对 C 反应蛋白用于排除剖宫产术后感染的回顾性评估

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Geburtshilfe Und Frauenheilkunde Pub Date : 2024-11-07 eCollection Date: 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1055/a-2413-5449
Sabine Enengl, Peter Oppelt, Richard Bernhard Mayer, Elisabeth Brandlmayr, Philip Sebastian Trautner
{"title":"对 C 反应蛋白用于排除剖宫产术后感染的回顾性评估","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":"84 11","pages":"1066-1073"},"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":"{\"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\":\"84 11\",\"pages\":\"1066-1073\"},\"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}","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

摘要

导言:剖宫产术后感染是孕产妇发病率的一个主要因素。测量 C 反应蛋白(CRP)是排除或确认术后感染的常用实验室检测方法。本研究旨在评估 CRP 是否是排除剖宫产术后感染的合适工具,以及是否有可靠的临界值。收集了结果参数和术后感染的风险因素。比较了术前和术后检测的 CRP 值。评估了排除感染的临界值:结果:在 2056 例急诊手术中,78 例(3.8%)发生了术后感染。急诊 CS 感染率最低,134 例中有 4 例(2.9%),二次 CS 感染率最高,903 例中有 42 例(4.6%;P = 0.35)。感染组的 CRP 值明显更高(术前,1.01 mg/dl 对 0.62 mg/dl;术后第 1 天,7.91 mg/dl 对 6.44 mg/dl;术后第 4 天,8.44 mg/dl 对 4.09 mg/dl;P = 0.01)。结论:结论:虽然感染组的 CRP 值明显较高,但其临床意义似乎微乎其微。CRP检测似乎不是诊断或排除术后感染的可靠工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Retrospective Evaluation of C-reactive Protein for Ruling Out Infection After Cesarean Section.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Geburtshilfe Und Frauenheilkunde
Geburtshilfe Und Frauenheilkunde 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
22.20%
发文量
828
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
×
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