<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJOG</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2160-8792</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ojog.2022.127057</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJOG-118773</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Medicine&amp;Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Expectant Management of Preterm Ruptured Membranes before 34 Gestational Weeks at the University Hospital of Kinshasa, a Tertiary Referral Hospital in the Democratic Republic of Congo
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Roger</surname><given-names>Mbungu Mwimba</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Anselme</surname><given-names>Mbungu Mulaila</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Joëlle</surname><given-names>Lumaya Ambis</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Andy</surname><given-names>Mbangama Muela</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Adrien</surname><given-names>Tandu Umba</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Berry</surname><given-names>Kinkenda Nsiangangu</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Malka</surname><given-names>Salamo Azama</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Thérèse</surname><given-names>Biselele Bakambuvua</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kahindo</surname><given-names>P. Muyayalo</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Institute of Reproductive Health, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Neonatal Unit, Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital of Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Kinshasa, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>12</day><month>07</month><year>2022</year></pub-date><volume>12</volume><issue>07</issue><fpage>633</fpage><lpage>648</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>24,</day>	<month>June</month>	<year>2022</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>24,</day>	<month>July</month>	<year>2022</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>27,</day>	<month>July</month>	<year>2022</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Premature Rupture of Membranes (PROM)
  
   
  with the resulting prematurity remains a major public health issue in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). This study aimed to assess expectant management of PPROM before 34 weeks at the university hospital of Kinshasa. We conducted a retrospective analysis of expectantly managed PROM before 34 weeks between January 2008 and December 2018.
   
  Maternal and fetal outcomes were collected, and all data were analyzed using the SPSS 23.0 software. Of the 113 patients included in the study, 2.6% were diagnosed with PROM before 34 weeks. We observed prolongation of the pregnancy duration; the median latency period was eight days, and the average gestational age at delivery of 32.85 &#177; 2.5 weeks. Chorioamnionitis (23%), severe oligoamnios (7%), and acute fetal distress (4%) were complications observed during the latency period. In the postpartum period, endometritis (6.2%), neonatal jaundice (39.8%), anemia (25.7%), ulcerative necrotizing enterocolitis (6.2%), cerebromeningeal hemorrhage (5.3%), and acute respiratory distress syndrome (4.4%) were complications observed. The risk of infection during the latency period was significantly associated with irregular (P = 0.045) or lack (P = 0.006) antenatal care (ANC) attendances and C-Reactive Protein
   
  (CRP) results 
  &lt;
   6 (P = 0.013). The risk of neonatal death was significantly associated to infection during the latency period (P = 0.011), irregular (P = 0.009) or lack of ANC (P = 0.000) attendances, Birth weight &lt;1000
   
  g (P = 0.039) as well as Gestational age at birth between 28 to 30 Weeks (S) (P = 0.021). These findings report first-time pregnancy outcomes related to the management of PPROM before 34 weeks in our setting. We found that the conservative attitude adopted allowed the prolongation of pregnancies, reducing the risks associated with prematurity. Nevertheless, attendance in good quality ANC could reduce the frequency of PROM and related adverse outcomes.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Premature Rupture of Membranes</kwd><kwd> Gestational Age</kwd><kwd> Expectant Management</kwd><kwd> Pregnancy Outcomes</kwd><kwd> D. R. Congo</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Premature rupture of membranes (PROM) is the rupture of the fetal membranes before labor initiation. In most cases, this occurs near term, but when membrane rupture occurs before 37 weeks gestation, it is called preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref1">1</xref>]. PPROM is often the consequence of a premature weakening of the membranes due to various constitutional and external causes, among which infection seems to play a dominant role. The resulting vaginal fluid losses are a frequent reason for obstetrics consultations [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref2">2</xref>].</p><p>Worldwide, the incidence of PPROM varies between 2% to 3% for single pregnancies, 7% - 20% for multiple pregnancies, almost 10% for term pregnancies, and 3% for preterm pregnancies. It is responsible for 30% to 60% of premature deliveries and about 10% of perinatal deaths [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref3">3</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref4">4</xref>]. In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the frequency of PROM is 18.3%, with prematurity as the main complication causing 80% of perinatal mortality [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref5">5</xref>].</p><p>The management of PROM depends mainly on the fetus’s gestational age and other complicating factors such as the presence or not of infection and the fetal state. In term pregnancies, active management with immediate delivery is associated with lower adverse perinatal outcomes. However, the ideal management of patients with PPROM is not well defined. Before 34 weeks of gestation, management remains controversial. Some authors recommend immediate delivery by induction of labor or cesarean section (depending on each case); others prefer expectant management to prolong the pregnancy and gain more days. The primary maternal risk with expectant management of PPROM is infection [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref6">6</xref>]. The risk of postponing delivery must be balanced against iatrogenic prematurity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref7">7</xref>]. Prematurity is accompanied by a significant increase in neonatal morbidity and mortality, mainly when the PPROM occurs earlier [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref8">8</xref>]. Prophylactic antibiotics in cases of PPROM before 34 weeks are recommended to reduce the risk of maternal and fetal infections [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref9">9</xref>]. Moreover, tocolysis and antenatal corticosteroids are also included in the treatment to reduce prematurity and prolong the pregnancy closer to 34 weeks, during which neonatal morbidity is similar to that of children born in term [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref10">10</xref>]. Between 34 and 37 weeks, the risk of rare severe morbidity related to prematurity is balanced against an acute infection or a maternal-fetal placental abruption. Hence, physicians should avoid the urge to prolong pregnancy [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref11">11</xref>] .