A Retrospective Study Comparing of Group B Streptococcus Invasiveness in Pregnant Women and Infants

IF 0.4 4区 医学 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Hui Yang, Shengmei Zhang
{"title":"A Retrospective Study Comparing of Group B Streptococcus Invasiveness in Pregnant Women and Infants","authors":"Hui Yang, Shengmei Zhang","doi":"10.31083/j.ceog5010221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Group B streptococcus (GBS) is commonly recognized as an opportunistic pathogen, which can cause infections in pregnant women and their newborns. The aim of this study was to explore the invasiveness of GBS by comparing various indices of pregnant mothers and newborns. Methods: This retrospective study involved 6892 consecutive GBS screened pregnant women, and 48 GBS-positive newborns. The data of pregnant women and newborns was compared by Chi-square test and Kruskal-Wallis test. A p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: After excluding the other risk factors which can cause adverse pregnancy outcomes, there were no differences between pregnant women in GBS-positive and GBS-negative groups, except the age group. In the GBS-negative and positive groups the incidence of prematurity, premature rupture of membranes (PROM), and chorioamnionitis were 1.06% and 0.74%, 7.72% and 8.14%, 0.63% and 0.74%, respectively. The corresponding p-values were 0.619, 0.263, and 0.626. The GBS-positive rate was 6.83% (201/2943) in the 19–30 years (y) group, 6.89% in the (262/3802) in the 31–40 y group, and 1.36% (2/147) in the 41–52 y group (p = 0.031). The indices in the different newborn groups exhibited significant differences. Analysis of the data revealed significant differences in delivery mode, gestational age, neonatal birth weight, and Apgar scores among the GBS-colonization, GBS-infection, and death groups (p = 0.010, 0.004, 0.022, and 0.000 < 0.05, respectively). Conclusions: After excluding related factors, the evidence showing that GBS-colonization independently induced adverse pregnancy outcomes in pregnant women was insufficient. GBS was more likely to attack premature newborns with low weight and poor health status.","PeriodicalId":10312,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and experimental obstetrics & gynecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and experimental obstetrics & gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31083/j.ceog5010221","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Group B streptococcus (GBS) is commonly recognized as an opportunistic pathogen, which can cause infections in pregnant women and their newborns. The aim of this study was to explore the invasiveness of GBS by comparing various indices of pregnant mothers and newborns. Methods: This retrospective study involved 6892 consecutive GBS screened pregnant women, and 48 GBS-positive newborns. The data of pregnant women and newborns was compared by Chi-square test and Kruskal-Wallis test. A p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: After excluding the other risk factors which can cause adverse pregnancy outcomes, there were no differences between pregnant women in GBS-positive and GBS-negative groups, except the age group. In the GBS-negative and positive groups the incidence of prematurity, premature rupture of membranes (PROM), and chorioamnionitis were 1.06% and 0.74%, 7.72% and 8.14%, 0.63% and 0.74%, respectively. The corresponding p-values were 0.619, 0.263, and 0.626. The GBS-positive rate was 6.83% (201/2943) in the 19–30 years (y) group, 6.89% in the (262/3802) in the 31–40 y group, and 1.36% (2/147) in the 41–52 y group (p = 0.031). The indices in the different newborn groups exhibited significant differences. Analysis of the data revealed significant differences in delivery mode, gestational age, neonatal birth weight, and Apgar scores among the GBS-colonization, GBS-infection, and death groups (p = 0.010, 0.004, 0.022, and 0.000 < 0.05, respectively). Conclusions: After excluding related factors, the evidence showing that GBS-colonization independently induced adverse pregnancy outcomes in pregnant women was insufficient. GBS was more likely to attack premature newborns with low weight and poor health status.
孕妇与婴儿B群链球菌侵袭性的回顾性比较研究
背景:B族链球菌(GBS)是一种公认的机会致病菌,可引起孕妇及其新生儿感染。本研究的目的是通过比较孕妇和新生儿的各项指标来探讨GBS的侵袭性。方法:本回顾性研究纳入6892例连续筛查的GBS孕妇和48例GBS阳性新生儿。孕妇与新生儿的数据比较采用卡方检验和Kruskal-Wallis检验。p值≤0.05认为有统计学意义。结果:在排除其他可能导致不良妊娠结局的危险因素后,除年龄组外,gbs阳性组与gbs阴性组孕妇间无差异。gbs阴性组和阳性组早产儿、胎膜早破(PROM)、绒毛膜羊膜炎的发生率分别为1.06%和0.74%、7.72%和8.14%、0.63%和0.74%。p值分别为0.619、0.263、0.626。19-30岁组gbs阳性率为6.83%(201/2943),31-40岁组阳性率为6.89%(262/3802),41-52岁组阳性率为1.36% (2/147)(p = 0.031)。不同新生儿组各指标差异有统计学意义。数据分析显示,在gbs定植组、gbs感染组和死亡组中,分娩方式、胎龄、新生儿出生体重和Apgar评分存在显著差异(p = 0.010、0.004、0.022和0.000 <分别为0.05)。结论:排除相关因素后,表明gbs定殖独立导致孕妇不良妊娠结局的证据不足。体重过轻、健康状况不佳的早产儿更容易发生GBS。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: CEOG is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal. CEOG covers all aspects of Obstetrics and Gynecology, including obstetrics, prenatal diagnosis, maternal-fetal medicine, perinatology, general gynecology, gynecologic oncology, uro-gynecology, reproductive medicine, infertility, reproductive endocrinology, sexual medicine. All submissions of cutting-edge advances of medical research in the area of women''s health worldwide are encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信