To determine the accuracy of amniotic fluid (AF) matrix metalloproteinase-9 measurements for diagnosing intra-amniotic infection in women with preterm labor.
Methods
We performed amniocenteses in 44 women between 22 and 35 weeks' gestation who presented to our center with preterm labor and clinical suspicion of intra-amniotic infection. Each sample was analyzed by glucose measurement, Gram stain, and culture for aerobes, anaerobes, and mycoplasmas. We tested the AF for matrix metalloproteinase-9 using gelatin zymography and a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) system. We calculated accuracy and confidence intervals (CIs) for AF matrix metalloproteinase-9, glucose, and Gram stain for diagnosing intra-amniotic infection, using culture as the criterion standard.
Results
All patients who had matrix metalloproteinase-9 detectable by ELISA also demonstrated matrix metalloproteinase-9 by zymography. Six cases of intra-amniotic infection were confirmed by culture (prevalence 14%). The performance statistics of AF matrix metalloproteinase-9 for diagnosing intra-amniotic infection were: sensitivity 83% (95% CI 53, 99), specificity 95% (95% CI 88, 99), positive predictive value 71% (95% CI 37, 99), and negative predictive value 97% (95% CI 92, 99). Two women had false-positive results; one had gram-negative rods on the AF Gram stain and developed clinical signs and symptoms of chorioamnionitis several hours after amniocentesis and the other had a purulent vaginal discharge and an AF glucose level less than 15 mg/dL. Both delivered within 24 hours of amniocentesis.
Conclusion
Measuring matrix metalloproteinase-9 in the AF appeared to be reliable for diagnosing intra-amniotic infection. An elevated matrix metalloproteinase-9 concentration in the AF at a preterm gestational age may portend imminent delivery regardless of microbiologic confirmation of intra-amniotic infection.
PMID 10389708 10389708 DOI 10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00011-3 10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00011-3
Cite this article
Locksmith, G. J., Clark, P., Duff, P., & Schultz, G. S. (1999). Amniotic fluid matrix metalloproteinase-9 levels in women with preterm labor and suspected intra-amniotic infection. Obstetrics and gynecology, 94(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00011-3
Locksmith GJ, Clark P, Duff P, Schultz GS. Amniotic fluid matrix metalloproteinase-9 levels in women with preterm labor and suspected intra-amniotic infection. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94(1):1-6. doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00011-3
Locksmith, Gregory J., et al. "Amniotic fluid matrix metalloproteinase-9 levels in women with preterm labor and suspected intra-amniotic infection." Obstetrics and gynecology, vol. 94, no. 1, 1999, pp. 1-6.
Keywords
Adult, Amniotic Fluid/chemistry, Chorioamnionitis/complications/enzymology/microbiology, Collagenases/analysis, Female, Humans, Matrix Metalloproteinase 9, Obstetric Labor, Premature/complications/enzymology/microbiology, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, Reproducibility of Results, Sensitivity and Specificity, Collagenases, Matrix Metalloproteinase 9
Related articles
PregnancyBiomarkersPremature Rupture of MembranesPeptide Markers
To determine whether adrenomedullin levels in amniotic fluid were associated with preterm labor. We measured immunoreactive adrenomedullin in amniotic fluid collected by amniocentesis from 36 women with clinical diagnosis of preterm labor or preterm premature rupture of membranes (PROM) and from 18 normal pregnant women. Amniotic fluid from cases of PROM and failure to respond to tocolysis were associated significantly with higher amniotic fluid adrenomedullin concentrations (177.0 +/- 22.5 pg/mL and 182.7 +/- 22.0 pg/mL, respectively, P < .01) than that from uncomplicated pregnancies (101.2 +/- 28.1 pg/mL) or preterm labor responsive to tocolysis (102.3 +/- 26.8 pg/mL). Amniotic fluid adrenomedullin is higher than normal in cases of PROM and preterm labor unresponsive to tocolysis, perhaps indicating enhanced synthesis from placenta or fetal membranes being stimulated by bacterial products.
