Serum β‑human chorionic gonadotropin and interleukin‑1 as diagnostic biomarkers for the premature rupture of membranes and chorioamnionitis
- Authors:
- Chun‑Fang Tian
- Fa‑Hui Lv
- Min Wang
- Xiao‑Shan Gu
View Affiliations
Affiliations: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shenzhen Seventh People's Hospital, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518081, P.R. China, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hefei Second People's Hospital, Hefei, Anhui 230000, P.R. China
- Published online on: August 13, 2014 https://doi.org/10.3892/br.2014.342
-
Pages:
905-909
Metrics: Total
Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
This article is mentioned in:
Abstract
Chorioamnionitis is common in females with prematurely ruptured fetal membranes (PROM). The current diagnosis of PROM and preterm PROM (PPROM) is based on vaginal fluid analysis. The present study investigated the value of serum β‑human chorionic gonadotropin (β‑hCG) and interleukin‑1 (IL‑1) levels in diagnosing chorioamnionitis. In total, 150 term‑pregnancy patients were included in the prospective study. A total of 50 females had normal pregnancies (control group) and 100 had PROM. One hour before delivery, 3 ml venous blood was collected and analyzed. Fetal membrane and placental tissue underwent histopathological analyses. Of the 100 term‑pregnancy females, 56 had PROM and 44 had PROM combined with chorioamnionitis (PROM + C). The serum β‑hCG levels for the control, PROM and PROM + C groups were 7,557.86±2,922.06, 636.96±14,379.10 and 50,310.34±22,874.82 IU/l, respectively. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) for PROM and PROM + C groups (β‑hCG ≥23,900.50 IU/l) had a sensitivity of 77.5% and a specificity of 78.6%. The level of IL‑1 in the PROM + C group was higher compared to the control and PROM groups (0.58±0.05, 0.12±0.04 and 0.13±0.03 ng/ml, respectively). In conclusion, ROC for the PROM and PROM + C groups (IL‑1 ≥0.38 ng/ml) had a sensitivity of 76.5% and a specificity of 72.6%. Therefore, serum β‑hCG and IL‑1 are potential biomarkers for diagnosing PROM and PROM + C, respectively.
View References
1
|
Le J: Obstetrics and Gynecology. 7th
edition. Beijing People’s Medical Publishing House; Beijing: pp.
137–138. 2008
|
2
|
Falagas ME, Avgeri SG, Matthaiou DK,
Dimopoulos G and Siempos II: Short- versus long-duration
antimicrobial treatment for exacerbations of chronic bronchitis: a
meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 62:442–450. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
3
|
Chen ZN: Pathology of Obstetrics and
Gynecology Shanghai Medical. University Press; Shanghai: pp.
343–344. 1996
|
4
|
Malak TM, Ockleford CD, Bell SC, et al:
Confocal immunofluorescence localization of collagen types I, III,
IV, VI and their ulrtastructural organization in term human fetal
membranes. Placenta. 14:385–406. 1993. View Article : Google Scholar
|
5
|
Casey ML and MacDonald PC: Interstitial
collagen synthesis and processing in human amnion: a property of
the mesenchynal cells. Biol Reprod. 55:1253–1260. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
6
|
Menon R and Fortunato SJ: The role of
matrix degrading enzymes and apoptosis in rupture of membranes. J
Soc Gynecol Investig. 11:427–437. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
7
|
Carranza Lira S, Negrete López M,
Quinzaños Fresnedo C and Leaños Miranda A: Usefulness of the
qualitative detection of hCG in cervicovaginal lavage for the
diagnosis of premature rupture of membranes. Ginecol Obstet Mex.
77:142–146. 2009.(In Spanish).
|
8
|
Knapik D and Olejek A: Analysis of
cervicovaginal fluid in the diagnosis of premature rupture of
membranes. Ginekol Pol. 82:50–55. 2011.(In Polish).
|
9
|
van der Ham DP, van Teeffelen AS and Mol
BW: Prelabour rupture of membranes: overview of diagnostic methods.
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 24:408–412. 2012.PubMed/NCBI
|
10
|
Kopyra P, Seremak-Mrozikiewicz A and Drews
K: Usefulness of PCT, IL-6, CRP measurement in the prediction of
intraamniotic infection and newborn status in pregnant women with
premature rupture of membranes. Ginekol Pol. 81:336–341. 2010.(In
Polish).
|
11
|
Tita AT and Andrews WW: Diagnosis and
management of clinical chorioamnionitis. Clin Perinatol.
37:339–354. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar
|
12
|
Hou LT, Zhou YW and Liu CF: Monitoring the
significance of serum CRP and IL-1 in preterm premature rupture of
membranes pregnant women. Chin J Mater Child Heal Care.
5:1777–1778. 2008.
|
13
|
Smith EJ, Muller CL, Sartorius JA, White
DR and Maslow AS: C-reactive protein as a predictor of
chorioamnionitis. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 112:660–664.
2012.PubMed/NCBI
|
14
|
Li HX: Comparing serum β-hCG and CRP
levels in predicting intrauterine infection and prognosis. Chin J
Hosp Infect. 22:2016–2018. 2012.
|
15
|
Yu L and Chen JH: The relationship among
CRP, preterm premature rupture of membranes and subclinical
chorionic amnionitis. J Pract Med Tech. 15:2889–2890. 2008.
|
16
|
Bitner A and Kalinka J: IL-β, IL-6
promoter, TNF-α promoter and IL-1RA gene polymorphisms and the risk
of preterm delivery due to preterm premature rupture of membranes
in a population of Polish women. Arch Med Sci. 6:552–557. 2010.
|
17
|
Puchner K, Iavazzo C, Gourgiotis D, et al:
Mid-trimester amniotic fluid interleukins (IL-1β, IL-10 and IL-18)
as possible predictors of preterm delivery. In Vivo. 25:141–148.
2011.
|