4.5 Article

Maternal age and body mass index as risk factors for rectovaginal colonization with group B streptococci

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS
Volume 161, Issue 1, Pages 303-307

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.14449

Keywords

body mass index; colonization; group B streptococci; maternal age; risk factors

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Maternal age and BMI may be included as additional risk factors in risk-based programs for identifying GBS-positive laboring women to receive prophylactic intrapartum antibiotics.
Objective To examine the effect of including maternal age and body mass index (BMI; calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters) as additional risk factors in the traditional risk-based strategy at term pregnancies consisting of previous early-onset group B streptococcus (GBS) disease, GBS bacteriuria during pregnancy, maternal temperature of 38.0 degrees C or more intrapartum, and rupture of membranes of 18 h or longer. Methods A secondary analysis of a Danish cohort including 902 pregnant women. Exposures were maternal age and pre-pregnancy BMI. Outcome was rectovaginal GBS colonization at the time of labor. The logistic regression analysis adjusted for parity, gestational age, vaginal delivery, and smoking. Results The GBS prevalence was 17% in the entire population, 35% among participants older than 40 years, and 23% among those with a BMI of 25 or greater. Including maternal age > 40 as an additional risk factor increased the sensitivity of the risk-based strategy from 21% to 26% and decreased the specificity from 90% to 87%. Inclusion of BMI >= 25 increased the sensitivity from 21% to 57% and decreased the specificity from 90% to 59%. Conclusions Maternal age and BMI might be included as additional risk factors in risk-based programs for identification of GBS-positive laboring women to receive intrapartum antibiotics prophylaxis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available