Hilgers, T. W. (2004). Chapter 56: Prevention of Preterm Birth. The Medical and Surgical Practice of NaProTECHNOLOGY, 747-774.
Hilgers TW. Chapter 56: Prevention of Preterm Birth. The Medical and Surgical Practice of NaProTECHNOLOGY. 2004:747-774.
Hilgers, T. W. "Chapter 56: Prevention of Preterm Birth." The Medical and Surgical Practice of NaProTECHNOLOGY, 2004, pp. 747-774.
For EndNote, Zotero or Mendeley:
License
No open license is recorded for this paper. Reuse terms are set by the publisher.
Author affiliations
1 institution
Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction, Omaha, Nebraska.027jqx654
Linked to ROR, the Research Organization Registry
RRM Academy Synopsis
Preterm birth prevention program reported fewer early deliveries
A 2004 textbook chapter from one NaProTechnology clinic reports that women in its program delivered early less often than a comparison group. The US preterm birth rate rose from 6.7 percent in 1967 to 12.1 percent in 2002, the chapter says.
Key Findings
The author reports that the US preterm birth rate rose from 6.7 percent in 1967 to 12.1 percent in 2002.
The chapter cites a relative risk of infant death of 6.6 for US singletons born at 32 to 33 weeks and 2.9 for those born at 34 through 36 weeks.
The program finds women at high risk and teaches them to track contraction symptoms. Hormone support, antibiotics, and a cervical stitch (cerclage) are added based on symptoms and cervical ultrasound.
Program patients delivered early less often than the comparison group at every gestational age cutoff reported, with the largest reductions at the earliest ages.
The comparison group was not matched for age or past pregnancies. The program group had a much higher share of women with previous infertility.
RRM Context
Dr. Thomas W. Hilgers developed the program within NaProTechnology at the Pope Paul VI Institute. The chapter links preterm birth to low progesterone and low-grade infection. It describes standard care of its day as accepting early birth and preparing for it. The author names charting observations as a future research focus for spotting low-grade infection before pregnancy.
Our editorial summary of this paper, not the article's abstract.
Abstract
Preterm birth remains a leading cause of perinatal mortality, with rates in the United States rising significantly over the latter half of the twentieth century despite decades of awareness. NaProTechnology's integrated prevention approach, developed at the Pope Paul VI Institute, addresses this problem through systematic risk stratification, hormonal support, infection surveillance, and cervical monitoring across the full course of pregnancy.
Hilgers TW, 2020·Linacre Q·Free full text on PubMed Central
This study reports on 632 cycles from 105 women who were using the CREIGHTON MODEL FertilityCare™ System to avoid pregnancy and had either a serious reason to avoid pregnancy or some degree of a lack of confidence. A progesterone level was drawn on the third day after the Peak Day as they were charting, and if the progesterone level was 2.3 ng/mL or greater, then ovulation was determined to have passed. If the level was greater than 3.0 ng/mL, this indicated that an absolute period of infertility had begun. In these cases, no pregnancies were observed. In the 27 cycles in which a specific follow-up relative to pregnancy could not be definitively determined, the progesterone levels in all cases were 2.3 ng/mL or greater with 23 of the 27 cycles being 3.1 ng/mL or greater. It is highly unlikely that any of those became pregnant as well. These cycles were collected over thirteen years (2004-2016). Two case presentations are also a part of this article of two families in which the couples had very serious reasons to avoid pregnancy. In these two couples, each of the women was multi-gravid and had no evidence of subfertility or infertility. They used the family planning progesterone level (the Peak Day +3 progesterone level) for a total of 167 cycles over a number of years successfully without a subsequent pregnancy.
This article presents a thirteen-year effort to evaluate the serum progesterone level on the third day after the Peak Day as observed by women charting the CREIGHTON MODEL FertilityCare™ System. It is known that the Peak Day is associated with ovulation, and if the progesterone reaches a certain level, then an absolute period of infertility should follow. In fact, this is what this study reflects.