</p><p>In D.R. Congo, a country with limited resources, the lack of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) access is a limiting factor in the proper management of PPROM and prematurity that remains a major public health issue. Therefore, to improve the neonatal prognosis, the department of gynecology and obstetrics of the university hospital of Kinshasa, a tertiary referral hospital, implemented the expected management of PPROM with the postponed delivery close as possible to 34 weeks gestation. However, the benefit of such as attitude has never been evaluated. Hence, the current study aimed to assess expectant management of PPROM before 34 weeks applied in the University hospital of Kinshasa, D.R. Congo.</p><p>This study determines the frequency of PPROM before 34 gestation weeks in the university hospital of Kinshasa, identifies maternal-neonatal complications associated with the expectant management of PPROM, and assesses factors associated with these complications.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Materials and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1_1"><title>2.1.1. Study Design and Setting</title><p>We conducted a retrospective study using medical records of pregnant women admitted to the University Hospital of Kinshasa, a tertiary referral hospital, in Kinshasa (Capital city of the DRC), from January 2008 to January 2018.</p></sec><sec id="s2_1_2"><title>2.1.2. Population Studied</title><p>We included 113 patients with singleton pregnancies admitted for spontaneous PROM between 28 and 34 weeks of gestation (confirmed by the clinical, laboratory, and/or imaging tests) and treated by expectant management. The gestational age of each patient was based on their last menstrual period (LMP) and confirmed by the 1<sup>st</sup>-trimester obstetric ultrasonography. Twin pregnancies and those associated with maternal chronic diseases such as chronic arterial hypertension, pre-eclampsia, systemic lupus erythematosus, diabetes mellitus, and thrombophilia were excluded.</p></sec><sec id="s2_1_3"><title>2.1.3. Operational Definitions</title><p>In our research, before 28 completed weeks, pregnancy losses are considered miscarriages because of the lack of NICU access in countries with limited resources (including DRC).</p><p>The diagnosis of PROM was made in the presence of the following clinical/laboratory signs: typical history of fluid loss by the external cervical os, clinical presence of a moist vulva, visualization of fluid in the vaginal sac during the specular examination, and a positive crystallization test. Obstetric ultrasound was not used to diagnose PROM; however, in the presence of oligohydramnios associated with suggestive and/or doubtful clinical signs, patients were treated for PROM. Oligohydramnios was defined by an amniotic fluid index (AFI) measuring less than 5 cm or by the largest pocket of amniotic fluid measuring less than 2 cm in the ultrasonic examination.</p><p>According to the University Hospital of Kinshasa’s protocol, pregnant women diagnosed with PPROM between 28 and 34 weeks of gestation are hospitalized and monitored expectantly. Maternal monitoring occurs through clinical evaluation daily and laboratory every 2 - 3 days. For maternal infectious screening, the following tests are ordered: blood count, C-Reactive Protein (CRP) test, urine type 1, urine Sediment Examination, urine culture, and bacterioscopy of vaginal secretions. Fetal monitoring occurs through daily cardiotocography and obstetric ultrasound with Doppler. Antibiotic prophylaxis is always performed upon admission immediately after the diagnosis of PPROM. Tocolytic therapy is also included in the treatment. Delivery is indicated according to the obstetric and pediatric conditions and the availability of a NICU. It is immediate when there are clinical or laboratory signs of maternal infection and chorioamnionitis. Clinical chorioamnionitis was defined as an axillary temperature &gt; 38˚C and no other cause of diagnosed fever, in addition to CRP &gt; 6 mg/dl or fetal tachycardia. Neonatal infection was diagnosed by positive culture from a sample collected in an ordinarily sterile location associated with clinical signs of infection or elevated neonatal CRP (&gt;6 mg/dl).</p><p>The risk of maternal infection is defined as “the potential causes linked to microbiological contamination which can lead to infectious consequences” [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref12">12</xref>]. According to previous studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref13">13</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref14">14</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref15">15</xref>], the maternal infectious risk was considered when the patient met the following criteria: history of excess digital vaginal examinations before reaching our hospital, a latency period on admission ≥ 12 hours, irregular or no antenatal care attendance (ANC), a suspicion of local infection (cervicovaginal and urinary tract), poor hygiene. The risk of Early-Onset Neonatal Infection with Maternal Infection was defined by:</p><p>• Maternal fever &gt; 38.0˚C, isolated or not (signs of associated chorioamnionitis) in per-partum, and this regardless of the status of the Group B Streptococcus (GBS) screening results;</p><p>• Maternal colonization with GBS during the current pregnancy (positive GBS screening results either by culture, either by rapid per-partum PCR, and/or GBS bacteriuria), except for those who have given birth by cesarean section before the onset of labor and with intact membranes;</p><p>• History of neonatal GBS infection in a previous pregnancy;</p><p>• In case of unknown GBS status (culture not performed or result not available, rapid intrapartum PCR with invalid or unavailable result) and: a membrane rupture time &gt; 12 hours or spontaneous and unexplained prematurity &lt; 37 weeks;</p><p>• Local infection (cervicovaginitis and/or urinary tract infection).