4.6 Article

The Alabama preterm birth study: Intrauterine infection and placental histologic findings in preterm births of males and females less than 32 weeks

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
卷 195, 期 6, 页码 1533-1537

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.05.023

关键词

infant sex; preterm birth; placental histology; placental infection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The objective of the study was to determine whether there are differences in the placental histology and various markers of infection/inflammation between preterm male and female fetuses. Study design: The placentas and umbilical cords of 446 infants born at 23 to 32 weeks were examined histologically, cultured for aerobic and anaerobic bacteria and inycoplasmas. and the interleukin-6 levels in cord blood determined. Results: Male infants were significantly more likely to have positive placental cultures than female infants (63.4% versus 51.8%, P = .01, odds ratio 1.5, 1.0 to 2.4). Cord blood Mycoplasma hominis and Ureaplasma urealyticum infections were marginally more common in male than female fetuses (27.6% versus 19.2% P = .06, odds ratio 1.7, 0.9 to 2.9). but cord blood interleukin-6 levels were not different between male and female fetuses. The only significant histologic difference between male and female placentas was in decidual lymphoplasmacytic cell infiltration (6.3% versus 0.9%, P = .003, odds ratio 8.3, 1.8 to 39.0). Males had a higher percentage of decidual lymphoplasmacytic cell infiltration, but the differences were not significant (11.3% versus 7.4%, P = .160, odds ratio 1.6, 0.8 to 3.2). Conclusion: Male infants were significantly more likely to have positive placental membrane cultures than female infants. Decidual lymphoplasmacytic cell infiltrations were more common in male versus female placentas, confirming a previous observation and suggesting that a maternal immune reaction to fetal tissue may be more common in male fetuses. (c) 2006 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

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