ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Do we need to reconsider our antibiotic regimen for preterm premature rupture of membranes? Pathogens and perinatal outcome in PPROM.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Agent, Dose and Duration: The Unanswered Questions Behind Latency Antibiotic Therapy for Preterm Prelabour Rupture of Membranes.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Evaluation of Preventive Antibiotic Regimens for Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes: Efficacy and Safety of Triple Therapy versus Cephalosporin Monotherapy.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe antibiotic regimen currently recommended in most guidelines in case of preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) with an aminopenicillin and a macrolide is mainly based on studies performed more than 25 years ago. In view of the changing pathogens in neonatal and perinatal infectious morbidity and their increasing aminopenicillin-resistance in recent decades, the question arises as to whether these data are still applicable to our current situation and whether an adjustment of our antibiotic standard regimen with amoxicillin and azithromycin is necessary.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the pathogens and the perinatal outcome, particularly the perinatal and neonatal infectious morbidity, in 293 pregnancies with PPROM < 37 + 0 weeks and delivery in our department from 01/2020 to 12/2023.
resultsIn PPROM < 34+0 weeks, we found neonatal infection (defined by clinical infection criteria) in 14.5%, neonatal early-onset sepsis (defined by clinical infection criteria plus invasive pathogen detection) in 3.6% and one case of maternal sepsis. The causative pathogens of the 6 neonatal early-onset sepsis cases were in 3 cases (50%) E.coli (2/3 amoxicillin-resistant) and in one case each Enterococcus faecalis, Streptococcus mitis and Haemophilus influenzae. The most common pathogens in the vaginal swabs were Ureaplasma species (25%). The most common pathogens in the placental swabs were, in general, coagulase-negative Staphylococci (21.2%), followed by E.coli (10.2%) and Ureaplasma species (8.8%) and, in case of histological confirmed chorioamnionitis, Ureaplasma species (21.4%), followed by E. coli (17.9%) and coagulase-negative Staphylococci (14.3%). In PPROM ≥ 34+0 weeks, we found neonatal infection in 2.6% and there was no case of neonatal or maternal sepsis.
conclusionsE.coli and coagulase-negative Staphylococci, both predominantly resistant to aminopenicillins, as well as Ureaplasma species seem to be the currently most relevant pathogens in PPROM. Therefore, azithromycin should be administered, but amoxicillin no longer appears to be the optimal regimen. Further research comparing different antibiotic regimens with better coverage of the currently relevant pathogens such as co-amoxiclav (amoxicillin + clavulanic acid) or cephalosporins is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.