EndometriosisFertility OutcomesEndometriosis Surgery ClaimsReproductive Treatment Access
For many patients with endometriosis, laparoscopic surgery is the most effective treatment to alleviate severe chronic pelvic pain and improve quality of life. Because endometriosis is common among individuals with infertility, surgery is often considered alongside fertility evaluation and treatment to manage symptoms, identify disease pathology, and restore pelvic anatomy. In patients who desire pregnancy, the decision of whether and when to pursue surgery should be guided by clear medical indications and shared decision making between the patient and their obstetrician-gynecologist. In recent months, however, religious and political groups have sought to reframe this medical decision as an ideologic and moral one, advocating for endometriosis surgery in nearly all patients with infertility and claiming that this can eliminate the need for assisted reproductive technologies. This framework, known as restorative reproductive medicine (RRM), aligns with efforts to promote the "personhood" of fertilized eggs, restrict access to in in vitro fertilization (IVF), and advance endometriosis surgery and lifestyle modifications as "root-cause treatment leading to natural fertility." Recent editorials and issue briefs in the obstetrics and gynecology literature have discussed the serious ethical, medical, and policy implications of RRM, yet there remains an urgent need to address specifically the unfounded claims about endometriosis surgery and its purported advantages over assisted reproductive technology. This article examines the social context of this controversy and reviews the current evidence regarding the indications, benefits, and limitations of endometriosis surgery in the management of infertility. In contrast to RRM's assertions, no evidence supports the adoption of endometriosis surgery as a replacement for IVF or as a primary treatment for infertility. Rather, the role of surgery in fertility care is highly nuanced and depends on each patient's clinical presentation, reproductive goals, and personal priorities.
To assess the Pearl Index for risk of ectopic pregnancy in women using levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems (LNG-IUS) with hormonal reservoirs of 13.5 mg, 19.5 mg, or 52 mg. This was a retrospective cohort study. Women diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy in Stockholm County, Sweden, between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019, were identified through the electronic medical record system. The final analysis included 2,252 cases of ectopic pregnancy. Information on age, reproductive and medical history, as well as current use of contraception was retrieved. The time of intrauterine device (IUD) insertion before ectopic pregnancy and the numbers of sold LNG-IUS during the study period were used to calculate the incidence rate for ectopic pregnancy during use per 100 woman-years (Pearl Index). Among women with an ectopic pregnancy diagnosis, 105 presented with a known type of hormonal IUD in situ, of whom 94 were included in the calculations of the Pearl Index. The estimated Pearl Index for ectopic pregnancy was 0.136 (95% CI 0.106-0.176) for the LNG-IUS 13.5-mg, 0.037 (95% CI 0.021-0.067) for the LNG-IUS 19.5-mg, and 0.009 (95% CI 0.006-0.014) for the LNG-IUS 52-mg. With the 52-mg LNG-IUS as referent, the relative risk (RR) for ectopic pregnancy was higher during the first year for LNG 13.5-mg (RR 20.59, 95% CI 12.04-35.21), and for both 13.5-mg (RR 14.49, 95% CI 9.01-23.3) and 19.5-mg (RR 4.44, 95% CI 1.64-12.00) during the total study period. The absolute risk of ectopic pregnancy during the use of LNG-IUS at any doses was low. The results show that the lower the dose of the IUD, the higher the risk of an ectopic pregnancy. Higher-dose LNG-IUS should be considered when providing contraceptive counseling to a woman with known risk factors for ectopic pregnancy who are considering a hormonal IUD.
To assess whether coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination is associated with changes in cycle or menses length in those receiving vaccination as compared with an unvaccinated cohort. We analyzed prospectively tracked menstrual cycle data using the application "Natural Cycles." We included U.S. residents aged 18-45 years with normal cycle lengths (24-38 days) for three consecutive cycles before the first vaccine dose followed by vaccine-dose cycles (cycles 4-6) or, if unvaccinated, six cycles over a similar time period. We calculated the mean within-individual change in cycle and menses length (three prevaccine cycles vs first- and second-dose cycles in the vaccinated cohort, and the first three cycles vs cycles four and five in the unvaccinated cohort). We used mixed-effects models to estimate the adjusted difference in change in cycle and menses length between the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts. We included 3,959 individuals (vaccinated 2,403; unvaccinated 1,556). Most of the vaccinated cohort received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (55%) (Moderna 35%, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen 7%). Overall, COVID-19 vaccine was associated with a less than 1-day change in cycle length for both vaccine-dose cycles compared with prevaccine cycles (first dose 0.71 day-increase, 98.75% CI 0.47-0.94; second dose 0.91, 98.75% CI 0.63-1.19); unvaccinated individuals saw no significant change compared with three baseline cycles (cycle four 0.07, 98.75% CI -0.22 to 0.35; cycle five 0.12, 98.75% CI -0.15 to 0.39). In adjusted models, the difference in change in cycle length between the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts was less than 1 day for both doses (difference first dose 0.64 days, 98.75% CI 0.27-1.01; second dose 0.79 days, 98.75% CI 0.40-1.18). Change in menses length was not associated with vaccination. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination is associated with a small change in cycle length but not menses length.