</p></sec><sec id="s2_1_4"><title>2.1.4. Data Collection</title><p>The data were registered from medical records containing the needed informationusing Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Red-mond, WA, USA, 2007). The following variables were collected: ANC attendance, Apgar score at the 1<sup>st</sup> and 5<sup>th</sup> minutes, birth weight, length of stay in the NICU, presence of neonatal infection (neonatal sepsis), need for oxygen therapy within 24 hours of delivery, use of surfactant, the number of deliveries between 48 hours and 7 days after the diagnosis of PPROM, presence of chorioamnionitis and maternal sepsis, the time between PPROM diagnosis and labor (latency period), type of delivery, and demographic data of the pregnant women (age, ethnicity, parity, smoking, drinking, and the presence of comorbidities). Patients were categorized as having an adverse perinatal outcome based on the presence of at least one adverse perinatal outcome. Perinatal adverse outcomes included the following: chorioamnionitis, maternal sepsis, neonatal sepsis, Apgar score &lt; 7 at the 5th minute, admission to the NICU, use of surfactant, and oxygen therapy after delivery.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Statistical Analysis</title><p>The data were analyzed using the SPSS 23.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The quantitative variables were summarized as mean &#177; standard deviation (SD). The median and interquartile range (IQR) were used when the dispersion of values apart from the SD was relatively large. The categorical variables were summarized as frequencies and compared using the Pearson chi-square test. The odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to measure the association between the occurrence of infection during the latency period or neonatal death and study variables. A P-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Frequency of PPROM Occurring before 34 Weeks</title><p>From January 2008 to January 2018, 4274 deliveries were recorded in the university hospital of Kinshasa. Among the 509 (11.9%) deliveries diagnosed with PPROM registered, 396 (9.3%) occurred after 34 weeks, and 113 (2.6%) occurred before 34 weeks of gestation. For the final statistical analysis, 113 participants with PPROM before 34 weeks were included (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Clinical Characteristics of the Study Population</title><p>The clinical characteristics of participants and their newborns are shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>.</p><p>For the majority of respondents, ANC attendance was irregular (49/113, 43.4%), gestational age at admission in the hospital varied between 31 - 33 weeks (66/113, 58.4%), labor occurred spontaneously (62/113, 54.9%), and gestational age at delivery varied between 31 - 33 weeks (64/113, 56.6%). Most participants had a vaginal delivery (95/113. 84.1%). Among 18 (15.9%) women who underwent</p><p>cesarean, 17 (15%) were scheduled for c-section, and one was an emergency (0.9%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). Most newborns weighed more than 1500 g (68/113; 60.2%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Perinatal Outcomes in PPROM before 34 Weeks after Expectant Management</title><sec id="s3_3_1"><title>3.3.1. Prolongation of Pregnancy</title><p>In <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>, we compare the gestational age between the day of admission to the hospital and the day of delivery.</p><p>Compared to gestational age at the day of admission to the hospital, the proportion of pregnanciesaged between 28 - 30 gestation weeks significantly decreased (P = 0.0002) on the day of delivery (birthday), while the proportion of pregnancies of at least 34 weeks increased considerably (P &lt; 0.0001) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>). Interestingly, the median duration of the latency period was eight days and ranged from 0.17 and 39.08 days (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>), indicating that the expectant management of PPROM allowed the prolongation of pregnancy for around a week.</p></sec><sec id="s3_3_2"><title>3.3.2. Maternal Outcomes</title><p><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref> shows maternal outcomes in patients with PPROM before 34 weeks treated by expectant management during the latency and postpartum period.</p><p>During the monitoring in the latency period, most patients (62/113; 54.9%) spontaneously entered labor without complications. Intra-uterine infection (chorioamnionitis) (6/113, 23%), risk of maternal infection (8/113, 7.1%), and severe oligohydramnios (8/113, 7.1%) were complications mostly observed during this period (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>).</p><p>After delivery (postpartum period), most respondents (101/113, 89.4%) had a good evolution. Assessing adverse postpartum outcomes, we observed that endometritis occurred in seven patients (6.2%), infection of the episiotomy wounds in four patients (3.5%), and infection of the cesarean wound in one patient (0.9%) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Clinical characteristics of participants</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >N (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Mean &#177; SD</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Median (IQR)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Maternal characteristics</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&#167; Antenatal care (ANC) attendance</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- Regular</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29 (25.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- Irregular</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49 (43.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- Not attended</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35 (31.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&#167; PPROM duration at admission (h)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15 (1 - 40.80)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- 0 - 24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >78 (69.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- 25 - 48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12 (10.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- 49 - 72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (6.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- &gt;72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16 (14.