Advertisement

Predicting risk of pelvic floor disorders 12 and 20 years after delivery

Published:October 19, 2017DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.10.014

      Background

      Little progress has been made in the prevention of pelvic floor disorders, despite their significant health and economic impact. The identification of women who are at risk remains a key element in targeting prevention and planning health resource allocation strategies. Although events around the time of childbirth are recognized clinically as important predictors, it is difficult to counsel women and to intervene around the time of childbirth because of an inability to convey a patient’s risk accurately in the presence of multiple risk factors and the long time lapse, which is often decades, between obstetric events and the onset of pelvic floor disorders later in life. Prediction models and scoring systems have been used in other areas of medicine to identify patients who are at risk for chronic diseases. Models have been developed for use before delivery that predict short-term risk of pelvic floor disorders after childbirth, but no models that predict long-term risk exist.

      Objective

      The purpose of this study was to use variables that are known before and during childbirth to develop and validate prognostic models that will estimate the risks of these disorders 12 and 20 years after delivery.

      Study Design

      Obstetric variables were collected from 2 cohorts: (1) women who gave birth in the United Kingdom and New Zealand (n=3763) and (2) women from the Swedish Medical Birth Register (n=4991). Pelvic floor disorders were self-reported 12 years after childbirth in the United Kingdom/New Zealand cohort and 20 years after childbirth in the Swedish Register. The cohorts were split so that data during the first half of the cohort’s time period were used to fit prediction models, and validation was performed from the second half (temporal validation). Because there is currently no consensus on how to best define pelvic floor disorders from a patient’s perspective, we chose to fit the data for each model using multiple outcome definitions for prolapse, urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence, ≥1 pelvic floor disorder, and ≥2 pelvic floor disorders. Model accuracy was measured in the following manner: (1) by ranking an individual’s risk among all subjects in the cohort (discrimination) with the use of a concordance index and (2) by observing whether the predicted probability was too high or low (calibration) at a range of predicted probabilities with the use of visual plots.

      Results

      Models were able to discriminate between women who experienced bothersome symptoms or received treatment at 12 and 20 years, respectively, for pelvic organ prolapse (concordance indices, 0.570, 0.627), urinary incontinence (concordance indices, 0.653, 0.689), fecal incontinence (concordance indices, 0.618, 0.676), ≥1 pelvic floor disorders (concordance indices, 0.639, 0.675), and ≥2 pelvic floor disorders (concordance indices, 0.635, 0.619). Route of delivery and family history of each pelvic floor disorder were strong predictors in most models. Urinary incontinence before and during the index pregnancy was a strong predictor for the development of all pelvic floor disorders in most models 12 years after delivery. The 12- and 20-year bothersome symptoms or treatment for prolapse models were accurate when predictions were provided for risk from 0% to approximately 15%. The 12- and 20-year primiparous model began to over predict when risk rates reached 20%. When we predicted bothersome symptoms or treatment for urinary incontinence, the 12-year models were accurate when predictions ranged from approximately 5–60%; the 20-year primiparous models were accurate from 5% and 80%. For bothersome symptoms or treatment for fecal incontinence, the 12- and 20-year models were accurate from 1–15% risk and began to over predict at rates at >15% and 20%, respectively.

      Conclusion

      Models may provide an opportunity before birth to identify women who are at low risk of the development of pelvic floor disorders and may provide institute prevention strategies such as pelvic floor muscle training, weight control, or elective cesarean section for women who are at higher risk. Models are provided at http://riskcalc.org/UR_CHOICE/.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Milsom I.
        • Altman D.
        • Cartwright R.
        • et al.
        Epidemiology of urinary incontinence (UI) and other lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and anal incontinence (AI).
        in: Abrams P. Cardozo L. Khoury S. Wein A. 5th International Consultation on Incontinence. Health Publications, Ltd, Paris2013: 15-108
        • Coyne K.S.
        • Sexton C.C.
        • Irwin D.E.
        • Kopp Z.S.
        • Kelleher C.J.
        • Milsom I.
        The impact of overactive bladder, incontinence and other lower urinary tract symptoms on quality of life, work productivity, sexuality and emotional well-being in men and women: results from the EPIC study.
        BJU Int. 2008; 101: 1388-1395
        • Moore K.
        • Wagner T.H.
        • Subak L.
        • et al.
        Economics of urinary and faecal incontinence, and prolapse.
        in: Abrams P. Cordozo L. Koury S. Wein A. Incontinence. Health Publications, Ltd, Paris2012: 1685-1712
        • Haya N.
        • Baessler K.
        • Christmann-Schmid C.
        • et al.
        Prolapse and continence surgery in countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2012.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 212: 755.e1-755.e27
        • Wu J.M.
        • Matthews C.A.
        • Conover M.M.
        • Pate V.
        • Jonsson Funk M.
        Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123: 1201-1206
        • Ford A.A.
        • Rogerson L.
        • Cody J.D.
        • Ogah J.
        Mid-urethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; : CD006375
        • Maher C.
        • Feiner B.
        • Baessler K.
        • Schmid C.
        Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; 4: CD004014
      1. NIDDK, Office of Research on Women’s H, National Institute on A. Prevention of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Women: Bladder Health Clinical Centers (PLUS-CCs) (U01). National Institutes of Health, 2014 website: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-DK-14-004.html.

