4.6 Article

Clinical significance of histologic chorioamnionitis with a negative amniotic fluid culture in patients with preterm labor and premature membrane rupture

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173312

关键词

-

资金

  1. Korea Health Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea [HI 14C1798]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To evaluate the effect of histological chorioamnionitis (HCA) with a negative amniotic fluid (AF) culture on adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes and inflammatory status in the AF compartment in women with preterm labor or preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM). Methods This is a retrospective cohort study of 153 women diagnosed as having a preterm labor or PPROM (20-34 weeks) who delivered singleton gestations within 48 hours of amniocentesis. AF obtained through amniocentesis was cultured, and interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, and metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) levels were determined. The placentas were examined histologically. Results The prevalence of HCA with negative AF culture was 23.5% (36/153). The women with HCA but with a negative AF culture (group 2) and those with a positive AF culture (group 3) had a significantly lower mean gestational age at amniocentesis and delivery than those with a negative AF culture and without HCA (group 1). Women in group 3 had the highest levels of AF IL-6, IL-8, and MMP-9, followed by those in group 2, and those in group 1. Composite neonatal morbidity was significantly higher in groups 2 and 3 than in group 1, but this was no longer significant after adjusting for confounders caused mainly by the impact of gestational age. Discussion In the women who delivered preterm neonates, HCA with a negative AF culture was associated with increased risks of preterm birth, intense intra-amniotic inflammatory response, and prematurity-associated composite neonatal morbidity, and its risks are similar to the risk posed by positive AF culture.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据