Neonatal Outcomes In Women With Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes At Periviable Gestational Age

Abstract

Purpose: To examine the outcomes of preterm infants born to women with preterm premature rupture of membranes at periviable gestational age.

Methods: This is a retrospective study analyzing data on singleton deliveries complicated by prolonged premature rupture of membranes occurring before 24 weeks of gestation. Neonatal outcomes including birth weight, Apgar score, retinopathy of prematurity, intraventricular hemorrhage, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, necrotizing enterocolitis, hearing impairment and mortality were evaluated.

Results: Ninety four preterm infants who were born after a prolonged premature rupture of membranes of at least 7 days were included in the study.Median gestational week at onset of membrane rupture was 27.1 ± 4.2 weeks (range 17 - 33) and median latency period in days was 16 ± 21.8 (range 7 - 105). We found that the survival rate to discharge within neonates born after prolonged rupture of membrane at gestational week less than 24 weeks is 79.2%. These neonates did not show an increased rate of major morbidities compared to neonates born following membrane rupture at gestational week 24 to 27.   

Conclusion: We described a high survival rate without major morbidities following prolonged preterm membrane rupture before viability.

Introduction

Preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) defined, as the spontaneous rupture of membranes before 37 weeks of gestation, is a relatively common complication in pregnancy. It occurs in about 5 to 7% of pregnancies (1) and accounts for one-third of preterm births (2, 3). The incidence of PPROM, at periviable gestational age (broadly defined as 20 0/7 through 25 6/7 weeks of gestation) (4) is less common, affecting approximately four in 1000 pregnancies (5). PPROM exposes the fetus to infection, abruptio placentae, cord prolapse, and intrauterine death, during the latency period (time between onset of PPROM to birth) (5). The neonatal outcome is generally poor as a result of preterm delivery, inflammatory response, and a certain degree of pulmonary hypoplasia stemming from the reduction in amniotic fluid at a very early gestational age (GA) (6, 7) The optimal management of pregnancies complicated by PPROM remains a challenge. The issue of expectant management vs. immediate delivery, especially in cases of PPROM occurring at less than 30 gestational week (GW), is controversial (6–11). The last Cochrane on this issue recommended a policy of expectant management between 25 to 37 weeks of pregnancy with careful monitoring to achieve better outcomes for the mother and her baby (12).

The current approach in Israel to pregnancies presenting with PPROM falls into three categories as a function of GW (13). Before 23 weeks, the recommendation is to terminate the pregnancy; between 23+0 to 23+6 weeks, the decision on pregnancy termination is made following consultation between the medical team and the parents; and above 24 weeks, expectant management, including corticosteroids and antibiotics administration, is the general rule.

Although these gestational age-based guidelines are essential to health care providers in the maternal/neonatal treatment decision-making, counselling parents on the rate of neonatal survival and long-term disabilities is a challenging complex issue, and present women with dilemmas in view of individual circumstances and patient values.

The primary aim of this study was to describe the outcomes, especially survival rate, of preterm infants born following management of prolonged PPROM occurring before 24 GW.

Material And Methods

This is a retrospective analysis of data on singleton deliveries complicated by prolonged PPROM (≥ 1 week) occurring between 17 and 33 weeks of gestation, conducted at the Mayanei HaYeshua Medical Center (MHMC) between January 2014 and December 2019. The study was approved by the local institutional review board (0015-19-MHMC). All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. The informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board of MHMC.

We included preterm babies born following prolonged PPROM and admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). Data were extracted from medical records, included were maternal data on age, medical history and comorbidities (e.g. gravidity, parity, previous preterm delivery, hypothyroidism, diabetes mellitus, gestational diabetes mellitus, hypertension, epilepsy, thrombophilia, the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), group B streptococcus (GBS) colonization), chorioamnionitis, maternal fever, GW at PPROM onset, mode of delivery and duration of latency. Neonatal data on GA, birth weight (BW), gender, APGAR score at 1 and 5 min, intubation and days of ventilation, mode of ventilation or assisted ventilation, nitric oxide (NO) inhalation, morbidities such as retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), periventricular leukomalacia (PVL), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) stage 2-3, patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), blood stream infection (BSI), hearing impairment, pulmonary hypertension, pneumothorax and central line blood stream infection (CLABSI)), medication (surfactant, diuretics and steroid treatment), and survival at discharge were recorded.

