Advertisement

BMC Research Notes

, 11:927 | Cite as

Determinants of premature rupture of membrane in Southern Ethiopia, 2017: case control study design

  • Yinager WorkinehEmail author
  • Shiferaw Birhanu
  • Sitotaw Kerie
  • Emiru Ayalew
  • Manaye Yihune
Open Access
Research note
  • 253 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

To identify the determinants of term premature rupture of membrane in Southern Ethiopia public hospitals, 2017.

Results

Seventy-five cases and 223 controls women were enrolled for the study. Two hundred eighty-four (95.3%) participants were admitted at the gestational age of above 40, and the rest, 14 (4.7%), were admitted at 37–40 weeks of gestation. The current study identified wealth index and inter-birth interval as preventive predictors, but smoking and hypertension during pregnancy were identified as positive determinants of premature rupture of membrane. This finding is supported by multiple logistic regression analysis result of wealth index (AOR: 0.102, 95% CI [0.033, 0.315]), inter-birth interval (AOR: 0.251, 95% CI [0.129, 0 0.488]), smoking (AOR: 17.053, 95% CI [2.145, 135.6]), and hypertension (AOR: 8.92, 95% CI (1.91, 41.605]). The association between PROM and its determinants indicated that evidence-based interventions should be needed and designed to have very high wealth index, and optimal interbirth interval, and prevent smoking and hypertension during pregnancy to decrease PROM occurrence in the study settings. Hence, we recommended that integration of prevention mechanism of modifiable determinants to the obstetrics health care system will reduce premature ruptures of a membrane.

Keywords

Premature rupture of membrane Determinants Case–control study 

Abbreviations

ANC

antenatal care

AOR

adjusted odds ratio

PCA

principal component analysis

COR

crude odds ratio

CI

confidence interval

MUAC

mid upper arm circumference

PROM

premature rupture of membrane

Introduction

Premature rupture of membrane (PROM) [1] refers to the disruption of fetal membranes before the beginning of labor which is characterized as painless gush of fluid that leaks out of the vagina (sometimes steady leakage of small amount of watery fluid coming out of the vagina) and a change in color or a decrease in the size of the uterus [2, 3]. PROM which occurs prior to 37 weeks of gestation is preterm PROM, but PROM that occurs after 37 weeks gestation is called term PROM [2].

Approximately 8% to 10% of term pregnancies will experience spontaneous ROM prior to the onset of uterine activity [4]. Ninety-five percent of women with PROM at term will go into labor within 24 h [5], but it is associated with one-third of all preterm births [4]. Moreover, 57% of patients with midtrimester PROM deliver within a week [6]. Babies born preterm can suffer from the complications of prematurity, including death caused by not only due to prematurity but also open membranes provide a path for bacteria to enter the womb [7]. Term and preterm PROM complicates approximately 8% and 2% of pregnancies, respectively. Preterm PROM is associated with 40% of preterm deliveries and 18–20% of perinatal deaths [1, 8, 9, 10, 11].

Several studies have shown that the occurrence of PROM is strongly associated with low family income, smoking during pregnancy, coffee drinking, surgery, multiple gestations, poly-hydramnios, gestational hypertension and diabetes mellitus [12, 13, 14]. For instance, the study by Gahwagi et al. in Libya highlighted that maternal infection, as well as smoking of the pregnant women and Cocaine intake, were the most frequent cause of PROM [15]. Another study by Hassan and Maryam reported that the most important risk factors for PROM were diabetes and maternal hypertension which were associated with neonatal and maternal complications [16]. The study by Kovavisarach et al. stated that the history of PROM in a previous pregnancy and BMI < 20 is risk factors related to premature rupture of membranes in term pregnant women [17, 18].

Many previous studies on risk factors of PROM were utilized secondary data from health institution which are subjected to miss important variables or information bias. This may lead to un-adjusting of confounders between the independent and dependent variables. Primary or up-to-date data on determinants of PROM is very crucial to give direction for the prevention of PROM in the Ethiopian context. However, the studies that investigated the determinants of PROM by using primary data source are very limited. Then this study will narrow the evidence gap, and it may show findings for responsible bodies of health care system, and to prevent determinants of PROM.

