4.6 Article

Intraamniotic Inflammation in Women with Preterm Prelabor Rupture of Membranes

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 10, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133929

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic [NS 13461-4/2012]
  2. Charles University in Prague, the Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic, project PRVOUK [P37/10]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To characterize subgroups of preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM) and short-term neonatal outcomes based on the presence and absence of intraamniotic inflammation (IAI) and/or microbial invasion of the amniotic cavity (MIAC). Methods One hundred and sixty-six Caucasian women with singleton pregnancies were included in this study. Amniotic fluid samples were obtained by transabdominal amniocentesis (n=166) and were assayed for interleukin-6 levels by a lateral flow immunoassay. The presence of Ureaplasma species, Mycoplasma hominis, Chlamydia trachomatis, and 16S rRNA was evaluated in the amniotic fluid. IAI was defined as amniotic fluid IL-6 values, measured by a point of care test, higher than 745 pg/mL. Results Microbial-associated IAI (IAI with MIAC) and sterile intraamniotic inflammation (IAI alone) were found in 21% and 4%, respectively, of women with PPROM. Women with microbial-associated IAI had higher microbial loads of Ureaplasma species in the amniotic fluid than women with MIAC alone. No differences in the short-term neonatal morbidity with respect to the presence of microbial-associated IAI, sterile IAI and MIAC alone were found after adjusting for the gestational age at delivery in women with PPROM. Conclusions Microbial-associated but not sterile intraamniotic inflammation is common in Caucasian women with PPROM. The gestational age at delivery but not the presence of inflammation affects the short-term neonatal morbidity of newborns from PPROM pregnancies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available