Comparing aspirin 75 to 81 mg vs 150 to 162 mg for prevention of preterm preeclampsia: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare 2 aspirin dosage regimens for the prevention of preterm preeclampsia (PE): 75 to 81 mg vs 150 to 162 mg taken daily starting in the first trimester of pregnancy. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was performed using PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1985 to April 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials that compared the effect of 2 aspirin dosage regimens during pregnancy for the prevention of PE initiated in the first trimester of pregnancy. The intervention was an aspirin dosage between 150 and 162 mg daily, and the control was an aspirin dosage between 75 and 81 mg daily. METHODS: Of note, 2 reviewers independently screened all citations, selected studies, and evaluated the risk of bias. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and applied the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The corresponding authors of the included studies were contacted to validate each of the collected results. The primary outcome was the risk of preterm preeclampsia, and the secondary outcomes included term preeclampsia, any preeclampsia regardless of gestational age, and severe preeclampsia. Relative risks with their 95% confidence interval were calculated for each study and pooled for global analysis. RESULTS: Of note, 4 randomized controlled trials were retrieved involving 552 participants. Moreover, 2 randomized controlled trials were at unclear risk of bias, 1 trial at low risk of bias and 1 trial at high risk of bias, which did not have the information for the primary outcome. The pooled analysis demonstrated that an aspirin dosage of 150 to 162 mg was associated with a significant reduction of preterm preeclampsia, compared with an aspirin dosage of 75 to 81 mg (3 studies; 472 participants; relative risk, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.79; P=.01; I2=0%). There was no significant effect on the risk of term preeclampsia (3 studies; 472 participants; relative risk, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-2.64; P=.48; I2=64%) and all preeclampsia (4 studies; 552 participants; relative risk, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-1.05; P=.06; I2=58%), but there was a reduction of severe preeclampsia (3 studies; 472 participantst; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.09-0.62; P=.003; I2=0%). CONCLUSION: When initiated in the first trimester of pregnancy, an aspirin dosage of 150 to 162 mg daily was associated with a lower risk of preterm PE than an aspirin dosage of 75 to 81 mg daily. However, the lack of large, high-quality studies limited the clinical scope of the current results taken alone.

Measurement of Lower Uterine Segment Thickness to Detect Uterine Scar Defect: Comparison of Transabdominal and Transvaginal Ultrasound.

OBJECTIVES: Lower uterine segment (LUS) thickness measurement using transabdominal ultrasound (TA-US), transvaginal ultrasound (TV-US), or the combination of both methods can detect scar defect in women with prior cesarean. We aimed to compare the sensitivity of three approaches. METHODS: Women with prior cesarean underwent LUS thickness measurement at 34-38 weeks' gestation. Among those who underwent repeat cesarean before labor, we compared the accuracy of TA-US, TV-US, and the thinner of the two measurements (the "combined measurement") for uterine scar dehiscence using the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating curves with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of the three approaches using a cut-off of 2.3 mm based on prior literature. RESULTS: We included 747 participants. The mean LUS thickness was greater with TA-US (3.8 ± 1.6 mm) compared with TV-US (3.5 ± 1.9 mm) or the combined measurement (3.2 ± 1.5 mm; P < .001). The AUC was 78% (95% CI: 69%-87%), 85% (95% CI: 79%-91%), and 88% (95% CI: 82%-93%), respectively (all with P < .001). The AUC difference between TA-US and the combined measurement was not significant (P = .057). A LUS below 2.3 mm would have predicted 9 (45%) of the 20 cases of uterine scar dehiscence using TA-US, 17 (85%) using TV-US, and 18 (90%) using the combined measurement (P < .01). CONCLUSION: The choice of ultrasound approach influences the measurement of the LUS thickness. The combination of the TA-US and TV-US seems to be superior for the detection of uterine dehiscence.