中华急诊医学杂志  2022, Vol. 31 Issue (2): 233-240   DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0282.2022.02.018
蒙、汉族孕妇B族链球菌定植及新生儿早发型败血症状况的研究
宋丹 , 刘静 , 梅花 , 红荣 , 张钰恒 , 霍梦月 , 杜巧燕     
内蒙古医科大学附属医院新生儿科,呼和浩特 010050
摘要: 目的 探讨蒙汉族孕妇B族溶血性链球菌(GBS)带菌状况及其分娩新生儿GBS感染情况,以明确该地区蒙汉族新生儿GBS感染的高危因素。方法 以2017年6月至2020年6月在内蒙古医科大学附属医院进行GBS检测并娩出活产新生儿的7289例孕妇及其分娩的新生儿为研究对象进行GBS培养,并取GBS阳性产妇所分娩的新生儿静脉血进行抗GBS荚膜多糖抗体水平检测,以明确新生儿GBS感染的高危因素。结果 (1)7 289例孕妇中包括蒙古族孕妇3136例(足月产2 599例,早产537例),汉族孕妇4 153例(足月产3 541例,早产612例)。GBS检测结果显示:蒙古族早产组孕妇GBS带菌率为8.19%,足月组孕妇GBS带菌率为4.35%,汉族早产组孕妇GBS带菌率为11.93%,足月组孕妇GBS带菌率为5.76%,提示无论蒙古族与汉族,早产组孕妇GBS带菌率均明显高于足月组,差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。进一步对比蒙汉族孕母GBS带菌率发现,无论早产组与足月组,蒙古族孕妇GBS带菌率均低于汉族孕妇GBS带菌率,差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。(2)GBS阳性产妇所分娩的新生儿共434例,蒙古族早产儿GBS阳性率为29.55%,足月儿GBS阳性率为14.16%,汉族早产儿GBS阳性率为31.51%,足月儿GBS阳性率为17.65%,提示无论蒙古族与汉族,早产儿GBS阳性率均明显高于足月儿,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。进一步对比蒙汉族新生儿GBS阳性率发现,无论早产组与足月组,蒙古族新生儿GBS阳性率与汉族相比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。(3)本次研究对比了蒙汉族新生儿早发型GBS败血症发生率,结果显示蒙古族早产儿发生新生儿早发型GBS败血症的发生率为23.08%,足月儿中无患儿发生该病,汉族早产儿发生新生儿早发型GBS败血症的发生率为26.09%,足月儿发生新生儿早发型GBS败血症的发生率为5.56%,结果提示无论蒙古族与汉族,早产组新生儿GBS败血症发生率均明显高于足月组,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。进一步对比蒙汉族新生儿GBS败血症发生率发现,无论早产组与足月组,蒙古族新生儿GBS阳性率与汉族相比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。(4)无论蒙古族与汉族,早产儿组抗GBS荚膜多糖抗体水平均明显低于足月儿组,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。(5)无论蒙古族与汉族,与GBS阴性者相比,孕妇年龄≥35岁、伴经产史、流产史、阴道炎、流动人口、未行孕前检查者GBS阳性率较高,是孕期孕妇GBS阳性的高危因素。(6)无论蒙古族与汉族,与GBS阴性组相比,GBS阳性孕妇绒毛膜羊膜炎、产褥感染、早产及胎膜早破的发生率增加,其新生儿发生胎儿窘迫及新生儿窒息的几率亦增高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 蒙古族孕妇GBS带菌率低于汉族孕妇,且孕期GBS阳性将会增加绒毛膜羊膜炎、产褥感染、早产、胎膜早破、胎儿窘迫、新生儿窒息及新生儿早发型GBS败血症等母婴不良妊娠结局发生率,其高危因素有孕妇年龄≥35岁、伴经产史、流产史、阴道炎、流动人口、未行孕前检查者感染等,应高度重视围产期的高危因素并根据高危因素制订相应干预措施,合理使用抗生素进行产时预防,以进一步降低新生儿早发型GBS败血症的发生率。
关键词: B族链球菌    早产    足月    早发型GBS败血症    高危因素    蒙古族    汉族    感染    带菌率    
Study on colonization of Group B Streptococcus in pregnant women of Mongolian and Han nationality and the status of neonatal early-onset septicemia
Song Dan , Liu Jing , Mei Hua , Hong Rong , Zhang Yuheng , Huo Mengyue , Du Qiaoyan     
Department of Neonatology, The Affiliated Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical Uninversity, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, 010050
Abstract: Objective To explore the carrier status of group B streptococci (GBS) in pregnant women of Mongolian and Han nationality and the neonatal GBS infection in order to identify the high risk factors of GBS infection in Mongolian and Han newborns in this area. Methods Totally 7289 pregnant women and their newborns born alive were tested for GBS in the Affiliated Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical University from June 2017 to June 2020, and their newborns were cultured for GBS, and the venous blood of newborns delivered by GBS positive women were detected for anti-GBS capsular polysaccharide antibody level, in order to determine the high risk factors of neonatal GBS infection. Results Among the 7289 pregnant women, 3136 were Mongolian pregnant women (2599 full-term delivery and 537 premature delivery) and 4153 were Han pregnant women (3541 full-term delivery and 612 premature delivery). The results of GBS test showed that the GBS carrier rate was 8.19% in the Mongolian preterm delivery group, 4.35% in the Mongolian term group, 11.93% in the Han preterm group, and 5.76% in the Han term group, indicating that the carrier rate of GBS in the preterm group was significantly higher than that in the term group, regardless of Mongolian and Han nationality (P < 0.05). Further