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&#167; Gestational age at admission (weeks)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32 &#177; 3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- 28 - 30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39 (34,5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- 31 - 33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66 (58.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- 34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (7.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&#167; Latency duration (d)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (0.17 - 39.08)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- &lt;8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53 (46.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- ≥8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60 (53.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&#167; Mode of Labor Onset</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- Spontaneous</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62 (54.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- Inducing labor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34 (30.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- No labor onset (Scheduled cesarean)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (15)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&#167; Reasons for labor induction</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- Infection (chorioamnionitis)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26 (23)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- Risk of Infection</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (7.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&#167; Gestational age at delivery (weeks)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.8 &#177; 2.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- 28 - 30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14 (12.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- 31 - 33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64 (56.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- ≥34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35 (31.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&#167; Type of delivery</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- Vaginal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >95 (84.1%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- Cesarean section (c-section)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18 (15.9%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >o Scheduled c-section</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17(15%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >o Emergency c-section</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (0.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Newborn’s characteristics</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&#167; Birth weight (g)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- &lt;1000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 (17.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- 1000 - 1500</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25 (22.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- 1501 - 2000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31 (27.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- &gt;2000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 (32.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Comparison of gestational age at admission and at delivery</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Gestational age (weeks)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >at admission</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >at delivery</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >P value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >28 - 30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39 (34.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14 (12.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0002</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >31 - 33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66 (58.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64 (56.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.8893</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >≥34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (7.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35 (31.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec><sec id="s3_3_3"><title>3.3.3. Neonatal Outcomes</title><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref> shows the frequencies of newborn outcomes observed in early and late neonatal periods.</p><p>In the early neonatal period, we observed that the risk of EONNI-MI was present for 46 newborns (40.7%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). A significant proportion of these premature infants had hypoglycemia (28/113, 24.8%), and 7.9% (9/113) were affected by EONNI-MI (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p><p>The most common complication in the late neonatal period was neonatal jaundice with 39.8% (45/113), followed by anemia with 25.7% (29/113) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p><p>The frequency and direct causes of neonatal death are presented in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>.</p><p>This study found a high frequency of neonatal death among newborns (39/113, 34.5%) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>). These deaths were primarily caused by EONNI-MI (12/79, 30.7%), followed by prematurity (6/79; 15.4%) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>).</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3_4"><title>3.4. Factors Associated with Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes in PPROM before 34 Weeks Undergoing Expectant Management</title><sec id="s3_4_1"><title>3.4.1. Factors Associated with Maternal Outcomes</title><p>Our results show that most respondents irregularly attended or did not attend ANC appointments. Besides, the majority of them were infected or had a risk of infection during the latency period. Therefore, we assessed the potential factors</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Frequency of neonatal outcomes</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Early neonatal period n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Late neonatal period n (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No complication</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16 (14.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >No complication</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21 (18.6)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Perpartal asphyxia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (3.