切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华产科急救电子杂志 ›› 2015, Vol. 04 ›› Issue (01) : 52 -55. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3259.2015.01.012

所属专题: 文献

论著

不同孕周非治疗性早产患者的高危因素及妊娠结局分析
陈云1, 罗太珍1,(), 何亚1, 钟丽云1   
  1. 1. 510150 广州医科大学附属第三医院妇产科 广州重症孕产妇救治中心
  • 收稿日期:2015-01-03 出版日期:2015-02-18
  • 通信作者: 罗太珍
  • 基金资助:
    广州市医药卫生科技一般引导项目(20141A010080)

Analysis of risk factors and pregnancy outcomes of non-therapeutic premature birth pregnant patients at different gestational ages

Yun Chen1, Taizhen Luo1,(), Ya He1, Liyun Zhong1   

  1. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gyneclogy, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou 510150, China
  • Received:2015-01-03 Published:2015-02-18
  • Corresponding author: Taizhen Luo
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Luo Taizhen, Email:
引用本文:

陈云, 罗太珍, 何亚, 钟丽云. 不同孕周非治疗性早产患者的高危因素及妊娠结局分析[J]. 中华产科急救电子杂志, 2015, 04(01): 52-55.

Yun Chen, Taizhen Luo, Ya He, Liyun Zhong. Analysis of risk factors and pregnancy outcomes of non-therapeutic premature birth pregnant patients at different gestational ages[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetric Emergency(Electronic Edition), 2015, 04(01): 52-55.

目的

探讨不同孕周非治疗性早产患者的高危因素和母儿不良结局。

方法

采用回顾性研究方法对2012年1月至2014年12月就诊于广州医科大学附属第三医院224例非治疗性早产患者资料进行分析,根据不同孕周分成4组:A组:28~29+6周(38例),B组:30~31+6周(32例),C组:32~33+6周(42例),D组:34~36+6周(112例);分析4组患者的高危因素、产妇及新生儿的不良结局。

结果

224例非治疗性早产患者发生早产的高危因素分别为胎膜早破147例(65.6%)、不良孕产史128例(57.1%)、先兆早产病史115例(51.3%)、体外受精-胚胎移植术妊娠87例(38.8%)、未规律产检53例(23.7%)、双胎妊娠25例(11.2%)。4组总产程时间分别为(4.9±3.5) h,(7.6±3.8) h,(6.7±2.9) h,(6.8±2.9) h,A组与其他3组比较,Q=1.762,2.719和1.847 (P值均<0.05)。4组急产发生率分别为44.7% (17例),9.4% (3例),16.7% (7例),14.3% (16例),A组与其他3组比较,Q=21.648,8.207和9.783(P值均<0.05)。4组新生儿窒息发生率分别为31.6% (12例), 12.5% (4例),7.1% (3例),6.3% (7例),A组与其他3组比较,Q=4.591,15.345和10.834(P值均<0.05)。4组新生儿1 min Apgar评分分别为(7.7±3.2)分,(9.1±2.4)分,(9.4±1.2)分,(9.4±1.1)分,A组与其他3组比较,Q=2.528,3.281和2.562(P值均<0.05)。4组新生儿出生体重分别为(1 555.9±470.9) g,(1 659.3±342.2) g,(1 990.8±306.5) g,(2 515.0±473.4) g,各组间差异的两两比较均存在统计学意义(P<0.01)。

结论

胎膜早破是非治疗性早产发生的最常见的高危因素,要重视28~29+6周早产高危患者的管理,并应警惕这些孕妇和新生儿不良结局的发生。

Objective

To investigate the risk factors and the adverse pregnancy outcomes of non-therapeutic premature birth pregnant patients at different gestational ages.

Methods

The clinical data of 224 non-therapeutic preterm birth patients, admitted to the Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University from January 2012 to December 2014, were retrospectively analyzed. Based on the gestational age, research participants were divided into 4 groups: group A: 28-29+ 6 weeks (38 cases), group B: 30-31+ 6 weeks (32 cases), group C: 32-33+ 6 weeks (42 cases) and group D: 34-36+ 6 weeks (112 cases). The clinical data included risk factors, poor outcomes of mothers and newborns.

Results

Common risk factors of the 224 patients included premature rupture of membranes (147 cases, 65.6%), adverse history of pregnancy and parity (128 cases, 57.1%), history of threatened premature labor (115 cases, 51.3%), in vitro fertilization and embryotransfer pregnancy (87 cases, 38.8%), irregular antenatal examination (53 cases, 23.7%), and twin pregnancy (25 cases, 11.2%). The total duration of labor in the 4 groups were (4.9±3.5) hours, (7.6±3.8) hours, (6.7±2.9) hours and (6.8±2.9) hours, respectively; there were significant differences between group A and the other 3 groups(Q=1.762, 2.719, 1.847, all P value<0.05). The rate of emergency labor in the 4 groups were 44.7% (17 cases), 9.4% (3 cases), 16.7% (7 cases), 14.3% (16 cases), respectively; there were significant differences between group A and the other 3 groups (Q=21.648, 8.207 and 9.783, all P value<0.05). The incidence rate of neonatal asphyxia in the 4 groups were 31.6% (12 cases), 12.5% (4 cases), 7.1% (3 cases) and 6.3% (7 cases), respectively; there were significant differences between group A and other 3 groups (Q=4.591, 15.345 and 10.834, all P value<0.05). One-minute Apgar score of the 4 groups were (7.7±3.2) score, (9.1±2.4) score, (9.4±1.2) score, (9.4±1.1) score, respectively; there were significant differences between group A and other 3 groups (Q=2.528, 3.281 and 2.562, all P value<0.05). The birth weights of the 4 groups were (1 555.9±470.9) g, (1 659.3±342.2) g, (1 990.8±306.5) g and (2 515.0±473.4) g, respectively; there were significance differences in the groups, all P value<0.05.