Main text

Methods

Study setting, design and period

The facility based case–control study design was used in Southern Ethiopia public hospitals from 20th March 2017 to 20th May, 2017. The selected hospitals are the major general and referral hospital which provides services for the mothers and neonates of Gamo Gofa, Yesegen Hizboch, and South Omo zone people.

Sample size determination and participant selection

The sample size was determined by using the following assumptions 95% CI, power 80%, non-response rate 10%, case to control ratio, 1:3 and control exposed 21% and OR 0.25 [18]. The final calculated sample size was 301.

Five public hospitals from Southern Ethiopia were selected by simple random sampling method. These Hospitals are a flagship zonal and district hospitals that serve their respective town and other nearby districts and villages. Then based on the number of clients who visited each hospital during the previous 1 year, the total sample size was proportionally allocated to each hospital. Then the number of women who visited each hospital per day was picked in a successive way in delivery wards. Finally, mothers with spontaneous PROM and mothers with rupture of the membrane during labor time were included in the study but mothers with medical or obstetric complications indicating prompt delivery were excluded from the study.

Measurements

Five trained midwives collected data from the participants by interviewer-administered questionnaire and physical measurements. The interviewer-administered questionnaire, that contained four parts, namely socio-demographic variables, obstetric history, and maternal problems, was prepared from different articles to address the research objective.

Interpregnancy interval is the interval between the most recent previous childbirth and the starting time of pregnancy for the current child as reported by the mother at the time of contact. It was classified as optimal interpregnancy interval if it is 2–5 years and short if it is below 2 years.

Physical measurements were used to obtain data on MUAC and gestational age of mothers. In this regard, MUAC of each woman was measured at the midpoint between the tips of the shoulder and elbow of the left arm using non-elastic, non-stretchable MUAC tapes. Measurements were recorded to the nearest 0.1 cm. In this study, a poor nutritional status of the mother, defined as MUAC < 23 cm [19]. Similarly, gestational age of participants was confirmed by ultrasonography.

Premature rupture of membrane (PROM), the dependent variable, was confirmed by clinical features (painless gush of fluid that leaks out of the vagina and a change in color or a decrease in the size of the uterus) and sterile speculum examination. Then, all women at any age were categorized as mothers with term PROM (75 cases) and women without PROM (223 controls). Cases are mothers who admitted in labor waiting room and had term premature rupture of membrane before the initiation of labor which is confirmed by clinical features (painless gush of fluid that leaks out of the vagina and a change in color or a decrease in the size of the uterus) and sterile speculum examination. But, controls are mothers who were admitted in delivery ward and had no rupture of membrane before initiation of labor.

Data quality assurance

Preparing of a questionnaire in English and translating to Amharic, a pre-test of tool outside the study area, 2 days intensive training of data collectors, continues supervision of data collection process, and carefully checking of collected data on daily basis are the major techniques that were used for keeping of data quality.

Data analysis

The collected data were entered, cleaned, coded and analyzed using SPSS version 20. Frequency distribution for selected variables was performed. Cleaning of the data was performed before analysis. To check the statistical significance between the dependent and independent variables, Chi square test was performed. In order to know the crude association between determinants and PROM, crude odds ratio (COR) of PROM with 95% confidence interval [20] was calculated. Those variables, with P < 0.2 from the bivariate analysis were considered for binary logistic regression.

Logistic regression analysis was performed to see the association between predictor and outcome variables. Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with 95% CI was calculated for each independent variable to check the adjusted association between independent variables and PROM. The statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

Results

Socio-demographic profile of respondents

During the 2 months period, 75 cases of PROM and 223 non-cases of PROM were enrolled for this study in five hospitals. One hundred twenty (40.3%) respondents were in the age range of 20–24-years. The majority, 96 (32.2%), of the participants attended grade 9–12. One hundred forty-four (48.3%) women were housewives. Ninety-seven (32.6%) of respondents had very rich wealth index. Three (2.7%) participants’ mid upper arm circumference measurement was below 23 cm. Two hundred ninety (97.3%) mothers had singleton gestation (Table 1).
Table 1

Socio-demographic profiles of respondents in selected hospitals, 2017 (n = 298)

Variable

Response

Frequency

Percent

Age (years)