comparing the GBS carrier rate of Mongolian and Han pregnant women, the GBS carrier rate of Mongolian pregnant women was significantly lower than that of Han pregnant women regardless of the premature delivery group and term group (P < 0.05). (2) A total of 434 newborns were born by GBS positive parturients. The positive rates of GBS in Mongolian premature infants, Mongolian full-term infants, Han premature infants and Han full-term infants were 29.55%, 14.16%, 31.51% and 17.65%, respectively, suggesting that the positive rate of GBS in premature infants was significantly higher than that in full-term infants, regardless of Mongolian and Han nationality (P < 0.05). Further comparing the positive rate of GBS in Mongolian and Han newborns, there was no significant difference in the positive rate of GBS between Mongolian newborns and Han newborns, no matter the premature delivery group and the full-term group. (3) This study compared the incidence of early-onset GBS septicemia in Mongolian and Han newborns. The results showed that the incidence of early-onset GBS septicemia in Mongolian premature infants was 23.08%, and none in full-term infants. The incidence of early-onset GBS septicemia in Han premature infants was 26.09%. The incidence of early-onset GBS septicemia in term infants was 5.56%. The incidence of neonatal GBS septicemia in the preterm group was significantly higher than that in the term group, regardless of Mongolian and Han nationality. By further comparing the incidence of GBS septicemia in Mongolian and Han newborns, there was no significant difference in the positive rate of GBS between Mongolian newborns and Han newborns regardless of the premature delivery group and the term group. (4) In both Mongolian and Han nationality, the level of anti-GBS capsular polysaccharide antibody in premature infants was significantly lower than that in term infants (P < 0.05). (5) Regardless of the Mongolian and Han nationality, compared with GBS negative group, GBS positive rate was higher in pregnant women aged≥35 years old, with history of menstruation, miscarriage, vaginitis, floating population, and those who had not undergone pre-pregnancy examination, , which were the high risk factors for GBS-positive pregnant women during pregnancy. (6) In both Mongolian and Han nationality, the incidence of chorioamnionitis, puerperal infection, premature delivery and premature rupture of membranes in the GBS positive group was higher than that in the GBS negative group, and the incidence of fetal distress and neonatal asphyxia in the GBS positive group was also higher than that in the GBS negative group. Conclusions The carrier rate of GBS in Mongolian pregnant women is lower than that in Han pregnant women, and positive GBS during pregnancy will increase the incidence of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes such as chorioamnionitis, puerperal infection, premature delivery, premature rupture of membranes, fetal distress, neonatal asphyxia and neonatal early-onset GBS septicemia. The high risk factors are maternal age ≥ 35 years old, history of menstruation, abortion, vaginitis, floating population, and infection without pre-pregnancy examination. We should attach great importance to the perinatal high risk factors and formulate corresponding intervention measures accordingly, and make rational use of antibiotics for prenatal prevention, so as to further reduce the incidence of early-onset GBS septicemia in newborns.
Key words: Group B streptococcus    Premature infant    Full-term infant    Early-onset GBS septicemia    High risk factors    Mongolian    Han nationality    Infect    Carrying rate    

