Retrospective Evaluation of C-reactive Protein for Ruling Out Infection After Cesarean Section

Abstract

Introduction

Infection after cesarean section is a major contributor to maternal morbidity. Measurement of C-reactive protein (CRP) is a laboratory test frequently conducted to rule out or confirm postoperative infection. The present study aimed to evaluate whether CRP is a suitable tool for ruling out infection after cesarean section and whether there are any reliable cut-off values.

Materials and Methods

2056 patients with cesarean section (CS) over a 3-year period were included in a retrospective analysis. Outcome parameters and risk factors for postoperative infection were collected. CRP values from preoperative and postoperative tests were compared. Cut-offs for ruling out infection were assessed.

Results

Among 2056 CSs, postoperative infection occurred in 78 cases (3.8%). The prevalence of infection in emergency CS was lowest, at four out of 134 (2.9%), and the highest prevalence was seen in secondary CS, at 42 of 903 (4.6%; p = 0.35). CRP values in the infection group were significantly higher (preoperative, 1.01 mg/dl vs. 0.62 mg/dl; day 1 postoperative, 7.91 mg/dl vs. 6.44 mg/dl; day 4 postoperative, 8.44 mg/dl vs. 4.09 mg/dl; p = 0.01). A suitable cut-off value for ruling out infection was not identified.

Conclusions

Although CRP values were significantly higher in the infection group, the clinical relevance of this appears to be negligible. CRP testing does not appear to be a reliable tool for diagnosing or ruling out postoperative infection.

Zusammenfassung

Einleitung

Infektionen nach einer Kaiserschnittentbindung tragen wesentlich zur mütterlichen Morbidität bei. Die Messung von C-reaktivem Protein (CRP) ist ein häufig durchgeführter Labortest, um postoperative Infektionen auszuschließen oder zu bestätigen. Ziel dieser Studie war es, herauszufinden, ob CRP ein geeignetes Instrument zum Ausschließen von Infektionen nach einer Kaiserschnittentbindung sein könnte, und ob es verlässliche Cut-off-Werte dafür gibt.

Material und Methoden

Es wurden 2056 mit Kaiserschnitt entbundene Patientinnen über einen Zeitraum von 3 Jahren in die retrospektive Analyse aufgenommen. Outcome-Parameter und Risikofaktoren für eine postoperative Infektion wurden gesammelt. Die CRP-Werte der prä- und postoperativen Tests wurden verglichen. Es wurden Cut-off-Werte für den Ausschluss einer Infektion bewertet.

Ergebnisse

Bei 2056 mit Kaiserschnitt entbundenen Frauen gab es in 78 Fällen (3,8%) eine postoperative Infektion. Die Infektionsprävalenz war beim Notfallkaiserschnitt am niedrigsten mit insgesamt 4 Fällen von 134 Patientinnen (2,9%). Die höchste Prävalenz fand sich bei sekundären Kaiserschnittentbindungen mit 42 aus 903 Fällen (4,6%; p = 0,35). Die CRP-Werte der Infektionsgruppe waren signifikant höher (präoperative Werte: 1,01 mg/dl vs. 0,62 mg/dl; 1. postoperativer Tag: 7,91 mg/dl vs. 6,44 mg/dl; 4. postoperativer Tag: 8,44 mg/dl vs. 4,09 mg/dl; p = 0,01). Es ließ sich aber kein geeigneter Wert identifizieren, der verlässlich Infektionen ausschloss.

Schlussfolgerungen

Obwohl die CRP-Werte in der Infektionsgruppe signifikant höher waren, scheint dessen klinische Relevanz vernachlässigbar. CRP-Tests stellen kein verlässliches Instrument für die Diagnose oder den Ausschluss von postoperativen Infektionen dar.

Keywords

C-reactive protein - CRP - cesarean section - infection - surgical site infection

Schlüsselwörter

C-reaktives Protein - CRP - Kaiserschnittentbindung - Infektion - postoperative Wundinfektion

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 14. Juli 2024

Angenommen nach Revision: 10. September 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
07. November 2024

