The effect of meconium staining of amniotic fluid on the growth of Escherichia coli and group B Streptococcus

被引:25
作者
Eidelman A.I. [1 ]
Nevet A. [1 ]
Rudensky B. [1 ]
Rabinowitz R. [1 ]
Hammerman C. [1 ]
Raveh D. [1 ]
Schimmel M.S. [1 ]
机构
[1] Department of Neonatology, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Hebrew University School of Medicine, Jerusalem 91031
关键词
D O I
10.1038/sj.jp.7210774
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: To compare the effect of meconium staining on the growth rate of Escherichia coli and group B streptococci (GBS) in amniotic fluid. Study Design: Sterile meconium was added in different concentrations to pooled sterile amniotic fluid obtained from term mothers. Meconium concentration was equal to: 1, 1.5, 3, 6, and 12 mg meconium/ml amniotic fluid. Amniotic fluid was quantitatively inoculated with E. coli and GBS type II and type III organisms (103 organisms/ml). Clear amniotic fluid and Todd-Hewitt broth served as controls. Growth rates of organisms were measured at 2, 4, 6, 8, and 24 hours after inoculation. Results: Clear amniotic fluid was completely inhibitory for growth of E. coli even after 24 hours of incubation. In contrast, after 6 hours of incubation, significantly increased growth of GBS occurred (105 organisms/ml) (p < 0.0001). The inhibitory effect on E. coli was observed even with meconium concentration of up to 1.5 mg/ml. In contrast, even the smallest concentration of meconium (1 mg/ml) resulted in a 2-log fold increase of GBS within 4 hours. The more rapid growth rate of GBS compared to E. coli persisted even at moderate staining of amniotic fluid (6 mg/ml) in the first 8 hours of incubation (p < 0.005). In the presence of thick meconium (12 mg/ml), during the first 6 hours of incubation, the growth rates of GBS and E. coli were nearly similar. Conclusions: GBS (type II and III) growth, in contrast to E. coli, was less inhibited by amniotic fluid, occurred at a more rapid rate, and was enhanced at lower concentrations of meconium. As such, the presence of even light meconium staining in cases of rupture of membranes of even less than 6 hours in a mother who is a GBS carrier should be considered as a risk factor for the development of perinatal GBS infection.
引用
收藏
页码:467 / 471
页数:4
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]  
Cattaneo P., Potere lisizimoco de liquido amniotico postere antilisizimico de meconio richere sperimentoli, Clin. Obstet. Ginecol, 51, (1949)
[2]  
Larsen B., Schlievert P., Galask R.P., The spectrum of antibacterial activity of human amniotic fluid determined by scanning electron microscopy, Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol, 119, pp. 895-903, (1974)
[3]  
Schlievert P., Larsen B., Johnson W., Galask R.P., Bacterial growth inhibition by amniotic fluid: III. Demonstration of the variability of bacterial growth inhibition by amniotic fluid with new plate-count technique, Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol, 122, pp. 809-813, (1975)
[4]  
Blanco J.D., Gibbs R.S., Krebs L.F., Castaneda Y.S., The association between the absence of amniotic fluid bacterial inhibitory activity and intra-amniotic infection, Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol, 143, pp. 749-755, (1982)
[5]  
Applebaum P.C., Holloway B.A., Ross S.M., Dhuphelia I., The effect of amniotic fluid on bacterial growth in three population groups, Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol, 128, pp. 868-871, (1977)
[6]  
Thadepalli H., Gangopadhyay P.K., Maidman J.E., Amniotic fluid analysis for antimicrobial factors, Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet, 20, pp. 65-72, (1982)
[7]  
Abbasi-Hoskins I., Hemmings V.G., Eglinton G.S., Johnson T.R., Proliferation of group B streptococci in human amniotic fluid in vitro, Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol, 156, pp. 95-99, (1987)
[8]  
Evaldson G., Nord C.E., Amniotic fluid activity against Bacteroides fragilis and group B streptococci, Med. Microbiol. Immunol. (Berl.), 170, pp. 11-17, (1981)
[9]  
Evans H.E., Levy E., Glass L., Effect of amniotic fluid on bacterial growth, Obstet. Gynecol, 49, pp. 35-37, (1977)
[10]  
Schlievert P., Johnson W., Galask R.P., Bacterial growth inhibition by amniotic fluid: V. Phosphate-to-zinc ratio as a predictor of bacterial growth-inhibitory activity, Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol, 125, pp. 899-905, (1976)