B族链球菌(group B streptococcus,GBS)是寄生于人类下消化道及泌尿生殖道的一种β溶血性链球菌,又称为无乳链球菌[1-2]。孕妇GBS定植可导致胎膜早破、绒毛膜羊膜炎和早产等不良妊娠结局,新生儿感染GBS则会发生GBS肺炎、败血症和化脓性脑膜炎等感染性疾病[2],因此GBS是引起围生期严重感染性疾病甚至死亡的主要致病菌之一,且GBS带菌率因人种及地域的不同而有差异[3]。据报道,新生儿侵袭性GBS感染的总病死率在足月儿中约为1%~8.4%,在早产儿中则高达5%~20%[4-5]。鉴于新生儿GBS感染及败血症发病率、病死率及致残率均较高,而当前临床对于孕妇围产期GBS定植情况尚不够重视,且本院是全区危重产妇及新生儿救治中心,就诊量持续居于自治区前列,与本地区患者总数成正比,因此,本研究拟基于少数民族特性[6-7],通过分析蒙汉族孕妇GBS带菌状况及其与新生儿感染及败血症的相关性,探讨该地区GBS感染的相关危险因素,以期丰富少数民族诊疗数据库,为临床诊疗提供借鉴。

1 资料与方法 1.1 一般资料

收集2017年6月至2020年6月在内蒙古医科大学附属医院进行GBS检测并娩出活产新生儿的孕妇。纳入标准:(1)同意行GBS检测;(2)经检查确定为宫内单活胎;(3)4周内无性生活;(4)4周内未使用抗菌药物。排除标准:(1)严重精神疾病、认知障碍,无法配合完成研究者;(2)患有基础性疾病、其他妊娠期合并症、血液系统及免疫系统等严重疾病,生殖道畸形或功能缺陷者;(3)因孕产妇或胎儿等原因终止妊娠;(4)4周内有性生活或使用抗菌药物。本研究经内蒙古医科大学附属医院伦理委员会批准(WZ2021003),家属均知情同意并签署知情同意书。

1.2 研究方法

取材:清洁外阴及肛周,分别采取阴道及直肠分泌物。新生儿标本为出生后立即从口咽部或胃液取样。

B族链球菌DNA检测:将取得的标本利用实时荧光定量PCR法进行检测,以确定GBS感染情况。GBS检测试剂盒购自泰普生物科学(北京)有限公司。

抗GBS荚膜多糖抗体测定:取GBS阳性产妇所分娩新生儿静脉血,采用酶联免疫吸附法(enzyme-linked immunosorbentassay,ELISA)检测抗GBS荚膜多糖抗体水平(试剂盒购自厦门恒泰行医疗科技有限公司),参照试剂盒说明进行抗GBS荚膜多糖抗体检测。

1.3 诊断标准

新生儿早发型GBS败血症:无论孕母阴道是否存在GBS定植,患儿于生后1~6 d内发病,可表现为气促、呻吟、呼吸暂停、体温不稳、四肢厥冷、肤色苍白等,化验提示外周血白细胞、C反应蛋白升高或血小板降低,且血培养或无菌体腔内培养出GBS,即可诊断为新生儿早发型GBS败血症。

新生儿早发型GBS肺炎:无论孕母阴道是否有GBS定植,若患儿于生后1~6 d内发病,临床表现为发绀、气促、呻吟、吐沫、呼吸暂停等,X线示双肺出现轻重不一的渗出性阴影,气管内分泌物或生后1 h内胃液培养GBS阳性,即可诊断为新生儿早发型GBS肺炎。

新生儿早发型GBS脑膜炎:无论孕母阴道GBS是否定植,患儿在生后1~6 d内发病,有神志意识异常、惊厥、肌张力异常、前囟饱满等神经系统临床表现,脑脊液检查符合化脓性脑膜炎脑脊液改变,血培养或脑脊液培养出GBS,即可诊断为新生儿早发型GBS脑膜炎[8]

1.4 观察指标

统计蒙汉族早产及足月孕妇GBS带菌状况;分析蒙汉族新生儿GBS感染及败血症状况,并检测新生儿抗GBS荚膜多糖抗体水平;比较蒙汉族孕妇年龄、产次、流产史、阴道炎、是否为流动人口及有无规律行孕前检查者等因素对孕妇GBS阳性率的影响;记录蒙汉族孕妇发生绒毛膜羊膜炎、产褥感染、产后出血、早产、胎膜早破,及患儿发生胎儿窘迫及新生儿窒息等疾病的发生率。

