Utility of ultrasound assessment in management of pregnancies with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes

Objectives To evaluate the utility of ultrasound markers in themanagement of pregnancies complicated by preterm prelabor rupture ofmembranes (PPROM) between 23+ 0 and 33+ 6weeks' gestation, and to assess the ability of ultrasound markers to predict adverse neonatal outcomes. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients with PPROM between 23+ 0 and 33+ 6weeks' gestation and latency period (PPROM to delivery) > 48 h, who delivered before 34 weeks' gestation at a tertiary referral center between 2005 and 2017. All patients underwent a non-stress test daily and an ultrasound scan twice a week for assessment of amniotic fluid volume, biophysical profile (BPP) and umbilical artery (UA) pulsatility index (PI). In patients with suspected fetal growth restriction, fetal middle cerebral artery (MCA)-PI was also assessed and the cerebroplacental ratio (CPR) calculated. The last ultrasound examination performed prior to delivery was analyzed. We compared the characteristics and outcomes between women who were delivered owing to clinical suspicion of chorioamnionitis and those who were not delivered for this indication. The primary objective was to evaluate the utility of ultrasound in the management of patients with PPROM. The secondary objective was to assess the diagnostic performance of ultrasound markers (BPP score 6, oligohydramnios, UA-PI > 95th percentile, MCA-PI5th percentile, CPR5th percentile) for the prediction of composite adverse neonatal outcome, which was defined as the presence of one or more of: perinatal death, respiratory distress syndrome, periventricular leukomalacia, intraventricular hemorrhage Grade 3 or 4, necrotizing enterocolitis, hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, neonatal sepsis or neonatal seizures. Results A total of 504 women were included in the study, comprising 120 with suspected chorioamnionitis and 384 without. Women with suspected chorioamnionitis, compared with those without, were less likely to be nulliparous (34.2% vs 45.3%; P=0.03) and more likely to have fever (50.8% vs 2.6%; P<0.001) and be delivered by Cesarean section (69.2% vs 42.4%; P<0.001), mainly owing to a history of previous Cesarean section (18.3% vs 9.1%; P=0.005) and to having non-reassuring fetal heart rate tracings (32.5% vs 14.6%; P<0.001). No significant differences were found between the two groups with regard to the median amniotic fluid volume, overall BPP score, BPP score 6, MCA-PI or CPR. Median UA-PI was slightly higher in the suspected-chorioamnionitis group, yet the incidence of UA-PI > 95th percentile was similar between the two groups. There was a higher incidence of composite adverse neonatal outcome in the group with suspected chorioamnionitis than in the group without (78.3% vs 64.3%, respectively; P=0.004). However, on logistic regression analysis, none of the ultrasound markers evaluated was found to be associated with chorioamnionitis or composite adverse neonatal outcome, and they all had a poor diagnostic performance for the prediction of chorioamnionitis and composite adverse neonatal outcome. Conclusions Commonly used ultrasound markers in pregnancies complicated by PPROM were similar between women delivered for suspected chorioamnionitis and those delivered for other indications, and performed poorly in predicting composite adverse neonatal outcome. Copyright (c) 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.