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Neonatal jaundice</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45 (39.8)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >HMD</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (0.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NEC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (6.2)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hypoglycemia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28 (24.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ARDS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (4.4)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hypocalcaemia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (6.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Anemia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29 (25.7)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >EONNI-MI</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9 (7.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >CMH</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 (5.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Risk of EONNI-MI</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46 (40.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CMH</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (1.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >113 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >113 (100)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>HMD: hyaline membrane disease; EONNI-MI: Early-Onset Neonatal Infection with Maternal Infection HCM: cerebromeningeal hemorrhage; NEC: Necrotizing enterocolitis; ARDS: acute respiratory distress syndrome; CMH = Cerebromeningeal hemorrhage.</p><p>associated with the occurrence of infection during the latency.</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> shows risk factors for infection during the latency period in bivariate analysis.</p><p>Most women infected during the latency period did not attend the ANC appointment (21/48, 43.8%) or attended irregularly (16/48, 33.3%). They had more than eightdays of latency period (27/48, 56.3%) and increased CRP results (44/48, 91.7%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>).</p><p>Compared to patients who regularly attended ANC, those who never attended ANC had a 4-fold risk, and those who irregularly attended had a 4-fold risk of developing infection (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). The risk of infection was also 8-fold higher in patients with CRP less than 6 mg/dl than those with CRP results equal to or higher than 6 mg/dl (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_4_2"><title>3.4.2. Factors Associated with Newborn Outcomes</title><p>Our results showed that the frequency of neonatal death was high. Therefore, in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>, we assessed factors associated with neonatal death.</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Bivariate analysis showing risk factors for the occurrence of infection during the latency period</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >No infection n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Infection n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >OR (95% CI)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >P-value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >ANC attendance</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- Not attended</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14 (21.5%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21 (43.8%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.829 (1.465 - 10.008)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.006</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- Irregular</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18 (27.7%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16 (33.3%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.854 (0.981 - 8.303)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.045</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- Regular</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33 (50.8%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11 (22.9%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Latency period (days)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- 0 - 7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33 (50.8%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21 (43.8%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.168 (0.341 - 4.004)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0,804</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- ≥8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32 (49.2%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27 (56.3%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CRP (mg/dl)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- ≤6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 (56.9%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (8.3%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.606 (1.530 - 37.824)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.013</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- &gt;6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28 (43.1%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44 (91.7%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>OR: odds ratio; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval.</p><p>Among 39 patients with neonatal death, 18 did not attend ANC appointments (46.2%), 15 (38.5%) were infected during the latency period, 13 (33.3%) gave birth to babies weighing less than 1000 g, and 23 (58.9%) delivered before 31 gestational weeks (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>). The risk of neonatal death was 4-fold higher in patients who did not attend ANC appointments than those who attended regularly and 2-fold higher in infected women during the latency period than those who were not infected.</p><p>This risk was around 2-fold more increased in newborns weighing less than 1000 g than in those weighing at least 2000 g, 4-fold higher when age at birth varied between 28 and 30 weeks than those with at least 34 weeks (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>).</p></sec></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>This study aimed to assess expectant management of PPROM before 34 weeks as a therapeutic strategy used in the University hospital of Kinshasa to improve the maternal and neonatal prognosis. Therefore, we determined the frequency of PPROM before 34 gestation weeks and identified maternal-neonatal complications associated with the conservative management. Finally, we assess risk factors related to these complications.