1.5 统计学方法

应用SPSS 20.0统计软件进行统计分析,计量资料以均数±标准差(x±s)表示,组间比较用成组t检验,计数资料以例数或构成比表示,组间比较用χ2检验。以P < 0.05为差异有统计学意义。

2 结果 2.1 蒙汉族孕妇GBS带菌状况

2017年6月至2020年6月在内蒙古医科大学附属医院进行GBS检测并娩出活产新生儿的孕妇7 289例,其中蒙古族孕妇3 136例(足月产2 599例,早产537例),汉族孕妇4 153例(足月产3 541例,早产612例)。GBS检测结果显示:无论蒙古族与汉族,早产组孕妇GBS带菌率均明显高于足月组,差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。见表 1图 1。进一步对比蒙汉族孕母GBS带菌率发现,无论早产组与足月组,蒙古族孕妇GBS带菌率均低于汉族孕妇GBS带菌率,差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。见表 2

表 1 蒙汉族孕妇GBS带菌情况(n, %) Table 1 GBS-carrying status of pregnant women of Mongolian and Han nationality (n, %)
组别 蒙古族 汉族
早产 足月 早产 足月
GBS阳性 GBS阴性 GBS阳性 GBS阴性 GBS阳性 GBS阴性 GBS阳性 GBS阴性
例(%) 44(8.19) 493(91.81) 113(4.35) 2 486(95.65) 73(11.93) 539(88.07) 204(5.76) 3 337(94.24)
χ2 13.841 31.881
P <0.001 <0.001

图 1 蒙汉族孕妇GBS带菌状况及新生儿GBS定植及感染状况 Fig 1 GBS-carrying status of Mongolian and Han pregnant women and GBS colonization and infection status of newborns

表 2 蒙汉族孕妇GBS阳性率比较(n, %) Table 2 Comparison of GBS positive rate among pregnant women of Mongolian between Han nationality (n, %)
组别 早产儿 足月儿
GBS阳性 GBS阴性 GBS阳性 GBS阴性
蒙古族 44(8.19) 493(91.81) 113(4.35) 2 486(95.65)
汉族 73(11.93) 539(88.07) 204(5.76) 3 337(94.24)
χ2 4.361 6.114
P 0.037 0.013
2.2 蒙汉族新生儿GBS感染及败血症状况

将GBS阳性孕母所分娩的新生儿分为足月组和早产组,结果显示,无论蒙古族与汉族,早产儿GBS阳性率均明显高于足月儿,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。见表 3图 1。进一步对比蒙汉族新生儿GBS阳性率发现,无论早产组与足月组,蒙古族新生儿GBS阳性率与汉族相比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。见表 4

表 3 蒙汉族新生儿GBS定植情况(n, %) Table 3 GBS colonization of newborns of Mongolian and Han nationality (n, %)
指标 蒙古族 汉族
早产 足月 早产 足月
GBS阳性 GBS阴性 GBS阳性 GBS阴性 GBS阳性 GBS阴性 GBS阳性 GBS阴性
例(发生率) 13(29.55) 31(70.45) 16(14.16) 97(85.84) 23(31.51) 50(68.49) 36(17.65) 168(82.35)
χ2 4.978 6.161
P 0.026 0.013

表 4 蒙汉族新生儿GBS阳性率比较(n, %) Table 4 Comparison of GBS positive rate of newborns of Mongolian and Han nationality (n, %)
组别 早产儿 足月儿
GBS阳性 GBS阴性 GBS阳性 GBS阴性
蒙古族 13(29.55) 31(70.45) 16(14.16) 97(85.84)
汉族 23(31.51) 50(68.49) 36(17.65) 168(82.35)
χ2 0.05 0.645
P 0.824 0.422

本研究同时对比了蒙汉族新生儿GBS败血症发生率,结果提示无论蒙古族与汉族,早产组新生儿GBS败血症发生率均明显高于足月组,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。见表 5。进一步对比蒙汉族新生儿GBS败血症发生率发现,无论早产组与足月组,蒙古族新生儿GBS阳性率与汉族相比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。见表 6

表 5 蒙汉族新生儿GBS败血症发生率比较(n, %) Table 5 Comparison of the incidence of GBS sepsis among newborns of Mongolian between Han nationality (n, %)
组别 蒙古族新生儿GBS培养阳性 汉族新生儿GBS培养阳性
早产儿 足月儿 早产儿 足月儿
发生GBS败血症 3(23.08) 0(0.00) 6(26.09) 2(5.56)
未发生GBS败血症 10(76.92) 16(100.00) 17(73.91) 34(94.44)
χ2 4.118 5.047
P 0.042 0.025