        • D’Agostino Sr, R.B.
        • Grundy S.
        • Sullivan L.M.
        • Wilson P.
        • Group CHDRP
        Validation of the Framingham coronary heart disease prediction scores: results of a multiple ethnic groups investigation.
        JAMA. 2001; 286: 180-187
        • Lyssenko V.
        • Jonsson A.
        • Almgren P.
        • et al.
        Clinical risk factors, DNA variants, and the development of type 2 diabetes.
        N Engl J Med. 2008; 359: 2220-2232
        • Jelovsek J.E.
        • Piccorelli A.
        • Barber M.D.
        • Tunitsky-Bitton E.
        • Kattan M.W.
        Prediction models for postpartum urinary and fecal incontinence in primiparous women.
        Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013; 19: 110-118
        • Wilson D.
        • Dornan J.
        • Milsom I.
        • Freeman R.
        UR-CHOICE: can we provide mothers-to-be with information about the risk of future pelvic floor dysfunction?.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2014; 25: 1449-1452
        • Gyhagen M.
        • Bullarbo M.
        • Nielsen T.F.
        • Milsom I.
        Prevalence and risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse 20 years after childbirth: a national cohort study in singleton primiparae after vaginal or caesarean delivery.
        BJOG. 2013; 120: 152-160
        • MacArthur C.
        • Glazener C.
        • Lancashire R.
        • Herbison P.
        • Wilson D.
        • ProLong Study
        Exclusive caesarean section delivery and subsequent urinary and faecal incontinence: a 12-year longitudinal study.
        BJOG. 2011; 118: 1001-1007
        • Jelovsek J.E.
        • Chagin K.
        • Brubaker L.
        • et al.
        A model for predicting the risk of de novo stress urinary incontinence in women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse surgery.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123: 279-287
        • Kattan M.W.
        • O’Rourke C.
        • Yu C.
        • Chagin K.
        The wisdom of crowds of doctors: their average predictions outperform their individual ones.
        Med Decis Making. 2016; 36: 536-540
        • Collins G.S.
        • Reitsma J.B.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Moons K.G.
        Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68: 134-143
        • Gyhagen M.
        • Bullarbo M.
        • Nielsen T.F.
        • Milsom I.
        The prevalence of urinary incontinence 20 years after childbirth: a national cohort study in singleton primiparae after vaginal or caesarean delivery.
        BJOG. 2013; 120: 144-151
        • Hagen S.
        • Glazener C.
        • Sinclair L.
        • Stark D.
        • Bugge C.
        Psychometric properties of the pelvic organ prolapse symptom score.
        BJOG. 2009; 116: 25-31
        • Tegerstedt G.
        • Miedel A.
        • Maehle-Schmidt M.
        • Nyren O.
        • Hammarstrom M.
        A short-form questionnaire identified genital organ prolapse.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2005; 58: 41-46
        • Sandvik H.
        • Hunskaar S.
        • Seim A.
        • Hermstad R.
        • Vanvik A.
        • Bratt H.
        Validation of a severity index in female urinary incontinence and its implementation in an epidemiological survey.
        J Epidemiol Community Health. 1993; 47: 497-499
        • Jorge J.M.
        • Wexner S.D.
        Etiology and management of fecal incontinence.
        Dis Colon Rectum. 1993; 36: 77-97
        • White I.R.
        • Royston P.
        • Wood A.M.
        Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice.
        Stat Med. 2011; 30: 377-399
      2. Harrell FE. Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. New York: Springer; 2001.

        • Sokol D.K.
        Update on the UK law on consent.
        BMJ. 2015; 350 (h1481)
        • Landefeld C.S.
        • Bowers B.J.
        • Feld A.D.
        • et al.
        National Institutes of Health state-of-the-science conference statement: prevention of fecal and urinary incontinence in adults.
        Ann Intern Med. 2008; 148: 449-458
        • Visco A.G.
        • Viswanathan M.
        • Lohr K.N.
        • et al.
        Cesarean delivery on maternal request: maternal and neonatal outcomes.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 108: 1517-1529
        • Hagen S.
        • Glazener C.
        • McClurg D.
        • et al.
        Pelvic floor muscle training for secondary prevention of pelvic organ prolapse (PREVPROL): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.
        Lancet. 2017; 389: 393-402
      3. National Cancer I. Theory at a glance: a guide for health promotion practice. US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health; 2012 (vol 2016).

        • Rockhill B.
        • Spiegelman D.
        • Byrne C.
        • Hunter D.J.
        • Colditz G.A.
        Validation of the Gail et al model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001; 93: 358-366