4.4 Article

The colonization with Candida species is more harmful in the second trimester of pregnancy

期刊

ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS
卷 295, 期 4, 页码 891-895

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-017-4331-y

关键词

Vaginal smear; Candidosis; Candida colonization; Preterm birth; Birthweight

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Vaginal colonization with Candida species (spp.) during pregnancy has been associated with impaired pregnancy outcomes. There is a reduction in spontaneous preterm birth among women with recurrent asymptomatic colonization of Candida who were treated with clotrimazole. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the trimester of vulvovaginal colonization with Candida species. Methods Data from all women, who were tested positive for the vaginal colonization with Candida spp. during the first or second trimester of pregnancy, and who registered for a planned birth at our tertiary referral center between 2005 and 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Their preterm birth rate served as the primary outcome variable. Secondary outcome variables were neonatal birthweight and Apgar score. Results Overall, 1066 women were eligible for the study. In 673 women (63%), who were diagnosed with Candida spp. during the first trimester of pregnancy, the rate of preterm birth was 10% (N = 64). In 393 women (37%), who were diagnosed with candidosis during the second trimester, the preterm birth rate was 18% (N = 71; p = 0.0002). Neonates of women, who presented with vulvovaginal candidosis during the first trimester, had a mean birthweight of 3243 g, compared to 2989 g in the group with a second trimester colonization (p < 0.0001). Conclusion Women who are colonized with Candida spp. during the second trimester of pregnancy have higher rates of preterm birth and lower neonatal birthweight than those who are colonized during the first trimester of their pregnancy. Screening programs for asymptomatic Candida colonization should take this information into account.

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

4.4
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