Please wait a minute...
Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology  2018, Vol. 45 Issue (3): 419-424    DOI: 10.12891/ceog4278.2018
Original Research Previous articles | Next articles
Management and outcomes of preterm premature rupture of the membranes
C. Danielsson1, 2, M. Dahmoun2, M. Bolin2, J. Agrell2, S. Turkmen1, 2, *()
1 Department of Clinical Science, Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Sundsvalls Research Unit, Umeå University, Umeå
2 Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Sundsvalls County Hospital, Sundsvall, Sweden
Download:  PDF
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  
Purpose of investigation: To compare the maternal and neonatal outcomes of preterm premature rupture of the membranes (PPROM) between two management strategies. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study involved 153 pregnant women who presented with PPROM at a gestational age of 28+0 to 36+6 weeks to evaluate the effects of expectant management (EM; labor > 36 hours) and active management (AM; labor < 36 hours) on maternal and neonatal outcomes. The EM and AM groups were also compared independently of gestational age and after being divided into two subgroups: early PPROM (gestational age 28+0 to 33+6 weeks) and late PPROM (34+0 to 36+6 weeks). Results: There were no differences between the AM and EM groups in the rates of maternal infection or placental abruption, or in neonatal outcomes, including low Apgar scores, respiratory distress syndrome, or the need for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). In the early PPROM subgroup, arterial umbilical blood base excess levels were more negative in the AM group (p = 0.007). In the late PPROM subgroup, the change in systolic blood pressure between admission to the maternity care center and membrane rupture was greater in the AM group (p = 0.049). Conclusions: There were no clinically significant differences in the maternal and neonatal outcomes of PPROM between AM and EM.
Key words:  Preterm      Premature      Rupture of membrane      Delivery      Expectant management      Active management      Neonatal and maternal outcomes     
Published:  10 June 2018     
*Corresponding Author(s):  S. TURKMEN     E-mail:  sahruh.turkmen@umu.se

Cite this article: 

C. Danielsson, M. Dahmoun, M. Bolin, J. Agrell, S. Turkmen. Management and outcomes of preterm premature rupture of the membranes. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 45(3): 419-424.

URL: 

https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/10.12891/ceog4278.2018     OR     https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/Y2018/V45/I3/419

[1] S. Srisukho, K. Srisupundit, T. Tongsong. Fulfillment of the criteria for diagnosis of cephalo-pelvic disproportion: ACOG guidelines[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(4): 500-504.
[2] N. Dropińska, K. Chmaj-Wierzchowska, M. Wojciechowska, M. Wilczak. What is the state of knowledge on preterm birth?[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(4): 505-510.
[3] G. Sel, A. Barut, Ü. Özmen, A. Y. Akdemir, S. Harma, B. Aynalı, M. Harma, M.İ. Harma. Mode of delivery does not have a relationship with high-risk HPV positivity[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(4): 541-545.
[4] F. Wang, Z.X. Liang, W.R. Mao, S.N. He, D.Q. Chen. Influence of pre-pregnancy body mass index and gestational weight gain in twin pregnancies on blood glucose, serum lipid and perinatal outcomes[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(3): 376-382.
[5] R. Robeva, S. Andonova, M. Glushkova, T. Todorov, A. Elenkova, A. Savov, S. Zacharieva, A. Todorova. A rare BMP15 genetic variant in a patient with premature ovarian insufficiency and two spontaneous pregnancies[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(3): 409-411.
[6] J. W. Kim, Y. H. Kim, J. H. Moon, H. A. Jung, E. J. Noh. The efficacy of third-generation cephalosporin plus metronidazole versus third-generation cephalosporin plus clarithromycin in neonatal outcomes and oxidative stress markers in women with preterm premature rupture of membranes[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(2): 194-198.
[7] L. Mamas, E. Mamas. Prophylactic cervical cerclage, fully embedded, for twin pregnancies following fertility treatment[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(2): 238-242.
[8] E. J. Shim, H. J. Kim, I. Y. Kim, K. Y. Oh, Y. S. Yang, C. H. Jin. Outcomes of prophylactic and emergency cerclage versus expectant management for cervical insufficiency: a single-center retrospective, comparative study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(2): 262-267.
[9] R. Dias Nunes, E. Traebert, M. Seemann, J. Traebert. Evaluation of simple and low-cost diagnostic tests for premature rupture of membranes[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(2): 287-290.
[10] C. Chollet, B. Andre, M. Voglimacci, A. Ghassani, O. Parant, P. Guerby. Perinatal outcomes of second trimester antenatal genital bleeding[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(1): 105-110.
[11] A. Kalok, N.H.A. Aziz, D.A. Malik, S.A. Shah, D.N. Nasuruddin, M.H. Omar, N.A.M. Ismail, M.N. Shafiee. Maternal serum vitamin D and spontaneous preterm birth[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(1): 16-20.
[12] K.-C. Moon, J.-M. Lee, E.-S. Yoon, B.-I. Lee, S.-H. Park. Can pregnancy following muscle-sparing transverse abdominis myocutaneous (MS-TRAM) flaps be safe on abdominal wall?[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(1): 37-40.
[13] L. Andrejevic, A. Andrejevic, V. Nestorovic, B. Milosevic, S. Andrejevic, S. Nestorovic. Multiparty, relation with patology of pregnancy and delivery[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(1): 117-121.
[14] R. Csorba, P. Tsikouras, A. Bothou, S. Zervoudis, G. Iatrakis, X. Anthoulaki, D. Deuteraiou, A. Chalkidou, G. F. von Tempelhoff. Air travel during pregnancy: an update review and practical recommendation[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(6): 862-866.
[15] Y. Wu, L. Tong, L. Xiao. Artificial neural network models for prediction of premature ovarian failure[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(6): 958-963.
No Suggested Reading articles found!