Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2022 Nov 30:10.3310/CWWH0622. doi: 10.3310/CWWH0622

Planned delivery for pre-eclampsia between 34 and 37 weeks of gestation: the PHOENIX RCT.

Lucy C Chappell, Peter Brocklehurst, Marcus Green, Pollyanna Hardy, Rachael Hunter, Alice Beardmore-Gray, Ursula Bowler, Anna Brockbank, Virginia Chiocchia, Alice Cox, Kate Duhig, Jessica Fleminger, Carolyn Gill, Melanie Greenland, Eleanor Hendy, Ann Kennedy, Paul Leeson, Louise Linsell, Fergus P McCarthy, Jamie O'Driscoll, Anna Placzek, Lucilla Poston, Stephen Robson, Pauline Rushby, Jane Sandall, Laura Scholtz, Paul T Seed, Jenie Sparkes, Kayleigh Stanbury, Sue Tohill, Basky Thilaganathan, John Townend, Edmund Juszczak, Neil Marlow, Andrew Shennan
PMCID: PMC10068586  PMID: 36547875

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In women with late preterm pre-eclampsia (i.e. at 34+0 to 36+6 weeks' gestation), the optimal delivery time is unclear because limitation of maternal-fetal disease progression needs to be balanced against infant complications. The aim of this trial was to determine whether or not planned earlier initiation of delivery reduces maternal adverse outcomes without substantial worsening of perinatal or infant outcomes, compared with expectant management, in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia.

METHODS

We undertook an individually randomised, triple non-masked controlled trial in 46 maternity units across England and Wales, with an embedded health economic evaluation, comparing planned delivery and expectant management (usual care) in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia. The co-primary maternal outcome was a maternal morbidity composite or recorded systolic blood pressure of ≥ 160 mmHg (superiority hypothesis). The co-primary short-term perinatal outcome was a composite of perinatal deaths or neonatal unit admission (non-inferiority hypothesis). Analyses were by intention to treat, with an additional per-protocol analysis for the perinatal outcome. The primary 2-year infant neurodevelopmental outcome was measured using the PARCA-R (Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised) composite score. The planned sample size of the trial was 900 women; the trial is now completed. We undertook two linked substudies.

RESULTS

Between 29 September 2014 and 10 December 2018, 901 women were recruited; 450 women [448 women (two withdrew consent) and 471 infants] were allocated to planned delivery and 451 women (451 women and 475 infants) were allocated to expectant management. The incidence of the co-primary maternal outcome was significantly lower in the planned delivery group [289 (65%) women] than in the expectant management group [338 (75%) women] (adjusted relative risk 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 0.94; p = 0.0005). The incidence of the co-primary perinatal outcome was significantly higher in the planned delivery group [196 (42%) infants] than in the expectant management group [159 (34%) infants] (adjusted relative risk 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.47; p = 0.0034), but indicators of neonatal morbidity were similar in both groups. At 2-year follow-up, the mean PARCA-R scores were 89.5 points (standard deviation 18.2 points) for the planned delivery group (290 infants) and 91.9 points (standard deviation 18.4 points) for the expectant management group (256 infants), both within the normal developmental range (adjusted mean difference -2.4 points, 95% confidence interval -5.4 to 0.5 points; non-inferiority p = 0.147). Planned delivery was significantly cost-saving (-£2711, 95% confidence interval -£4840 to -£637) compared with expectant management. There were nine serious adverse events in the planned delivery group and 12 in the expectant management group.

CONCLUSION

In women with late preterm pre-eclampsia, planned delivery reduces short-term maternal morbidity compared with expectant management, with more neonatal unit admissions related to prematurity but no indicators of greater short-term neonatal morbidity (such as need for respiratory support). At 2-year follow-up, around 60% of parents reported follow-up scores. Average infant development was within the normal range for both groups; the small between-group mean difference in PARCA-R scores is unlikely to be clinically important. Planned delivery was significantly cost-saving to the health service. These findings should be discussed with women with late preterm pre-eclampsia to allow shared decision-making on timing of delivery.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations of the trial include the challenges of finding a perinatal outcome that adequately represented the potential risks of both groups and a maternal outcome that reflects the multiorgan manifestations of pre-eclampsia. The incidences of maternal and perinatal primary outcomes were higher than anticipated on the basis of previous studies, but this did not limit interpretation of the analysis. The trial was limited by a higher loss to follow-up rate than expected, meaning that the extent and direction of bias in outcomes (between responders and non-responders) is uncertain. A longer follow-up period (e.g. up to 5 years) would have enabled us to provide further evidence on long-term infant outcomes, but this runs the risk of greater attrition and increased expense.

