HEALTH OF WOMAN. 2016.2(108):20–27; doi 10.15574/HW.2016.108.20 
 

Optimization of tactics of conducting pregnancy for prevention of preterm birth 
 

Dubossarskaya Y. A., Lebediuk V. V.

SI «Dnipropetrovsk medical Academy of MH of Ukraine» 
 

The problem of preterm births is one of the most pressing practical issues in obstetrics, as they determine the level of perinatal mortality and morbidity. The share of premature babies account for 60% to 70% of early neonatal mortality and 65–75% of infant mortality. Stillbirth rates with premature birth in 8–13 times more frequently than at term birth.

The research purpose: is to reduce premature birth rates by optimizing the tactics of high-risk pregnant women in pregnant women BV and application of the developed complex of medical-diagnostic activities, using simbiotic of Bifiten.

Material and research methods. To realize this objective the study included 60 pregnant women with confirmed bacterial vaginosis that are included in the risk group for preterm birth. The main group consisted of 30 pregnant women with bacterial vaginosis who have prophylactic used symbiotic Bifiten; the control group included 30 pregnant women with bacterial vaginosis without the use of preventive measures. Confirmation of the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis was carried out in pregnant women with first trimester: use of pH-metry of the vaginal contents 2 times a week and test floresense the vagina. Patients of the main group underwent two courses of treatment in pregnancy 12–14 second course of 18–20 weeks of pregnancy according to the following scheme: Bifiten 1 capsule 1 time per day during meals, for 10 days. Treatment effectiveness was determined in dynamics of treatment under the control of the dynamic pH-metry of the vaginal contents. Control study of floresense test was performed after 15 and 30 days after treatment.

The results of the study. Our studies have shown that pregnant women with BV, the vaginal pH value fluctuated in wide limits – from 4.6 to 7.5, but the average was equal to 6,19±0.07. After the first year of treatment of BV tended to decrease in the vaginal pH to 4.9±0.032, but because the parameters did not conform to the norm, justified was holding 2 of treatment. At the end of treatment was reliable fluctuations in the vaginal pH in the normal range of 4.0 to 4.4, in line with the average of 4.2±0.01. The efficacy of the treatment was confirmed by a control study of the acidity of the vagina at 28 and 32 weeks of pregnancy and answered 4.4±4.3 0.07±0.09.

Conclusion. Thus, optimization of tactics of conducting pregnant women with a high risk of BV and the use of the developed complex of therapeutic and diagnostic interventions with application of simbiotic Bifiten, helped to reduce the incidence of preterm birth by 43%, compared with the control group, where such treatment was not applied.

Key words: preterm birth, bacterial vaginosis, pH-metry, florianus, prevention, Bifiten.

REFERENCES

1. Anokhin VA, Hapiullina SV. 2001. Bacterial vaginosis as a cause of preterm birth and intrauterine infection. Kasane. Medical. Journal 82: 295-98.

2. Bolotskih VM. 2011. Current concepts of etiology and pathogenesis of premature rupture of membranes. Journal of Obstetrics and gynecological diseases LX (2): 3-13.

3. Goda IB, Melnik DM, Maksimova TA, Atlasov VO. 2004. Prevention of preterm birth after threatened abortion in the second trimester. Outpatient Surgery 3: 11-4.

4. Gluhovets BI. 2006 Upward infection of fetoplacental system. M. MEDpress-inform:240.

5. Jobava EM, Stepanian AV, Artizanova DP, Boyar EA, Heidar LH, Dobrohotova UE. 2008. Features of a current pregnancy in high-risk groups. Modern approaches to the treatment of vaginal dysbiosis. Gynecology 6: 36-39.

6. Kozlovskaya IA. 2009. Features of clinical course of term labor with preterm rupture of membranes. Author. diss. Candidate. Medical. Sciences. Irkutsk: 187.

7. Krasnopolskiy VI, Logutova LS, Serova OF, Toumanova VA, Shapovalenko SA, Melnik TN et al. 2005. Bacterial vaginosis. Information-methodical letter: 24.

8. Kryzhanovskaya MW. 2011. The role of the infectious agent in the development of premature birth. Medical sotsіalnі problemi sіm'ї 16 (1): 104-107.

9. Makarov OV, Aleshkin VA Savchenko, TN. 2009. Infections in obstetrics and gynecology. M. MEDpress- inform: 250-259.

10. Sidorova IS, Makarov OV. 2006. Bacterial vaginosis. Russian herald of obstetrician-gynecologist 6: 50-54.

11. Sidelnikova VM. 2008. Prevention and treatment of threatening preterm labor. Obstetrics and Gynecology 3: 43-7.

12. Hofmeyr DU, Neilson DP, Alfirevich Z et al 2010. Cochrane Guide:. Pregnancy and Childbirth. M Publisher LLC "Logosfera": 409.

13. Burton JP, Сhilcott CN, Al-Qumber M et al. 2005. A preliminary survey of Atopobiym vaginae in women attending the Dunedin gynaecology oyt-patient clinic:is the contribution of the hard-to-culture microbiota overlooked in gynaecological disorders? Aust. NZ J. Obstet. Gynatcol. 45;5:450–452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-828X.2005.00456.x; PMid:16171487

14. Peltier MR. 2003. Immunology of term and preterm labor. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 1:122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-1-122; PMid:14651749 PMCid:PMC305338

15. McMillan A, Dell M, Zellar MP et al. 2011. Disruption of urogenital biofilms by Lactobacilli. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 86:58–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2011.03.016; PMid:21497071

16. Swidsinsri A, Mendling W, Loening-Baucke V et al. 2008. An adherent Gardnerell avaginalis biofilm persists on the vaginal epithelium after standard therapy with oral metronidazole. Am J Obstet. Gynecol. 1:198: 97e1 -97e6.

17. Honest H, Bachmann LM, Knox EM, Gupta JK, Kleijnen J, Khan KS. 2004. The accuracy of various tests for bacterial vaginosis in predicting preterm birth: a systematic review. Аn International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 111:409–422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00124.x; PMid:15104603

18. Fredricks DN, Fiedler TL, Marrazzo JM. 2005. Molecular identification of bacteria associated with bacterial vaginosis. N.Engl. J.Med. 353;18:1899–1911. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa043802; PMid:16267321