表 6 足月儿与早产儿GBS败血症发生率比较(n, %) Table 6 Comparison of incidence of GBS sepsis among term infant between premature infant (n, %)
组别 早产儿GBS培养阳性 足月儿GBS培养阳性
蒙古族 汉族 蒙古族 汉族
发生GBS败血症 3(23.08) 6(26.09) 0(0.00) 2(5.56)
未发生GBS败血症 10(76.92) 17(73.91) 16(100.00) 34(94.44)
χ2 0.040 0.924
P 0.841 0.336
2.3 蒙汉族新生儿抗GBS荚膜多糖抗体水平

通过检测蒙汉族早产儿与足月儿抗GBS荚膜多糖抗体水平,结果显示无论蒙古族与汉族,早产儿组抗GBS荚膜多糖抗体水平均明显低于足月儿组,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。见表 7

表 7 蒙汉族新生儿抗GBS荚膜多糖抗体水平(mg/L,x± s Table 7 Anti-GBS capsular polysaccharide antibody levels in newborns of Mongolian and Han nationality (mg/L, x± s)
组别 蒙古族 汉族
早产儿 1.31±0.42 1.36±0.51
足月儿 2.47±0.38 2.76±0.82
t -33.412 -36.520
P <0.001 <0.001
2.4 蒙汉族孕妇孕期GBS阳性的单因素分析

无论蒙古族与汉族,与GBS阴性者相比,孕妇年龄≥35岁、伴经产史、流产史、阴道炎、流动人口、未行孕前检查者GBS阳性发生率较高,是孕期孕妇GBS阳性的高危因素。见表 8

表 8 蒙汉族孕妇孕期GBS阳性的单因素分析 Table 8 Univariate analysis of GBS infection in pregnant women of Mongolian and Han nationality
因素 蒙古族 汉族
GBS阳性 GBS阴性 阳性率(%) χ2 P GBS阳性 GBS阴性 阳性率(%) χ2 P
年龄(岁)
  <35 166 1549 10.72 46.371 <0.001 302 2181 12.16 36.608 <0.001
  ≥35 256 1165 18.02 317 1353 18.98
产次
  初产妇 148 1691 8.05 40.371 <0.001 237 2338 9.20 51.455 <0.001
  经产妇 198 1099 15.27 263 1315 16.67
流产次数
  <3次 305 2035 13.03 6.764 0.009 356 2359 10.08 8.130 0.004
  ≥3次 76 720 9.55 145 1293 13.11
孕前检查
  是 159 2443 6.11 97.993 <0.001 277 3088 8.23 96.968 <0.001
  否 102 432 19.10 159 629 20.18
阴道炎
  是 122 514 19.18 73.724 <0.001 151 563 21.15 90.003 <0.001
  否 193 2307 7.72 307 3132 8.93
人口类别
  流动 112 790 12.42 18.948 <0.001 138 921 13.03 15.664 <0.001
  常驻 168 2066 7.52 273 2821 8.82
2.5 蒙汉族GBS阳性及阴性患者不良母婴结局发生率

无论蒙古族与汉族,与GBS阴性组相比,GBS阳性孕妇绒毛膜羊膜炎、产褥感染、早产及胎膜早破的发生率增加,其新生儿发生胎儿窘迫及新生儿窒息的概率亦增高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。见表 9

表 9 蒙汉族孕妇GBS阳性及阴性患者母婴不良结局发生率 Table 9 The incidence of adverse maternal and infant outcomes in Mongolian and Han nationality patients with positive and negative GBS infection
不良结局 蒙古族 汉族
GBS(+)(n=157) GBS(-)(n=2979) χ2 P GBS(+)(n=277) GBS(-)(n=3876) χ2 P
例数 发生率 例数 发生率 例数 发生率 例数 发生率
绒毛膜羊膜炎 45 28.66 156 5.24 136.436 <0.001 78 28.16 248 8.62 169.234 <0.001
产褥感染 51 32.48 253 8.49 98.059 <0.001 88 31.77 353 9.11 139.882 <0.001
产后出血 9 5.73 214 7.18 0.475 0.490 18 6.50 351 9.06 2.089 0.148
早产 23 14.65 265 8.90 5.921 0.015 45 16.25 383 9.88 11.328 0.001
胎膜早破 32 20.38 294 9.87 17.696 <0.001 50 18.05 445 11.48 10.628 0.001
胎儿窘迫 59 37.58 417 14.00 64.418 <0.001 102 36.82 484 12.49 126.335 <0.001
新生儿窒息 28 17.83 193 6.48 29.359 <0.001 57 20.58 225 5.80 89.140 <0.001
3 讨论