15–19

39

13.1

20–24

120

40.3

25–29

87

29.2

30–34

25

8.4

35+

27

9.0

Religion

Protestant

122

40.9

Orthodox

144

48.3

Muslim

21

7.0

Non-believers

11

3.7

Ethnicity

Gamo

111

37.2

Gofa

69

23.2

Wolaita

28

9.4

Amhara

40

13.4

Oromo

50

16.8

Educational status

Non-educated

42

14.1

Read and write

6

2.0

Grade 1–6

46

15.4

Grdae 7–8

38

12.8

Grade 9–12

96

32.2

Above grade 12

70

23.5

Occupational status

Housewife

144

48.3

Farmer

29

9.7

Government employee

57

19.1

Merchant

68

22.8

Marrietal status

Married

268

89.9

Not married

15

5.0

Divorced

10

3.4

Widowed

2

0.7

Separated

3

1.0

Residence

Urban

183

61.4

Rural

115

38.6

Wealth index

Very poor

22

7.4

Poor

14

4.7

Rich

70

23.5

Medium

95

31.9

Very rich

97

32.6

Mid upper arm circumference

Equal and above 23 cm

295

99.0

Less than 23 cm

3

1.0

Interpregnancy interval

Optimal

131

44.0

Short

167

56.0

Gestation

Singleton

290

97.3

Multiple

8

2.7

ANC utilization and obstetrics related problems

All but fifteen women had visited antenatal clinics in hospital, health center, and health post during this pregnancy. Of whom, 108 (36.2%) were visited antenatal clinic four times and above. One hundred fifty (50.3%) participates initiated ANC visit within 4 months of conception (Table 2).
Table 2

ANC utilization and risk factors of PROM among respondents in Southren Ethiopia, 2017, (n = 298)

Variables

Response

Frequency

Percent

Utilization of ANC services

No

14

4.7

Yes

284

95.3

Place of ANC utilization

Hospital

93

31.2

Health center

172

57.7

Health post

19

6.4

Number of ANC visit

One visit

17

5.7

Two visit

86

28.9

Three visit

73

24.5

Four and more visit

108

36.2

Time of ANC initiation

16 weeks and below

150

50.3

After 16 weeks

134

45.3

Provider of ANC

Doctor

12

4.0

Nurse/midwife

250

83.9

HEW

22

7.4

Smoking

No

292

98.0

Yes

6

2.0

Previous surgery

No

289

97.0

Yes

9

3.0

Infection

No

291

97.7

Yes

7

2.3

Hydramnios

Normal-hydramnios

286

96.0

Oligo-hydramnios

4

1.3

Poly-hydramnios

8

2.7

Gestational age admission

Above 40 weeks

284

95.3

≤ 40 weeks

14

4.7

Presence of gestational Hypertension

No

286

96.0

Yes

12

4.0

Types of HDP

Gestational hypertension

4

33.3

Preeclampsia

5

41.7

Eclampsia

3

25.0

Presence of gestational DM

No

290

97.3

Yes

8

2.7

Regarding to obstetrics related problems, 6 (2.0%), 9 (3.0%), 7 (2.3%), 12 (4.0%) and 8 (2.7%) term mothers had a history of smoking, surgery, infection, hypertension and gestational diabetes mellitus, respectively. Two hundred eighty-four (95.3%) mothers developed PROM at gestational age of above 40 weeks. Among mothers who had gestational hypertension the majority, 5 (41.7%), were eclamptic (Table 2).

Determinants of term PROM

Multivariable logistic regression indicated that mothers with very rich wealth index were 90% (AOR: 0.102, 95% CI [0.033, 0.315] less likely to experience PROM than mothers who had very poor wealth index. Similarly, participants who had two and above years interbirth interval were 75% (AOR: 0.25, 95% CI: [0.129, 0 0.488]) lower to have PROM than mothers who had below 2 years interbirth interval. On the other hand, smoking and hypertension during pregnancy were the positive predictors of term PROM. The result of this study suggested that mothers who had history of smoking during pregnancy were experienced PROM 17 times (AOR: 17.053, 95% CI [2.145, 135.6]) more likely than participants who did not smoke. Likewise, respondents with hypertension faced PROM 9 times (AOR: 8.92, 95% CI (1.91, 41.605]) higher than women without hypertension (Table 3).
Table 3

Determinants of term ROM among term mothers in Southren Ethiopia, 2017 (n = 298)