Chang CP et al., 2020·Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol·Free full text on PubMed Central
Previous research has demonstrated that women instructed in fertility awareness methods can identify the Peak Day of cervical mucus discharge for each menstrual cycle, and the Peak Day has high agreement with other indicators of the day of ovulation. However, previous studies enrolled experienced users of fertility awareness methods or were not fully blinded. To assess the agreement between cervical mucus Peak Day identified by fertile women without prior experience on assessing cervical mucus discharge with the estimated day of ovulation (1 day after urine luteinising hormone surge). This study is a secondary analysis of data from a randomised trial of the Creighton Model FertilityCare(TM) System (CrM), conducted 2003-2006, for women trying to conceive. Women who had no prior experience tracking cervical mucus recorded vulvar observations daily using a standardised assessment of mucus characteristics for up to seven menstrual cycles. Four approaches were used to identify the Peak Day. The referent day was defined as one day after the first identified day of luteinising hormone (LH) surge in the urine, assessed blindly. The percentage of agreement between the Peak Day and the referent day of ovulation was calculated. Fifty-seven women with 187 complete cycles were included. A Peak Day was identified in 117 (63%) cycles by women, 185 (99%) cycles by experts, and 187 (100%) by computer algorithm. The woman-picked Peak Day was the same as the referent day in 25% of 117 cycles, within ±1 day in 58% of cycles, ±2 days in 84%, ±3 days in 87%, and ±4 days in 92%. The ±1 day and ± 4 days' agreement was 50% and 90% for the expert-picked and 47% and 87% for the computer-picked Peak Day, respectively. Women's daily tracking of cervical mucus is a low-cost alternative for identifying the estimated day of ovulation.
Daly KD et al., 2019·Linacre Q·Free full text on PubMed Central
A special course on Marriage, the Family and Human Sexuality was established at Kenrick-Glennon Seminary in St. Louis so as to assist the seminarians in their better understanding of the Church's teaching relative to natural methods of family planning and women's health care. This article compares the response at the beginning of this three-credit semester course to the same seven-item questionnaire given at the conclusion of the course. The preand postcourse scores were calculated for each of the questions. The scores obtained after the course were all significantly higher than they were before the course with p values ranging from 0.01 to <0.0001. Four of the items showed marked improvement including an understanding of the church's teaching related to natural methods, current methods of natural family planning, the impact of a natural method on a couple's marriage, and also the impact of a natural method on family life. Statistically significant improvement was also seen in their understanding of the topic of natural family planning and the Creighton Model System and its relevance toward the seminarian's vocation, the use of the methods to either achieve or avoid pregnancy, and how contraception and abortion are linked. In these last three items, the level of statistical significance was quite high, although not as high as the other four items. There were 104 seminarians over an eight-year period of time, who provided answers to these questions, both before and after the course. This course was modeled after a course that was initiated at the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction, which was for priests, seminarians, and Catholic leaders, titled Love & Life Unlimited. NONTECHNICAL This is an evaluation of a ten-point, seven-question questionnaire that was utilized at the beginning of a course at Kenrick Seminary in Marriage, Sexuality, Creighton Model and NaProTECHNOLOGY. The same questionnaire was given to the students at the beginning of the course and then two to three months later at the conclusion of the three-credit course. The results show that there is a significant improvement in the seminarians' knowledge and general attitude about natural methods of family planning and suggests that such courses would be beneficial to establish in seminaries throughout the country.
Progesterone support in pregnancy has been in use for over 60 years, having received its start in the 1940s. Its initial use was in patients who had habitual spontaneous abortion caused by luteal phase deficiency. More recently, the administration of progesterone later in pregnancy has been considered to be justified because of an observed decrease in circulating progesterone with the onset of labor, an association of premature labor with decreased progesterone concentrations, and the observation that progesterone has a tocolytic effect. A considerable boost to the use of progestational agents to reduce preterm delivery was received with the publication of two papers which showed a significant reduction in preterm delivery rates with the prophylactic administration of either progesterone or 17-a hydroxyprogesterone caproate. Recently it has been shown, however, that its use is not universal. This may be related to the significant late sequelae that were documented following the in utero exposure of the fetus to the potent steroid diethylstilbestrol (DES) and that this bad experience cast “a long shadow,” In spite of this, the use of progesterone, at least in early pregnancy, is widespread in the various artificial reproductive programs and is growing in its use as an agent to reduce prematurity. Over the years, there has been an extraordinary amount of confusion related to the use of progesterone support in pregnancy. The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) created some of this confusion. In various labeling of progesterone products by the FDA, one of the contraindications to the use of oral progesterone is listed as “known or suspected pregnancy.” And, yet, no such contraindication is identified for the use of progesterone gel. In fact, progesterone gel is indicated for progesterone supplementation or replacement as a part of an assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment program for infertile women with a progesterone deficiency. To make this even more confusing, oral progesterone, while it was contraindicated in “known or suspected pregnancy,” its official labeling stated that it “should be used during pregnancy only if indicated (see contraindications).” Also, up until very recently, there was a dire “warning” contained in the labeling for USP progesterone injection in sesame seed oil regarding an increased possibility of birth defects. An analysis of the fetal safety of isomolecular progesterone (Pregn-4-ene-3,20-dione) administration during the course of 1,310 pregnancies over a 35-year period of time (1979-2014) was undertaken to address this confusion.