PPROM was diagnosed using the AmniSure ROM Test (Qiagen Sciences LLC, Germantown, MD, USA) which is based on a report of watery leakage from the vagina, confirmed by sterile speculum examination and the observation of either fluid accumulation in the posterior vaginal fornix or direct leakage from the cervical canal with pressure from uterine fundus or upon coughing. Cases of PPROM latency period less than 7 days before birth and PPROM occurring after 35+0 gestational weeks were excluded.

Results

Ninety-four cases of PPROM (≥ 7 days) deliveries were included in the study period. None of the mothers underwent a prior amniocentesis. They were all admitted at onset of PPROM and were kept under observation at the maternal high-risk pregnancy ward until delivery. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the mothers and preterm infants are presented in Table 1. Briefly, the average maternal age was 28.4 ± 5.4 and the average GA at delivery was 30.8 ± 3.1weeks (range 23 - 34). Median GW at onset of PPROM was 27.1 ± 4.2 weeks (range 17 - 33) and median length of latency period in days was 16 ± 21.8 (7 - 105). Corticosteroids, magnesium and antibiotics were administrated to almost all the mothers (97.9 - 98.9%).

The cohort was further stratified per GW at onset of PPROM, as group 1 (17 - 23 weeks), group 2 (24 - 27) and group 3 (28 - 33), (Table 1). There were no significant differences in maternal comorbidities including hypothyroidism, diabetes mellitus, gestational diabetes mellitus, hypertension, epilepsy, thrombophilia, maternal fever, group B streptococcus (GBS) colonization and maternal use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), between the groups. However, the rate of chorioamnionitis, per Chi square analysis, was significantly higher in-group 2 (p = < .001) and lower in-group 3 (p = .006) after Bonferonni correction. Furthermore, mothers in-group 3 had a significant lower rate of cesarean delivery (32.6%, p = .006) and significantly more mothers in-group 1 (29.2%) had a previous history of preterm delivery, (p = .004) than the ones in the other groups after Bonferonni correction. By Kruskal-Wallis test with post hoc comparison, the median length of latency period, in group 3, was significantly shorter than in group 2 and 1 (12 ± 5.7 vs 17 ± 14.8 and vs 49 ± 28.1, p < .001, respectively).

By one-way ANOVA test with post hoc analysis, GA and BW in-group 3 were significantly higher than in group 2 and 1 (p < .001). Similarly, Apgar score at 1 and 5 min in-group 3 were significantly higher than in group 1 and 2, (p < .001 and p < .05, respectively). We found that the survival rate to discharge in neonates born to prolonged PPROM-complicated pregnancy at GW < 24 is 79.2%, compared to 88.9% in group 2 (p<0.451) and 100% in group 3(p<0.012). We further compared neonatal outcomes between group 1 and group 2, the next closest group in terms of GW at PPROM onset (Table 2). There were no significant differences between group 1 and 2 for most of the reported parameters with the exception of use of surfactant (70.8% vs 37%, respectively, p = .025, two-sided Fisher's exact test) and NO inhalation treatments (25% vs 3.7%, respectively, p = .042, two-sided Fisher's exact test). Also, mean Apgar at 5 min in group 1 was significantly lower than in group 2, (7.6 ± 1.4 vs 8.3 ± 1.9, p = .029).

The neonates who did not survive in group 1 had a lower GW at PPROM (20 ± 2.3 vs 22 ± 1.2, p = .036) and were more susceptible to infection (40% of CLABSI cases, p = .036) than those who survived (Table 3). In group 2, the neonates who did not survive had a significantly lower Apgar score at 5 min than those who did survive (6 ± 2 vs 8.6 ± 1.7, respectively, p = .036), suffered from more PPHTN and pneumothorax (66.7% vs 4.2%, respectively, p = .025), and had a higher rate of CLABSI infection (66.7% vs 4.2%, respectively, p = .025) (Table 3).

