 g,95%CI 273.35至2116.65 g;1项试验,4名婴儿),但由于样本量极小,这些结果同样非常不稳定。干预措施对其余结局的影响也不确定。
本综述中没有足够的证据为临床实践提供关于死产后再次怀孕前及孕期改善照护的干预措施有效性的信息。显然迫切需要设计良好的试验来解决这个研究问题。在预防死产(和复发性死产)的特定背景下,对LDA等医学干预措施进行评估是有必要的。然而,需要确定评估此类疗法的适当方法,特别是在可能缺乏临床 equipoise的情况下。进行足够大的试验以检测死产和新生儿死亡等统计学上罕见结局的差异,需要仔细的试验设计和多中心合作。评估解决母婴依恋以及父母焦虑和抑郁的心理社会干预措施也是当务之急。在随机试验的背景下,此类试验可以将父母分配到不同形式的支持中,以确定哪种支持以最少的经济成本带来最大的益处。重要的是,死产研究的核心结局数据集可能有助于促进所有未来试验(随机和非随机)在术语和数据收集方面的一致性。所有未来试验都应评估父母和家庭的短期和长期心理社会结局以及干预措施的经济成本。