Variables

Cases

Controls

COR (95% CI)

AOR (95% CI)

Residence

 Urban

43

140

1.797 (0.468, 1.356)

1

 Rural

32

83

1.255 (0.737, 2.137)

0.921 (0.399, 2.126)

Interpregnancy interval

 Optimal

26

141

0.309 (0.178, 0.534)**

0.25 (0.129, 0 .488)**

 Short

49

82

1

1

Utilization of ANC services

 No

6

8

1

1

 Yes

69

215

0.428 (0.143, 1.276)

1.77 (0.50, 7.29)

Smoking

    

 No

69

223

1

1

 Yes

6

0

7.89 (1.49, 41.58)*

17.053 (2.145, 135.6)*

Mid Upper arm circumference

 Equal and above 23 cm

73

222

1

1

 Less than 23 cm

2

1

6.08 (0.54, 68.05)

2.887 (0.124, 67.027)

Hydramnios

    

 Normal hydramnios

66

220

1

 

 Oligo hydramnios

3

1

6.441 (0.575, 72.135)

9.772 (0.3, 289.1)

 Poly hydramnios

5

3

5.368 (1.250, 23.043)

5.723 (0.95, 34.49)

Hypertension during pregnancy

 No

67

219

1

1

 Yes

8

4

6.537 (1.909, 22.389)*

8.92 (1.91, 41.605)*

Wealth index

 Very poor

14

8

1

1

 Poor

6

8

0.429 (0.109, 1.685)

0.391 (0.085, 1.792)

 Rich

5

65

0.268 (0.102, 0.706)*

0.153 (0.044, 0.530)*

 Medium

19

76

0.044 (0.012, 0.155)*

0.031 (0.008, 0.123)*

 Very rich

31

66

0.143 (0.052, 0.390)*

0.10 (0.033, 0.315)*

* Statistically significant at p < 0.05

** Statistically significant at p < 0.00

Discussion

Identification of determinants of term premature rupture of membrane by facility-based case–control study in Southern Ethiopia public hospitals was the main objective of this study. The factors of PROM were multifactorial. On the base of this very rich wealth index and 2 and above 2 years interbirth interval were inversely predictor of PROM, but smoking and hypertension during pregnancy found to be positive determinants of it.

In the present study, very rich wealth index was preventive for the occurrence of term premature rupture of membrane. A similar association has to be noted in the past studies [12, 13]. The occurrence of PROM was low in mothers who had very rich wealth index mothers as a result of a reduction of families’ financial stress to obtain balanced diet and health care services. Having such services in turn alleviates the problem of malnutrition, overexertion, poor hygiene, stress, recurrent genitourinary infections, anemia & poor antenatal care. Hence, the risk for occurrence of PROM can be reduced in a very rich group of mothers.

Optimal IPI was also inversely related with PROM. On the reverse, other studies indicated that there was a strong association between short IPI and PPROM [20]. Similarly, short IPI less than 18 months [21] increased the odds of the occurrence of PROM. Reduction of term PROM among women with optimal IPI in the current study can happen as a result of positive effect optimal IPI on Mom’s body. Those participants with optimal IPI could gain enough time to replace nutrient stores before being pregnant again in order to prevent malnutrition during pregnancy which is associated with the occurrence of term PROM. On the other hand, close succession of pregnancies and lactation do not allow the mother sufficient time to restore the nutritional reserves before she is subjected to the stresses of the subsequent pregnancy [22]. Another possible scenario for the association between short IPI and spontaneous preterm labor and PPROM is the persistent inflammatory processes of genital tract (especially endometritis) extending from previous birth to the next pregnancy [23].

Smoking is a significant positive predictor of PROM in the present study. This finding is similar to the other past studies [12, 13, 15, 18, 24, 25]. Smoking leads to decrease of collagen and proteins in membranes by increasing cadmium levels and decreasing the availability of Cu2+ for collagen synthesis in amnion mesenchymal cells [26], and also nicotine causes arteriolar constriction leading to uterine decidua ischemia [27] so affecting the integrity of the membranes. This finally leads to premature rupture of membrane.