Conclusions

Premature rupture of membrane was the most common risk factor of non-therapeutic preterm birth. For the preterm birth patients with gestational age from 28 to 29+ 6 weeks, we should pay attention to the management, in order to prevent adverse outcomes of the mothers and newborns.

表1 4组非治疗性早产患者一般情况的比较
表2 4组非治疗性早产患者妊娠结局的比较
表3 4组非治疗性早产患者新生儿结局的比较
[1]
谢杏,苟文丽. 妇产科学[M]. 8版. 北京:人民卫生出版社,2013: 58-60.
[2]
中华医学会妇产科学分会产科学组. 早产临产诊断与治疗指南[J]. 中华妇产科杂志,2014, 49(7):481-485.
[3]
蔡慧华. 急产的相关因素分析及预防措施[J]. 广东医学,2014, 35(3):407-409.
[4]
赵茵,邹丽. 自发性早产分娩时机和方式的选择[J]. 实用妇产科杂志,2012, 28(10):809-811.
[5]
蒋秀,崔世红. 198例早产资料的回顾性分析[J]. 中国妇幼保健,2014, 2(9):546-548.
[6]
杜培丽,张慧丽,何玉甜,等. 早产孕妇1963例临床结局分析[J]. 广东医学,2013, 10(34):1552-155.
[7]
许正先. 早产危险因素的病例对照研究[J]. 中国妇幼保健,2012, 27(35):5687-5690.
[8]
Langhof-fRoos J, Kesmodel U, Jacobsson B, et al. Spontaneous preterm delivery in primiparouswomen at low risk in Denmark: population based study[J]. BMJ, 2006, 332(7547): 9379-9391.
[9]
Torricelli M, Conti N. Epidemiology of early pre-term delivery:Relationship with clinical and his pathological infective parameters[J]. Obstet Gynaecol, 2013, 33(2):140-143.
[10]
麦凤鸣,陈敦金. 早产危险因素的研究[J/CD]. 中华产科急救电子杂志,2012, 1(2):103-107.
[11]
朱宇.≤孕34周早产分娩方式的研究[D]. 广州:第一军医大学,2007.
[1] 刘欢颜, 华扬, 贾凌云, 赵新宇, 刘蓓蓓. 颈内动脉闭塞病变管腔结构和血流动力学特征分析[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(08): 809-815.
[2] 马艳波, 华扬, 刘桂梅, 孟秀峰, 崔立平. 中青年人颈动脉粥样硬化病变的相关危险因素分析[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(08): 822-826.
[3] 黄应雄, 叶子, 蒋鹏, 詹红, 姚陈, 崔冀. 急性肠系膜静脉血栓形成致透壁性肠坏死的临床危险因素分析[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 413-421.
[4] 张再博, 王冰雨, 焦志凯, 檀碧波. 胃癌术后下肢深静脉血栓危险因素的Meta分析[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 475-480.
[5] 唐旭, 韩冰, 刘威, 陈茹星. 结直肠癌根治术后隐匿性肝转移危险因素分析及预测模型构建[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 16-20.
[6] 吴方园, 孙霞, 林昌锋, 张震生. HBV相关肝硬化合并急性上消化道出血的危险因素分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 45-47.
[7] 陈旭渊, 罗仕云, 李文忠, 李毅. 腺源性肛瘘经手术治疗后创面愈合困难的危险因素分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 82-85.
[8] 晏晴艳, 雍晓梅, 罗洪, 杜敏. 成都地区老年转移性乳腺癌的预后及生存因素研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 636-638.
[9] 莫闲, 杨闯. 肝硬化患者并发门静脉血栓危险因素的Meta分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 678-683.
[10] 陆猛桂, 黄斌, 李秋林, 何媛梅. 蜂蛰伤患者发生多器官功能障碍综合征的危险因素分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(9): 1010-1015.
[11] 李达, 张大涯, 陈润祥, 张晓冬, 黄士美, 陈晨, 曾凡, 陈世锔, 白飞虎. 海南省东方市幽门螺杆菌感染现状的调查与相关危险因素分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(08): 858-864.
[12] 李琪, 黄钟莹, 袁平, 关振鹏. 基于某三级医院的ICU多重耐药菌医院感染影响因素的分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(07): 777-782.
[13] 孟科, 李燕, 闫婧爽, 闫斌. 胶囊内镜胃通过时间的影响因素分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 671-675.
[14] 杨艳丽, 陈昱, 赵若辰, 杜伟, 马海娟, 许珂, 张莉芸. 系统性红斑狼疮合并血流感染的危险因素及细菌学分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 694-699.
[15] 孙培培, 张二明, 时延伟, 赵春燕, 宋萍萍, 张硕, 张克, 周玉娇, 赵璨, 闫维, 吴蓉菊, 宋丽萍, 郭伟安, 马石头, 安欣华, 包曹歆, 向平超. 北京市石景山区40岁及以上居民慢性阻塞性肺疾病患病情况及相关危险因素分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 711-719.
阅读次数
全文


摘要