Spearman's correlation was computed to assess the relationship between the following variables, GW at PPROM, GA, Apgar score at 1 and 5 min, latency period length and BW within groups 1 and 2. There were strong positive correlations between latency period and BW (r_s = .662, n = 51, p < .001), latency period and GA (r_s = .704, n = 51, p < .001) and between GA and BW (r_s = .812, n = 51, p < .001). Additionally, there were moderate positive correlations between GA and Apgar score 1 min (r_s= .458, n = 51, p = .001), BW and Apgar score 5 min (r_s = .465, n = 51, p = .001) and between Apgar score 1 min and 5 min (r_s = .52, n = 51, p < .001). Finally, the latency period length was inversely related to GW at PPROM onset (r_s = -.457, n = 51, p = .001) (Figure 1). In binary logistic regression analysis, none of these variables (GA, GW, BW, Apgar score 1 and 5 min, and latency period length) remained significant in predicting survival to discharge within groups 1 and 2.

Per two-sided Fisher exact test, the rate of neonates affected by major morbidities, including ROP, IVH grade 3-4, NEC stage 2-3, BPD and hearing impairment, were similar between groups 1 and 2 (Table 2). Among the 19 surviving neonates in group 1, 63.2% (12) were affected by one, two or three major morbidities (37%, 21% and 5.3% respectively) (Table 3) and none of the discharged neonates were affected by more than three major morbidities. In group 2, 33.3% (8) of the surviving neonates were affected by one or two major morbidities (25% and 8.3%, respectively) (Table 3). None of the neonates in group 2 were affected by three or more major morbidities.

However, it worth noting that the prevalence of illness with irreversible damages (ROP, IVH 3-4 and hearing impairment) among the surviving neonates was only 31.6% (affected by one or two illnesses) in group 1 and only half of it, 16.7%, (affected by one illness) in group 2. None of the neonates in none of the groups were affected by all three major morbidities.

Discussion

We found that the survival rate to discharge in neonates born to prolonged PPROM-complicated pregnancy at GW < 24 is 79.2%, a definitively non-negligible number. These neonates did not present with an increased rate of major morbidities compared to neonates born to PPROM-complicated pregnancy at GW 24 to 27.

Though advances in perinatal and neonatal practices have led to improved neonatal survival rates, they remain widely variable throughout the literature (14, 15). Our results differ from other studies that reported ranges of survival rates at periviable PPROM from as low as 24% to as high as 70% (3, 16–18). Sim et al. showed an overall neonatal survival rate to discharge of 33.8%, and stratification of patients into early (12 to 19+6 weeks’ gestation) and late pre-viable PPROM (20 to 23+6 weeks’ gestation) revealed a 3.6-fold increase in survival rate in the latter group (12.2% versus 43.8%, p < .001) (16). Additionally, the reported neonatal survival rate to discharge was 20% in the retrospective study done by Linehan et al. in PPROM diagnosed between 14 and 23 + 6 weeks of gestation (17). Esteves et al. found that neonatal survival rate to discharge of PPROM at GW between 18 and 20 was 18.7% and between 22 and 24 was 42.8% (18).

Another finding from our study was that 37.7% of the neonates born following PPROM below GW 24 and survived to discharge were not affected with major morbidities (i.e. ROP, IVH grade 3-4, NEC, BPD and hearing impairment). This finding is in the range of previously reported rates of 17.8%¹⁸ and 55%¹⁹ neonatal survival without major morbidities in a similar population. Alternatively, when only ROP, IVH stage 3-4 and hearing impairment where taken into account as irreversible morbidities, the rate of discharged neonates without those major morbidities was almost twice higher than reported.