FUTURE WORK

We identified a number of further questions that could be prioritised through a formal scoping process, including uncertainties around disease-modifying interventions, prognostic factors, longer-term follow-up, the perspectives of women and their families, meta-analysis with other studies, effect of a similar intervention in other health-care settings, and clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of other related policies around neonatal unit admission in late preterm birth.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was prospectively registered as ISRCTN01879376.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in Health Technology Assessment. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Hypertension in Pregnancy: The Management of Hypertensive Disorders During Pregnancy. Clinical guideline [CG107]. 2010. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg107 (accessed 26 August 2022).
  2. Chappell LC, Milne F, Shennan A. Is early induction or expectant management more beneficial in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia? BMJ 2015;350:h191. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h191 doi: 10.1136/bmj.h191. [DOI] [PubMed]
  3. Chappell LC, Green M, Marlow N, Sandall J, Hunter R, Robson S, et al. Planned delivery or expectant management for late preterm pre-eclampsia: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (PHOENIX trial). Trials 2019;20:85. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-3150-1 doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-3150-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  4. Chappell LC, Brocklehurst P, Green ME, Hunter R, Hardy P, Juszczak E, et al. Planned early delivery or expectant management for late preterm pre-eclampsia (PHOENIX): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2019;394:1181–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31963-4 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31963-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  5. Fleminger J, Duhig K, Seed PT, Brocklehurst P, Green M, Juszczak E, et al. Factors influencing perinatal outcomes in women with preterm preeclampsia: a secondary analysis of the PHOENIX trial. Pregnancy Hypertens 2021;26:91–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preghy.2021.10.002 doi: 10.1016/j.preghy.2021.10.002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  6. Duhig KE, Seed PT, Placzek A, Sparkes J, Hendy E, Gill C, et al. Prognostic indicators of severe disease in late preterm pre-eclampsia to guide decision making on timing of delivery: the PEACOCK study. Pregnancy Hypertens 2021;24:90–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preghy.2021.02.012 doi: 10.1016/j.preghy.2021.02.012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  7. Duhig K, Seed PT, Placzek A, Sparkes J, Gill C, Brockbank A, et al. A prognostic model to guide decision-making on timing of delivery in late preterm pre-eclampsia: the PEACOCK prospective cohort study. Health Technol Assess 2021;25(30). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta25300 doi: 10.3310/hta25300. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  8. McCarthy FP, O’Driscoll JM, Seed PT, Placzek A, Gill C, Sparkes J, et al. Multicenter cohort study, with a nested randomized comparison, to examine the cardiovascular impact of preterm preeclampsia. Hypertension 2021;78:1382–94. https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.121.17171 doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.121.17171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  9. McCarthy FP, O’Driscoll J, Seed P, Brockbank A, Cox A, Gill C, et al. Planned delivery to improve postpartum cardiac function in women with preterm pre-eclampsia: the PHOEBE mechanisms of action study within the PHOENIX RCT. Efficacy Mech Eval 2021;8(12). https://doi.org/10.3310/eme08120 doi: 10.3310/eme08120. [DOI] [PubMed]
  10. Nagueh SF, Appleton CP, Gillebert TC, Marino PN, Oh JK, Smiseth OA, et al. Recommendations for the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function by echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2009;22:107–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2008.11.023 doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2008.11.023. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Nagueh SF, Smiseth OA, Appleton CP, Byrd BF, Dokainish H, Edvardsen T, et al. Recommendations for the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function by echocardiography: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2016;29:277–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2016.01.011 doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2016.01.011. [DOI] [PubMed]
  12. Beardmore-Gray A, Greenland M, Linsell L, Juszczak E, Hardy P, Placzek A, et al. Two-year follow-up of infant and maternal outcomes after planned early delivery or expectant management for late preterm pre-eclampsia (PHOENIX): a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2022;129:1654–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17167 doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.17167. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  13. Hunter R, Beardmore-Gray A, Greenland M, Linsell L, Juszczak E, Hardy P, et al. Cost-utility analysis of planned early delivery or expectant management for late preterm pre-eclampsia (PHOENIX). PharmacoEcon Open 2022;6:723–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-022-00355-1 doi: 10.1007/s41669-022-00355-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  14. Office for National Statistics. Live Births by Gestational Age at Birth, Index of Multiple Deprivation and Ethnicity, England, 2018 and 2019. 2021. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/adhocs/13291livebirthsbygestationalageatbirthindexofmultipledeprivationandethnicityengland2018and2019 (accessed 27 August 2022).
  15. Office for National Statistics. Births by Parents’ Characteristics. 2022. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/adhocs/13291livebirthsbygestationalageatbirthindexofmultipledeprivationandethnicityengland2018and2019 (accessed 27 August 2022).
  16. Beardmore-Gray A, Seed PT, Fleminger J, Zwertbtoek E, Bernardes T, Mol BW, et al. Planned delivery or expectant management in preeclampsia: an individual participant data meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2022;227:218–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2022.04.034 doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.04.034. [DOI] [PubMed]

RESOURCES