Preterm birth affects 12% of all births in the United States. Recent studies support the hypothesis that progesterone supplementation reduces preterm birth in a select group of women (ie, those with a prior spontaneous birth at <37 weeks of gestation). Despite the apparent benefits of progesterone in this high-risk population, the ideal progesterone formulation is unknown. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Obstetric Practice believes that further studies are needed to evaluate the use of progesterone in patients with other high-risk obstetric factors, such as multiple gestations, short cervical length, or positive test results for cervicovaginal fetal fibronectin. When progesterone is used, it is important to restrict its use to only women with a documented history of a previous spontaneous birth at less than 37 weeks of gestation because unresolved issues remain, such as optimal route of drug delivery and long-term safety of the drug.
It has become almost a platitude to lament the complexity and intractability of the problem of preterm delivery, the poor predictive value of screening tests for its occurrence, its resistance to attempted interventions, and its increasing rate.1 Preterm delivery is more common among blacks, the poor, the unmarried, cigarette smokers, underweight women, women with multiple gestations, women with uterine anomalies, women with a history of previous preterm delivery, and women without prenatal care. Although the perinatal mortality rate due to prematurity has decreased dramatically during the past three decades, this reduction has resulted from improvements in perinatal and pediatric care . . .
A total of 394 patients were enrolled in a study to assess the effectiveness of an educational preterm delivery prevention program and to determine whether the addition of home uterine monitoring to the program improved results in patients at high risk of preterm labor. Both the educational program and home uterine monitoring were found to increase the percentage of women with preterm labor who sought care while still favorable for long-term suppression, resulting in a decreased incidence of preterm births and improved outcome when compared with similar high-risk patients who did not participate in these programs. In a randomized, prospective study, addition of home uterine monitoring to the educational program was found to significantly improve outcome in twin gestations but not in singleton gestations. However, the number of singleton pregnancies was too small to rule out possible benefit from home uterine monitoring in that group.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of prophylactic vaginal progesterone in decreasing preterm birth rate in a high-risk population. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study included 142 high-risk singleton pregnancies. Progesterone (100 mg) or placebo was administered daily by vaginal suppository and all patients underwent uterine contraction monitoring with an external tocodynamometer once a week for 60 minutes, between 24 and 34 weeks of gestation. Progesterone (n = 72) and placebo (n = 70) groups were compared for epidemiologic characteristics, uterine contraction frequency, and incidence of preterm birth. Data were compared by chi(2) analysis and Fisher exact test. The preterm birth rate was 21.1% (30/142). Differences in uterine activity were found between the progesterone and placebo groups (23.6% vs 54.3%, respectively; P <.05) and in preterm birth between progesterone and placebo (13.8% vs 28.5%, respectively; P <.05). More women were delivered before 34 weeks in the placebo group (18.5%) than in the progesterone group (2.7%) (P <.05). Prophylactic vaginal progesterone reduced the frequency of uterine contractions and the rate of preterm delivery in women at high risk for prematurity.
Pregnancy › Preterm Birth › Prediction · Restorative Reproductive Medicine › NaProTechnology › Protocols and Framework · Birth and Delivery › Birth Outcomes › Maternal Morbidity
Thomas W Hilgers
Tom Hilgers, T Hilgers
Hilgers et al. 2004, Hilgers 2004
Cite this article
Hilgers, T. W. (2004). Chapter 56: Prevention of Preterm Birth. The Medical and Surgical Practice of NaProTECHNOLOGY, 747-774.
Hilgers TW. Chapter 56: Prevention of Preterm Birth. The Medical and Surgical Practice of NaProTECHNOLOGY. 2004:747-774.
Hilgers, T. W. "Chapter 56: Prevention of Preterm Birth." The Medical and Surgical Practice of NaProTECHNOLOGY, 2004, pp. 747-774.
027jqx654