It is worth noting that most of the mothers hospitalized in our center are orthodox religious jews who tend to reject gynecological guidelines and refuse terminating the pregnancy as it conflicts with their personal values. Hence, these mothers benefited from expectant management of their PPROM that led in many cases to life birth. Neonate survival depends on both the GW at which membrane rupture occurs and at what GA the baby is born (5). The same was true in our study as the infants who did not survive were from a lower GW at the time of PPROM.

We speculate that the high survival rate in our study differ from the one reported in the literature due to several reasons. First, we specifically recruited prolonged PPROM complicated pregnancies (latency period of at least 7 days), that might have led to a subset of PPROM cases with better odds of neonatal survival in excluding fetal distress or emergent medical indications. Secondly, the prolonged latency period allowed for medication therapy management that included administration of two courses of corticosteroids, antibiotics and magnesium, with the ultimate goal of reaching advanced gestational age at delivery. Indeed, 50% of the mother's in group 1 had a latency period of at least 7 weeks.

Although several studies have shown that prolonged PPROM is associated with an increased risk of infant death and morbidity (1, 3, 14, 16, 18), we could not see an increase in the rate of major morbidity in group 1 compared with group 2. Conversely, other studies have found that prolonged PPROM did not worsen neonatal outcomes (20) and was associated with a decreased risk of neonatal sepsis (21). In addition, along with higher GW at rupture, increased length of latency period increased the probability of neonatal survival (22).

Finally, we reviewed cases of PPROM from 2014 until 2019, a more recent period than the ones indicated in previously published studies on cohorts recruited until 2015 (3, 15, 17, 19). Advances in neonatal care might have enhanced survival rates and reduced major morbidities.

Strengths and Limitations

The main limitation of our study is its retrospective nature. On the other hand, the strength of this study is its relatively large sample of singletons born preterm after a prolonged PPROM started at gestational week 17 as data on outcomes of neonates born following prolonged early preterm premature rupture of membranes are limited.

Conclusion

The percentage of newborn survivors of pregnancies following prolonged PPROM before week 24 was 79.2%. About one third of these infants were discharged alive without major morbidities. Our findings provide new insights to physicians when counseling women with prolonged PPROM at pereviable GA.

Declarations

Conflict of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. 

Authors’ contribution: JH contributed to the conception, design and development of the project. He also contributed to  data collection, analysis and interpretation and drafted the manuscript. LM and RM contributed to the project development, data analysis and interpretation, manuscript writing and editing. HA and DL contributed to data collection. All the authors have made substantial contributions to the concept, data interpretation, drafting or critical revision of the manuscript for intellectual content and have approved the final version.

Funding: No funding was given for this study. 

Data availability: The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. 

Ethical approval: The study was approved by the local institutional review board (0015-19-MHMC).

All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. The informed consent was waived by the MHMC Institutional Review Board .