Similarly, hypertension disorders during pregnancy such as gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, eclampsia, and others were the key determinants of PROM in this study. Women with hypertension had high odds of facing PROM than women without hypertension which is similar with the previous studies [14, 15, 28]. In pre-eclampsia, reactive oxygen species which are generated by oxidative stress, and some pathological conditions that develop during pregnancy and are related to hypoxic stress can affect the elevation of S100B concentration in the amnion [29] and altered production and/or clearance of prolactin from the maternal compartment in the case of hypertensive patients [30] that can bring premature rupture of membrane.

In case of hypertension during pregnancy, there is reduced uteroplacental perfusion as a result of abnormal cytotrophoblast invasion of spiral arterioles and endothelial dysfunction and in turn placental ischemia which brings premature rupture of membrane [31, 32]. This premature rupture of membranes in pregnant women can be happen due to type IV collagen reduction in serum and fetal membrane by Matrix Metalloproteinase-9 [33], and increased cytokine concentrations that may contribute to the endothelial damage [34].

Conclusion

The association between PROM and its determinants indicated that evidence-based interventions should be needed and designed to have very high wealth index, and optimal interbirth interval, and prevent smoking and hypertension during pregnancy to decrease PROM occurrence in the study settings. Hence, we recommended that integration of prevention mechanism of modifiable determinants to the obstetrics health care system will reduce premature ruptures of a membrane.

Limitation

This research might be subjected to recall bias since participants might not remember and report past events. The other limitation of this study might be selection biases if there are participants who do not know the initiation of labor.

Notes

Authors’ contributions

YW had the primary responsibility in all steps of the study and supervised fieldwork together with SB, SK, EA and MY. YW, SB, SK, EA and MY developed the study design and analyzed data together. All authors have involved the writing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to mothers and health professionals who participated in the study. In addition, the authors would like to thank the head of each selected Hospitals for their cooperation in undertaking research endeavors.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Availability of data and materials

The data of this study can’t be shared publicly due to presence of sensitive (confidential) participants’ information.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Scientific Ethical Review Committee of Arba Minch University, and Gamo Gofa zone health office. Informed verbal consent was obtained from mothers after detailed explanation of the purpose of the study. For respondents whose age less than 16 years old, informed verbal assent was obtained from their parents/guardians. Any involvement of mothers was after their complete verbal consent. Mothers were told as they could have the right to withdraw from the study at any time during the interview.