GBS是一种寄生于人体泌尿生殖道及下消化道的条件致病菌,亦是围产期母婴感染的主要致病菌之一[9]。根据细胞壁多糖的种类,GBS分为多种血清型,以Ia型、Ⅲ型和V型最常见[1]。越来越多的研究发现,围生期GBS阳性可导致多种母婴妊娠不良结局,因此国外多个国家已将GBS筛查作为孕期检查的常规项目,但国内尚未引起足够的重视。即使抗菌药物可有效预防及控制妊娠期GBS感染,但目前国内抗菌药物使用量较大,耐药菌株较多,也在一定程度上加大了GBS阳性者抗感染的治疗难度,因此清楚了解当前国内妊娠期GBS带菌的现状,寻找明确妊娠期GBS阳性的高危因素以早期识别高危人群,并给予相应的预防及治疗措施是目前新生儿科医生的亟需解决的重点问题[10]。国内外研究显示,孕妇GBS带菌率在不同地域、国家及种族间有明显不同,其中非洲GBS带菌率约为22.4%,澳大利亚GBS携带率约为24%,美洲GBS定植率约为19.7%,欧洲带菌率约为19%[11-12]。同时,国内多位学者也对我国妊娠期GBS携带率进行了研究,结果显示我国妊娠期GBS定植率约在5%~32.4%之间[13-14]。本研究结果显示蒙古族孕妇GBS带菌率为5.01%,汉族孕妇GBS带菌率为6.67%,蒙古族孕妇GBS带菌率低于汉族孕妇GBS带菌率,差异均有统计学意义,进一步细化分组为足月组与早产组,结果发现,无论蒙古族与汉族,早产组孕妇GBS带菌率均明显高于足月组,差异有统计学意义,与Van Dyke等[15]研究结果一致。与国内外多项研究相比,本地区孕妇妊娠期GBS总体带菌率偏低,可能与采样时间、采样方法、采样部位、送检时间、地域及生活习惯等有关。

新生儿GBS感染可导致严重的新生儿GBS肺炎、新生儿GBS败血症及新生儿GBS脑膜炎等,其中患有GBS败血症的新生儿若得不到及时的救治,将导致智力低下及运动障碍等不良结局,甚至造成患儿死亡等严重情况。据报道美国新生儿早发型GBS败血症的发生率约为0.25/1000例,但我国目前新生儿GBS所导致的早发型败血症发病率仍高达2.1%[16]。本次研究显示,蒙古族早产儿GBS阳性率为29.55%,足月儿GBS阳性率为14.16%,汉族早产儿GBS阳性率为31.51%,足月儿GBS阳性率为17.65%,提示无论蒙古族与汉族,早产儿GBS阳性率均明显高于足月儿,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。进一步对比蒙汉族新生儿GBS阳性率发现,无论早产组与足月组,蒙古族新生儿GBS阳性率与汉族相比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。黄静等[17]学者通过859例早产孕妇及其分娩的早产儿进行GBS检测,结果显示早产儿GBS定植率约为4.4%(43/976),其中早发GBS疾病发生率为4.1‰(4/976)。本次研究同时对比了蒙汉族新生儿早发型GBS败血症发生率,结果显示蒙古族早产儿发生新生儿早发型GBS败血症的发生率为23.08%,足月儿中无患儿发生新生儿早发型GBS败血症,汉族早产儿发生新生儿早发型GBS败血症的发生率为26.09%,足月儿发生新生儿早发型GBS败血症的发生率为5.56%,结果提示无论蒙古族与汉族,早产组新生儿GBS败血症发生率均明显高于足月组,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。进一步对比蒙汉族新生儿GBS败血症发生率发现,无论早产组与足月组,蒙古族新生儿GBS阳性率与汉族相比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。随着近年来国内外产时抗生素预防(intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis, IAP)策略实施后,新生儿早发型GBS败血症的发生率明显降低。据报道以色列新生儿早发GBS疾病发生率从2005年至2009年的0.361‰大幅下降至2010年至2016年的0.19‰,美国新生儿早发GBS疾病的发病率从2‰~3‰降至0.34‰,上述研究均支持IAP干预的有效性[18-19]