References

1. Waters TP, Mercer BM. The management of preterm premature rupture of the membranes near the limit of fetal viability. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 201, 230–240 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.06.049
2. Waters TP, Mercer BM. Preterm PROM: prediction, prevention, principles. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 54,307–12 (2011).
3. Walker MW, Picklesimer AH, Clark RH, Spitzer AR, Garite TJ. Impact of duration of rupture of membranes on outcomes of premature infants. Journal of perinatology: official journal of the California Perinatal Association. 34:669–672(2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2014.73
4. Gibson KS, Brackney K. Periviable Premature Rupture of Membranes. Obstetrics and gynecology clinics of North America. 47, 633–651(2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2020.08.007 
5. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, & Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Obstetric Care consensus No. 6: Periviable Birth. Obstetrics and gynecology.130,e187–e199 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG. 
6. Williams O, Michel B, Hutchings G, Debauche C, Hubinont C Two-year neonatal outcome following PPROM prior to 25 weeks with a prolonged period of oligohydramnios. Early human Development. 88, 657–661(2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2012.01.012
7. Armstrong-Wells J, Donnelly M, Post MD, Manco-Johnson MJ, Winn VD, Sébire G. Inflammatory predictors of neurologic disability after preterm premature rupture of membranes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 212,212.e1–.e9(2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.09.016
8. Crane JM, Magee LA, Lee T, Synnes A, von Dadelszen P, Dahlgren L, De Silva DA, Liston R. Canadian Perinatal Network (CPN) Collaborative Group (Appendix) Maternal and perinatal outcomes of pregnancies delivered at 23 weeks' gestation. Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada : JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC 37,214–224 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30307-8 
9. Pasquier, JC, Claris O, Rabilloud, M, Ecochard R, Picaud JC, Moret S, Buch D, Mellier G. Intentional early delivery versus expectant management for preterm premature rupture of membranes at 28-32 weeks' gestation: A multicentre randomized controlled trial (MICADO STUDY). European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology. 233, 30–37(2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.11.024
10. Schmitz T, Sentilhes L, Lorthe E, Gallot D, Madar H, Doret-Dion M, Beucher G, Charlier C, Cazanave C, Delorme P, Garabédian C, Azria E, Tessier V, Sénat MV, Kayem G. Preterm premature rupture of the membranes: Guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF). European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology. 236 ,1–6 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.02.021
11. van der Ham D P, van der Heyden JL, Opmeer BC, Mulder AL, Moonen RM, van Beek JH, Franssen MT, Bloemenkamp KW, Sikkema JM, de Groot CJ, Porath M, Kwee A, Woiski MD, Duvekot JH, Akerboom BM, van Loon AJ, de Leeuw JW, Willekes C, Mol BW, Nijhuis JG. Management of late-preterm premature rupture of membranes: the PPROMEXIL-2 trial. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 207, 276.e1-10 (2012). 
12. Bond DM, Middleton P, Levett KM, van der Ham DP, Crowther CA, Buchanan SL, Morris J. Planned early birth versus expectant management for women with preterm prelabour rupture of membranes prior to 37 weeks' gestation for improving pregnancy outcome. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 3, CD004735 (2017).
13. https://cdn.mednet.co.il/2015/04/%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A8-%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%94-13-6-%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A2%D7%9D-%D7%A4%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%AA-%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%AA-%D7%9C%D7%A4%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%93-1.pdf
14. Boettcher LB, Clark E. Neonatal and Childhood Outcomes Following Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes. Obstetrics and gynecology clinics of North America. 47, 671–680 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2020.09.001
15. Mercer BM Preterm premature rupture of the membranes. Obstetrics and gynecology.10,1: 178–193(2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(02)02366-9
16. Sim WH, Ng H, Sheehan P. Maternal and neonatal outcomes following expectant management of preterm prelabor rupture of membranes before viability. The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians. 33,533–541(2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2018.1495706 
17.  Linehan LA, Walsh J, Morris A, Kenny L, O'Donoghue K, Dempsey E, Russell N. Neonatal and maternal outcomes following midtrimester preterm premature rupture of the membranes: a retrospective cohort study. BMC pregnancy and childbirth 29,16:25 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-0813-3
18. Esteves JS, de Sá RA, de Carvalho PR, Coca Velarde LG. Neonatal outcome in women with preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) between 18 and 26 weeks. The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians.29, 1108–1112 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2015.1035643 
19. Wagner P, Sonek J, Mayr S, Abele H, Goelz R, Hoopmann M, Kagan KO. Outcome of pregnancies with spontaneous PPROM before 24+0 weeks' gestation. European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology. 203, 121–126 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.05.018
20. Manuck TA, Maclean CC, Silver RM, Varner MW. Preterm premature rupture of membranes: does the duration of latency influence perinatal outcomes?. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 201, 414.e1–414.e4146 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.07.045
21. Drassinower D, Friedman AM, Običan SG, Levin H, Gyamfi-Bannerman C. Prolonged latency of preterm premature rupture of membranes and risk of neonatal sepsis. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 214, 743.e1–743.e7436 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.12.031
22. LeMoine F, Moore RC, Chapple A, Moore FA, Sutton E. Neonatal Survivability following Previable PPROM after Hospital Readmission for Intervention. AJP reports.10, e395–e402 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1721421