Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Perinatal Medicine

Official Journal of the World Association of Perinatal Medicine

Editor-in-Chief: Dudenhausen, MD, FRCOG, Joachim W.

Ed. by Bancalari, Eduardo / Chappelle, Joseph / Chervenak, Frank A. / D'Addario , Vincenzo / Genc, Mehmet R. / Greenough, Anne / Grunebaum, Amos / Konje, Justin C. / Kurjak M.D., Asim / Romero, Roberto / Zalud, MD PhD, Ivica


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.361
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.578

CiteScore 2018: 1.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.522
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.602

Online
ISSN
1619-3997
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 43, Issue 4

Issues

Effect of blood on ROM diagnosis accuracy of PAMG-1 and IGFBP-1 detecting rapid tests

Babett Ramsauer / Wiebke Duwe / Bettina Schlehe / Regina Pitts / Dirk Wagner / Katja Wutkewicz / Dmitry Chuvashkin / Harald Abele / Robert Lachmann
Published Online: 2014-11-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2014-0227

Abstract

Vaginal bleeding may be present in up to 30% of patients presenting with signs and symptoms of a rupture of the fetal membranes (ROM). The presence of blood may lead to false positive results with biochemical markers. The data presented in this study came from a multi-centric prospective observational clinical study that, for the first time, systematically evaluated the performance of placental alpha microglobulin-1 (PAMG-1) and insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 (IGFBP-1) detecting tests in 151 women with vaginal bleedings as well as signs and symptoms indicative of ROM. Our data showed better performance for the PAMG-1 compared with the IGFBP-1 detecting tests in all quality parameters evaluated. In detail, sensitivity (SN) was 97.8% (91.0%), specificity (SP) was 91.5% (75.0%), positive predictive value (PPV) was 94.6% (83.5%) and negative predictive value (NPV) was 96.4% (85.7%) for PAMG-1 tests (and IGFBP-1 tests, respectively). A major difference between both tests was related to the number of non-evaluable test results (e.g., hidden bands due to blood smear on the test strips). While 2% of all results were not evaluable for PAMG-1 tests, this artifact appeared in 11% of the results obtained with IGFBP-1 tests. This difference and also those in Specificity and PPV were statistically significant, demonstrating superiority of PAMG-1 over IGFBP-1 detecting tests. In conclusion, the PAMG-1 detecting test was significantly less susceptible to interference by blood than the IGFBP-1 detecting test.

Keywords: Actim PROM; AmniSure; IGFBP-1 (insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1); PAMG-1 (placental alpha-microglobulin-1); premature rupture of fetal membranes (PROM); uncertain rupture; vaginal bleeding

References

  • [1]

    Chen FC, Dudenhausen JW. Comparison of two rapid stripe tests based on IGFBP-1 and PAMG-1 for the detection of amniotic fluid. Am J Perinatol. 2008;25:243–6.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [2]

    Cousins LM, Smok DP, Lovett SM, Poeltler DM. AmniSure placental alpha microglobulin-1 rapid immunoassay versus standard diagnostic methods for detection of rupture of membranes. Am J Perinatol. 2005;22:317–20.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [3]

    Di Renzo GC, Cabero Roura L, Facchinetti F, the EAPM-Study Group on “Preterm Birth”. Guidelines for the management of spontaneous preterm labor: identification of spontaneous preterm labor, diagnosis of preterm premature rupture of mem branes, and preventive tools for preterm birth. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2011;24:659–67.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [4]

    El-Messidi A, Cameron A. Diagnosis of premature rupture of membranes: inspiration from the past and insights for the future. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2010;32:561–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [5]

    Erdemoglu E, Mungan T. Significance of detecting insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 in cervicovaginal secretions: comparison with nitrazine test and amniotic fluid volume assessment. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;83:622–6.Google Scholar

  • [6]

    Kenyon S, Boulvain M, Neilson JP. Antibiotics for preterm rupture of membranes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;8(CD001058).Google Scholar

  • [7]

    Kubota T, Takeuchi H. Evaluation of insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 as a diagnostic tool for rupture of the membranes. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 1998;24:411–7.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [8]

    Lee SE, Park JS, Norwitz ER, Kim KW, Park HS, Jun JK. Measurement of placental alpha-microglobulin-1 in cervicovaginal discharge to diagnose rupture of membranes. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:634–40.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [9]

    Leisenring W, Alonzo TA, Pepe MS. Comparisons of predictive values of binary medical diagnostic tests for paired designs. Biometrics. 2000;56:345–51.Google Scholar

  • [10]

    Mercer BM. Premature rupture of the membranes. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101:178–93.Google Scholar

  • [11]

    Pepe MS. The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. Oxford University Press; 2003.Google Scholar

  • [12]

    Petrunin DD, Griaznova IM, Petrunina IUA, Tatarinov IUS. Immunochemical identification of organ specific human placental alphal-globulin and its concentration in amniotic fluid. Akush Ginekol (Mosk). 1977;1:62–64.Google Scholar

  • [13]

    Ramsauer B, Vidaeff AC, Hosli I, Park JS, Strauss A, Khodjaeva Z, et al. The diagnosis of rupture of fetal membranes (ROM): a meta-analysis. J Perinat Med. 2013;41:233–40.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [14]

    Roberts D, Dalziel SR. Antenatal corticosteroids for accelerating fetal lung maturation for women at risk of preterm birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;3(CD004454).Google Scholar

  • [15]

    Rutanen EM, Kärkkäinen TH, Lehtovirta J, Uotila JT, Hinkula MK, Hartikainen AL. Evaluation of a rapid strip test for insulin-like growth factor-binding protein-1 in the diagnosis of ruptured fetal membranes. Clin Chim Acta. 1996;253:91–101.Google Scholar

  • [16]

    Rutanen EM, Pekonen F, Kärkkäinen T. Measurement of insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 in cervical/vaginal secretions: comparison with the ROM-check Membrane Immunossay in the diagnosis of ruptured fetal membranes. Clin Chim Acta. 1993;214:73–81.Google Scholar

  • [17]

    van der Ham DP, van Melick MJ, Smits L, Nijhuis JG, Weiner CP, van Beek JH, et al. Methods for the diagnosis of rupture of the fetal membranes in equivocal cases: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;157:123–7.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [18]

    van der Ham DP, van Teeffelen ASP, Mol BW. Prelabour rupture of membranes: overview of diagnostic methods. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2012;24:408–12.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [19]

    Wilfong L. Effects of maternal blood on the readability and reliability of the amnisure rapid immunoassay. Med Educ Foundation Am Coll Osteopathic Obstet Gynecol Winter Newslett. 2009;30:11–12.Google Scholar

About the article

Corresponding author: Babett Ramsauer, Vivantes Klinikum Neukölln – Perinatal Medicine Rudowerstr. 48 Berlin 12351, Germany, Tel.: +004930130148486, Fax: 004930130148599, E-mail:


Received: 2014-07-09

Accepted: 2014-09-15

Published Online: 2014-11-08

Published in Print: 2015-07-01


Citation Information: Journal of Perinatal Medicine, Volume 43, Issue 4, Pages 417–422, ISSN (Online) 1619-3997, ISSN (Print) 0300-5577, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2014-0227.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Marco A. K. Galletta, Roberto E. Bittar, Agatha S. Rodrigues, Rossana P. V. Francisco, and Marcelo Zugaib
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, 2019, Volume 45, Number 8, Page 1448
[2]
International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 2019, Volume 144, Number 3, Page 340
[4]
Amir Mor, Shoshana Haberman, Bharati Kalgi, and Howard Minkoff
Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2016, Volume 128, Number 2, Page 331

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in