当前研究多认为抗GBS荚膜多糖抗体是一种保护性抗体,可使产妇及新生儿均受到保护[20]。据报道,大多数不带菌的孕妇及其新生儿抗GBS荚膜多糖抗体水平多<2 mg/dL,而GBS带菌产妇及其新生儿抗GBS荚膜多糖抗体水平则>2 mg/dL。本次研究通过检测蒙汉族早产儿与足月儿抗GBS荚膜多糖抗体水平,结果显示无论蒙古族与汉族,早产儿组抗GBS荚膜多糖抗体水平均明显低于足月儿组,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05),进一步验证了抗GBS荚膜多糖抗体对机体的保护作用。

鉴于目前我国妊娠期GBS定植率较高,且尚无明确的预防和治疗措施,因此,本次研究对蒙汉族孕妇孕期GBS阳性的危险因素进行分析,结果显示:无论蒙古族与汉族,与GBS阴性者相比,孕妇年龄≥35岁、伴经产史、流产史、阴道炎、为流动人口及未行孕前检查者GBS阳性率较高,是孕期孕妇GBS阳性的高危因素,与国内外多项研究结果相同[21-22]。GBS感染后将释放前列腺素、磷酸酯酶A2及肿瘤坏死因子等,并通过部分炎症细胞的吞噬作用使胎膜阻力降低,从而引起胎膜早破,进而引发早产。病原菌逆行进入宫腔,一方面增加孕产妇产褥感染的风险,同时也对羊水造成一定的污染,影响新生儿妊娠结局。因此,目前研究多认为,孕母生殖道GBS阳性可能是孕妇发生早产、胎膜早破及产褥感染,患儿发生新生儿感染、新生儿败血症及新生儿窒息等不良预后的主要原因[23-24]。在本次研究中,无论蒙古族与汉族,与GBS阴性组相比,GBS阳性孕妇绒毛膜羊膜炎、产褥感染、早产及胎膜早破的发生率增加,其患儿发生胎儿窘迫及新生儿窒息的几率亦增高,差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.05),提示GBS阳性将增加母婴发生不良结局的风险。