• References

• 1 Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB. et al. The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990–2014. PloS One 2016; 11: e0148343
• 2 Gastmeier P, Brandt C, Sohr D. et al. [Surgical site infections in hospitals and outpatient settings. Results of the German nosocomial infection surveillance system (KISS)]. Bundesgesundheitsbl – Gesundheitsforsch – Gesundheitsschutz 2004; 47: 339-344
• 3 Schneid-Kofman N, Sheiner E, Levy A. et al. Risk factors for wound infection following cesarean deliveries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005; 90: 10-15
• 4 Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML. et al. Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control 1999; 27: 97-132
• 5 Wloch C, Wilson J, Lamagni T. et al. Risk factors for surgical site infection following caesarean section in England: results from a multicentre cohort study. BJOG 2012; 119: 1324-1333
• 6 Moulton LJ, Eric Jelovsek J, Lachiewicz M. et al. A model to predict risk of postpartum infection after Caesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2018; 31: 2409-2417
• 7 Martin EK, Beckmann MM, Barnsbee LN. et al. Best practice perioperative strategies and surgical techniques for preventing caesarean section surgical site infections: a systematic review of reviews and meta-analyses. BJOG 2018; 125: 956-964
• 8 Hsu CD, Cohn I, Caban R. Reduction and sustainability of cesarean section surgical site infection: An evidence-based, innovative, and multidisciplinary quality improvement intervention bundle program. Am J Infect Control 2016; 44: 1315-1320
• 9 Bratzler DW, Dellinger EP, Olsen KM. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Infectious Disease Society of America, Surgical Infection Society, Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. et al. Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2013; 70: 195-283
• 10 Berríos-Torres SI, Umscheid CA, Bratzler DW. et al. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guideline for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 2017. JAMA Surg 2017; 152: 784
• 11 Smaill FM, Grivell RM. Antibiotic prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis for preventing infection after cesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; (10) CD007482
• 12 Practice Bulletin No. 199: Use of Prophylactic Antibiotics in Labor and Delivery: Correction. Obstet Gynecol [Anonym]. 2019; 134: 883-884
• 13 Tita AT, Szychowski JM, Boggess K. et al. Adjunctive Azithromycin Prophylaxis for Cesarean Delivery. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 1231-1241
• 14 Bollig C, Nothacker M, Lehane C. et al. Prophylactic antibiotics before cord clamping in cesarean delivery: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2018; 97: 521-535
• 15 Jyothirmayi CA, Halder A, Yadav B. et al. A randomized controlled double blind trial comparing the effects of the prophylactic antibiotic, Cefazolin, administered at caesarean delivery at two different timings (before skin incision and after cord clamping) on both the mother and newborn. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2017; 17: 340
• 16 Sproston NR, Ashworth JJ. Role of C-Reactive Protein at Sites of Inflammation and Infection. Front Immunol 2018; 9: 754
• 17 Pepys MB, Hirschfield GM. C-reactive protein: a critical update. J Clin Invest 2003; 111: 1805-1812
• 18 Gans SL, Atema JJ, van Dieren S. et al. Diagnostic value of C-reactive protein to rule out infectious complications after major abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2015; 30: 861-873
• 19 Noble F, Curtis NJ, Underwood TJ. C-reactive protein 2 days after laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery reliably indicates leaks and moderately predicts morbidity. J Gastrointest Surg 2013; 17: 844-845
• 20 Santonocito C, De Loecker I, Donadello K. et al. C-reactive protein kinetics after major surgery. Anesth Analg 2014; 119: 624-629
• 21 Colley CM, Fleck A, Goode AW. et al. Early time course of the acute phase protein response in man. J Clin Pathol 1983; 36: 203-207
• 22 Cole DS, Watts A, Scott-Coombes D. et al. Clinical utility of peri-operative C-reactive protein testing in general surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2008; 90: 317-321
• 23 Giannoudis PV, Smith MR, Evans RT. et al. Serum CRP and IL-6 levels after trauma. Not predictive of septic complications in 31 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 1998; 69: 184-188
• 24 Lindberg M, Hole A, Johnsen H. et al. Reference intervals for procalcitonin and C-reactive protein after major abdominal surgery. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2002; 62: 189-194
• 25 Khan KS, Wojdyla D, Say L. et al. WHO analysis of causes of maternal death: a systematic review. Lancet 2006; 367: 1066-1074
• 26 Mertens K, Muys J, Jacquemyn Y. Postpartum C-Reactive Protein: A limited value to detect infection or inflammation. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2019; 11: 243-250
• 27 Skarżyńska E, Zborowska H, Jakimiuk AJ. et al. Variations in serum concentrations of C-reactive protein, ceruloplasmin, lactoferrin and myeloperoxidase and their interactions during normal human pregnancy and postpartum period. J Trace Elem Med Biol 2018; 46: 83-87
• 28 AWMF Leitlinienprogramm, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (DGGG), Österreichische Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (OEGGG), Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (SGGG). Sectio caesarea. AWMF-Registernummer 015–084, Leitlinienklasse S3, Version 1.0. Berlin: Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF). 2020 Zugriff am 14. Januar 2021 unter: https://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/015–084.html
• 29 Mohr KI. History of Antibiotics Research. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 2016; 398: 237-272
• 30 Karam G, Chastre J, Wilcox MH. et al. Antibiotic strategies in the era of multidrug resistance. Crit Care 2016; 20: 136
• 31 Romero R, Chaemsaithong P, Korzeniewski SJ. et al. Clinical chorioamnionitis at term III: how well do clinical criteria perform in the identification of proven intra-amniotic infection?. J Perinat Med 2016; 44: 23-32
• 32 Knoke J, Raab R, Geyer K. et al. Antibiotic Treatment During Pregnancy and the First Six Months Postpartum – a Secondary Analysis of the “Healthy Living in Pregnancy” (GeliS) Study. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2023; 83: 850-861
• 33 Mackeen AD, Packard RE, Ota E. et al. Antibiotic regimens for postpartum endometritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (02) CD001067
• 34 Martens MG, Kolrud BL, Faro S. et al. Development of wound infection or separation after cesarean delivery. Prospective evaluation of 2,431 cases. J Reprod Med 1995; 40: 171-175
• 35 Aboshama RA, Taha OT, Abdel Halim HW. et al. Prevalence and risk factor of postoperative adhesions following repeated cesarean section: A prospective cohort study. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2023; 161: 234-240
• 36 Urman B, Yakin K, Ertas S. et al. Fertility and anatomical outcomes following hysteroscopic adhesiolysis: An 11-year retrospective cohort study to validate a new classification system for intrauterine adhesions (Urman-Vitale Classification System). Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2024; 165: 644-654