Funding

Not applicable.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.
    Caughey A. Contemporary diagnosis and management of preterm premature rupture of membranes. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2008;1(1):11–2.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beckmann C. Obstetrics and gynecology. Williams’s. Chapter 22. 2010:213–6.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    DeCherney A. Current diagnosis & treatment: obstetrics & gynecology. Medical late pregnancy complication, section: premature rupture of membranes. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2014.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hannah M. Induction of labor compared with expectant management for prelabor rupture of the membranes at term. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1005–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bulletin AP. Premature rupture of membranes. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(4):1007–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schucker JMB. Midtrimester premature rupture of the membranes. Semin Perinatol. 1996;20:389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mackeen A, Seibel-Seamon J, Muhammad J, Baxter J, Berghella V. Tocolytics for preterm premature rupture of membranes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007062.pub2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maxwell G. Preterm premature rupture of membranes. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1993;48:576–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Merenstein GWL. Premature rupture of the membranes: neonatal consequences. Semin Perinatol. 1996;20:375–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Douvas SBJ, McKay M, Rhodes P, Kahlstorf J, Morrison JC. Treatment of premature rupture of the membranes. J Reprod Med. 1984;29:741–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cotton DHL, Strassner H, Platt L, Ledger W. Use of amniocentesis in preterm gestation with ruptured membranes. Obstet Gynecol. 1984;63:38–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ferguson SESG, Salenieks ME, Windrim R, Walker MC. Preterm premature rupture of membranes: nutritional and socioeconomic factors. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100(6):1250–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Williams MAMR, Stubblefield PG, Lieberman E, Schoenbaum SC, Monson RR. Cigarettes, coffee, and preterm premature rupture of the membranes. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;135(8):895–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aaron B, Caughey Julian N, Robinson ERN. Contemporary diagnosis and management of preterm premature rupture of membranes. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2008;1(1):11–22.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gahwagi MMBM, Atia M. Premature rupture of membranes characteristics, determinants, and outcomes of in Benghazi. Libya Open J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;5(9):494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boskabadi H, Zakerihamidi M. Evaluation of maternal risk factors, delivery, and neonatal outcomes of premature rupture of membrane: A systematic review study. J Pediatrics Rev. 2019;7(2):77–88.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kovavisarach ESP. Risk factors related to premature rupture of membranes in term pregnant women: a case-control study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2000;40(1):30–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Choudhary MRS, Chowdhary J, Garg S. Pre and post conception risk factors in PROM. Int J Res Med Sci. 2017;3(10):2594–8.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sphere T. The Sphere handbook: humanitarian charter and minimum standards in humanitarian response. 2011.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goya M, Bernabeu A, García N, Plata J, Gonzalez F, Merced C, et al. Premature rupture of membranes before 34 weeks managed expectantly: maternal and perinatal outcomes in singletons. J Mater Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013;26(3):290–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brunner Huber LR, Smith K, Sha W, Vick T. Interbirth interval and pregnancy complications and outcomes: findings from the pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system. J Midwifery Women’s Health. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.12745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Getahun D, Strickland D, Ananth CV, Fassett MJ, Sacks DA, Kirby RS, et al. Recurrence of preterm premature rupture of membranes in relation to interval between pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(6):570-e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Himes KP, Simhan HN. Risk of recurrent preterm birth and placental pathology. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(1):121–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fernandes G, Torloni M, Hisaba WJ, Klimke D, Novaes J, Sancovski M, et al. Premature rupture of membranes before 28 weeks managed expectantly: maternal and perinatal outcomes in a developing country. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;32(1):45–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Frenette P, Dodds L, Armson BA, Jangaard K. Preterm prelabour rupture of membranes: effect of latency on neonatal and maternal outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013;35(8):710–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sirak B, Mesfin E. Maternal and perinatal outcome of pregnancies with preterm premature rupture of membranes (pprom) at tikur anbessa specialized teaching hospital, Addis Ababa. Ethiopia. Ethiop Med J. 2014;52(4):165–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liu J, Feng Z-C, Wu J. The incidence rate of premature rupture of membranes and its influence on fetal–neonatal health: a report from mainland China. J Trop Pediatr. 2009;56(1):36–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kaya D. Risk factors of preterm premature rupture of membranes at Mulago hospital Kampala. East Afr Med J. 2001;78(2):65–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tskitishvili E, Komoto Y, Temma-Asano K, Hayashi S, Kinugasa Y, Tsubouchi H, et al. S100B protein expression in the amnion and amniotic fluid in pregnancies complicated by pre-eclampsia. MHR Basic Sci Reprod Med. 2006;12(12):755–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yuen BH, Cannon W, Woolley S, Charles E. Maternal plasma and amniotic fluid prolactin levels in normal and hypertensive pregnancy. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 1978;85(4):293–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Savvidou MD, Hingorani AD, Tsikas D, Frölich JC, Vallance P, Nicolaides KH. Endothelial dysfunction and raised plasma concentrations of asymmetric dimethylarginine in pregnant women who subsequently develop pre-eclampsia. Lancet. 2003;361(9368):1511–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Granger JP, Alexander BT, Llinas MT, Bennett WA, Khalil RA. Pathophysiology of hypertension during preeclampsia linking placental ischemia with endothelial dysfunction. Hypertension. 2001;38(3):718–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zuo G, Dong J-X, Zhao F-F, Chen Y. Expression of matrix metalloproteinase-9 and its substrate level in patients with premature rupture of membranes. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;37(4):441–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Greer IA, Lyall F, Perera T, Boswell F, Macara LM. Increased concentrations of cytokines interleukin-6 and interleukin-1 receptor antagonist in plasma of women with preeclampsia: a mechanism for endothelial dysfunction? Obstet Gynecol. 1994;84(6):937–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yinager Workineh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shiferaw Birhanu
    • 1
  • Sitotaw Kerie
    • 2
  • Emiru Ayalew
    • 2
  • Manaye Yihune
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of child Health Nursing, College of Medicine and Health ScienceBahir Dar UniversityBahir DarEthiopia
  2. 2.Department of Adult Health Nursing, College of Medicine and Health ScienceBahir Dar UniversityBahir DarEthiopia
  3. 3.Department of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health ScienceArba Minch UniversityArba MinchEthiopia

Personalised recommendations