Sabine Enengl, Peter Oppelt, Richard Bernhard Mayer, Elisabeth Brandlmayr, Philip Sebastian Trautner
{"title":"Retrospective Evaluation of C-reactive Protein for Ruling Out Infection After Cesarean Section.","authors":"Sabine Enengl, Peter Oppelt, Richard Bernhard Mayer, Elisabeth Brandlmayr, Philip Sebastian Trautner","doi":"10.1055/a-2413-5449","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Infection after cesarean section is a major contributor to maternal morbidity. Measurement of C-reactive protein (CRP) is a laboratory test frequently conducted to rule out or confirm postoperative infection. The present study aimed to evaluate whether CRP is a suitable tool for ruling out infection after cesarean section and whether there are any reliable cut-off values.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>2056 patients with cesarean section (CS) over a 3-year period were included in a retrospective analysis. Outcome parameters and risk factors for postoperative infection were collected. CRP values from preoperative and postoperative tests were compared. Cut-offs for ruling out infection were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 2056 CSs, postoperative infection occurred in 78 cases (3.8%). The prevalence of infection in emergency CS was lowest, at four out of 134 (2.9%), and the highest prevalence was seen in secondary CS, at 42 of 903 (4.6%; p = 0.35). CRP values in the infection group were significantly higher (preoperative, 1.01 mg/dl vs. 0.62 mg/dl; day 1 postoperative, 7.91 mg/dl vs. 6.44 mg/dl; day 4 postoperative, 8.44 mg/dl vs. 4.09 mg/dl; p = 0.01). A suitable cut-off value for ruling out infection was not identified.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although CRP values were significantly higher in the infection group, the clinical relevance of this appears to be negligible. CRP testing does not appear to be a reliable tool for diagnosing or ruling out postoperative infection.</p>","PeriodicalId":12481,"journal":{"name":"Geburtshilfe Und Frauenheilkunde","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11543105/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geburtshilfe Und Frauenheilkunde","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2413-5449","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Infection after cesarean section is a major contributor to maternal morbidity. Measurement of C-reactive protein (CRP) is a laboratory test frequently conducted to rule out or confirm postoperative infection. The present study aimed to evaluate whether CRP is a suitable tool for ruling out infection after cesarean section and whether there are any reliable cut-off values.
Materials and methods: 2056 patients with cesarean section (CS) over a 3-year period were included in a retrospective analysis. Outcome parameters and risk factors for postoperative infection were collected. CRP values from preoperative and postoperative tests were compared. Cut-offs for ruling out infection were assessed.
Results: Among 2056 CSs, postoperative infection occurred in 78 cases (3.8%). The prevalence of infection in emergency CS was lowest, at four out of 134 (2.9%), and the highest prevalence was seen in secondary CS, at 42 of 903 (4.6%; p = 0.35). CRP values in the infection group were significantly higher (preoperative, 1.01 mg/dl vs. 0.62 mg/dl; day 1 postoperative, 7.91 mg/dl vs. 6.44 mg/dl; day 4 postoperative, 8.44 mg/dl vs. 4.09 mg/dl; p = 0.01). A suitable cut-off value for ruling out infection was not identified.
Conclusions: Although CRP values were significantly higher in the infection group, the clinical relevance of this appears to be negligible. CRP testing does not appear to be a reliable tool for diagnosing or ruling out postoperative infection.
期刊介绍:
Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde (GebFra) addresses the whole field of obstetrics and gynecology and is concerned with research as much as with clinical practice. In its scientific section, it publishes original articles, reviews and case reports in all fields of the discipline, namely
gynecological oncology, including oncology of the breast
obstetrics and perinatal medicine,
reproductive medicine,
and urogynecology.
GebFra invites the submission of original articles and review articles.
In addition, the journal publishes guidelines, statements and recommendations in cooperation with the DGGG, SGGG, OEGGG and the Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF, Association of Scientific Medical Societies, www.awmf.org). Apart from the scientific section, Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde has a news and views section that also includes discussions, book reviews and professional information.
Letters to the editors are welcome. If a letter discusses an article that has been published in our journal, the corresponding author of the article will be informed and invited to comment on the letter. The comment will be published along with the letter.