利益冲突  所有作者声明无利益冲突

作者贡献声明  宋丹、霍梦月、张钰恒负责实验操作、论文撰写;杜巧燕、刘静、红荣负责;数据收集、统计学分析;梅花负责研究设计、论文修改。

参考文献
[1] Perme T, Golparian D, Bombek Ihan M, et al. Genomic and phenotypic characterisation of invasive neonatal and colonising group B streptococcus isolates from Slovenia, 2001-2018[J]. BMC Infect Dis, 2020, 20(1): 958. DOI:10.1186/s12879-020-05599-y
[2] Lo CW, Liu HC, Lee CC, et al. Serotype distribution and clinical correlation of streptococcus agalactiae causing invasive disease in infants and children in Taiwan[J]. Wei Mian Yu Gan Ran Za Zhi, 2019, 52(4): 578-584. DOI:10.1016/j.jmii.2017.09.002.akayamaY
[3] Matsui H, Adachi Y, et al. Detection of streptococcus agalactiae by immunochromatography with group B streptococcus-specific surface immunogenic protein in pregnant women[J]. J Infect Chemother, 2017, 23(10): 678-682. DOI:10.1016/j.jiac.2017.07.001
[4] Padari H, Metsvaht T, Germovsek E, et al. Pharmacokinetics of penicillin G in preterm and term neonates[J]. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2018, 62(5): e02238-e02217. DOI:10.1128/AAC.02238-17
[5] Raabe VN, Shane AL. Group B Streptococcus[J]. Microbiol Spectr, 2019, 7(2): 638-642. DOI:10.1128/microbiolspec.GPP3-0007-2018
[6] 新春, 梅花, 张钰恒, 等. 蒙古族早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征与SP-A1 rs1059047、rs1136450位点基因多态性相关性研究[J]. 中华急诊医学杂志, 2019, 28(6): 702-706. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0282.2019.06.009
[7] 霍梦月, 梅花, 张钰恒, 等. ABCA3基因同义突变与内蒙古地区蒙汉族新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征的相关性研究[J]. 中华急诊医学杂志, 2021, 30(6): 671-676. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0282.2021.06.005
[8] Prevention of group B streptococcal early-onset disease in newborns: ACOG committee opinion summary, number 782[J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2019, 134(1): 1. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003335.
[9] Kyohere M, Davies HG, Musoke P, et al. Seroepidemiology of maternally-derived antibody against Group B streptococcus (GBS) in Mulago/Kawempe Hospitals Uganda - PROGRESS GBS[J]. Gates Open Res, 2020, 4: 155. DOI:10.12688/gatesopenres.13183.2
[10] Zheng JX, Chen Z, Xu ZC, et al. In vitro evaluation of the antibacterial activities of radezolid and linezolid for Streptococcus agalactiae[J]. Microb Pathog, 2020, 139: 103866. DOI:10.1016/j.micpath.2019.103866
[11] Furfaro LL, Nathan EA, Chang BJ, et al. Group B streptococcus prevalence, serotype distribution and colonization dynamics in Western Australian pregnant women[J]. J Med Microbiol, 2019, 68(5): 728-740. DOI:10.1099/jmm.0.000980
[12] Kwatra G, Cunnington MC, Merrall E, et al. Prevalence of maternal colonisation with group B streptococcus: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Lancet Infect Dis, 2016, 16(9): 1076-1084. DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30055-X
[13] Seto MTY, Ko JKY, Cheung KW, et al. The accuracy of self-screening of group B streptococcus in pregnant women-A randomized crossover study[J]. JOGC, 2019, 41(6): 792-797. DOI:10.1016/j.jogc.2018.08.003
[14] Wang P, Tong JJ, Ma XH, et al. Serotypes, antibiotic susceptibilities, and multi-locus sequence type profiles of streptococcus agalactiae isolates circulating in Beijing, China[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(3): e0120035. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0120035
[15] van Dyke MK, Phares CR, Lynfield R, et al. Evaluation of universal antenatal screening for group B streptococcus[J]. N Engl J Med, 2009, 360(25): 2626-2636. DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa0806820
[16] 林新祝, 吴健宁, 张雪芹, 等. 晚孕期阴道B族链球菌定植与新生儿感染的关系[J]. 中华围产医学杂志, 2016, 19(7): 491-496. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-9408.2016.07.003
[17] 黄静, 林新祝, 赖基栋, 等. 孕妇B族链球菌定植及其早产儿感染状况的研究[J]. 中国当代儿科杂志, 2019, 21(6): 567-572. DOI:10.7499/j.issn.1008-8830.2019.06.013
[18] Todorova-Christova M, Vacheva R, Decheva A, et al. A study on early-onset neonatal group B streptococcal infection, Bulgaria, 2007-2011[J]. Arch De Pédiatrie, 2014, 21(9): 953-960. DOI:10.1016/j.arcped.2014.06.023
[19] Rottenstreich M, Rotem R, Bergman M, et al. Assessment of maternal GBS colonization and early-onset neonatal disease rate for term deliveries: a decade perspective[J]. J Perinat Med, 2019, 47(5): 528-533. DOI:10.1515/jpm-2018-0293
[20] Le Doare K, Taylor S, Allen L, et al. Placental transfer of anti-group B streptococcus immunoglobulin G antibody subclasses from HIV-infected and uninfected women to their uninfected infants[J]. AIDS, 2016, 30(3): 471-475. DOI:10.1097/QAD.0000000000000923
[21] Darabi R, Ta di, Mohit M, et al. The prevalence and risk factors of group B streptococcus colonization in Iranian pregnant women[J]. Electron Physician, 2017, 9(5): 4399-4404. DOI:10.19082/4399
[22] Gopal Rao G, Hiles S, Bassett P, et al. Differential rates of group B streptococcus (GBS) colonisation in pregnant women in a racially diverse area of London, UK: a cross-sectional study[J]. BJOG, 2019, 126(11): 1347-1353. DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.15648
[23] Joubrel C, Tazi A, Six A, et al. Group B streptococcus neonatal invasive infections, France 2007-2012[J]. Clin Microbiol Infect, 2015, 21(10): 910-916. DOI:10.1016/j.cmi.2015.05.039
[24] Terao M, Koga K, Fujimoto A, et al. Factors that predict poor clinical course among patients hospitalized with pelvic inflammatory disease[J]. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 2014, 40(2): 495-500. DOI:10.1111/jog.12189