</p><p>Previous studies reported that PPROM before 34 weeks of gestation occurs in 1% of pregnancies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref3">3</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref16">16</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref22">22</xref>]. However, our results showed that PPROM before 34 weeks rate was higher and represented 2.6% of deliveries. This discrepancy</p><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Bivariate analysis showing risk factors for the occurrence of neonatal death</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Death n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Recovery n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >OR (95% CI)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >P value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >ANC attendance</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- Irregular</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18 (46.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31 (41.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.645 (1.419 - 3.869)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.009</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- Not attending</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13 (33.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22 (29.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.983 (4.970 - 12.413)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.000</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- Regular</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (20.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21 (28.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Infection during latency</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- Yes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15 (38.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33 (44.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.288 (1.584 - 5.841)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.011</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24 (61.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41 (55.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Birth weight (g)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- &lt;1000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13 (33.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (9.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.639 (1.169 - 2.415)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.039</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- 1000 - 1500</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 (25.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15 (20.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.306 (1.294 - 3.997)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.004</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- 1505 - 2000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (17.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24 (32.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.958 (0.358 - 2.562)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.932</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- &gt;2000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9 (23.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28 (37.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Age at birth (weekdays)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- 28 to 30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23 (58.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 (27)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.642 (1.217 - 10.898)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.021</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- 31 to 33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 (25.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35 (47.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.905 (0.285 - 2.875)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.865</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- ≥34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 (15.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19 (25.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>OR: odds ratio; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval.</p><p>might be due to the difference in the accessibility, the use, and the quality of ANC services in study settings. These prior studies were from developed countries where good quality ANC care services were given, allowing early screening and management of risk factors for PPROM. Besides, this discrepancy could be accountable to the difference in the use of ANC care services in the different settings. Indeed, we observed that only 31% of our study population regularly attended ANC appointments in our study. This result is in line with World Health Organization (WHO) reports showing that, in sub-Saharan Africa, during the last two decades, the number of women attending ANC four or more times has remained static [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref23">23</xref>], while in developed countries, this number increased.</p><p>Gestational age at delivery is one of the significant determinants of neonatal survival and morbidity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref24">24</xref>]. Generally, women with PPROM should be expectantly managed at least until 34 weeks of gestation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref17">17</xref>]. This conservative attitude aims to prolong the pregnancy and minimize prematurity complications. In our study, the proportion of pregnancy of at least 34 weeks significantly increased; the latency period’s median duration was eight days, and the mean gestational age at delivery was 32.85 &#177; 2.5 weeks, indicating that our expectant management of PPROM effectively prolongs the pregnancy for around a week. Interestingly, prior studies suggested that the ability to extend latency for at least 1 to 7 days will result in improved neonatal outcomes by allowing time for treatment of the fetus (antenatal steroids and antibiotics, or other additional therapies) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref25">25</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref26">26</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref27">27</xref>]. In addition, infants born before 32 gestational weeks have an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. This includes intraventricular hemorrhage, hyaline membrane disease, and necrotizing enterocolitis [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref28">28</xref>]. Together, these data suggest that prolonging pregnancy for about a week after admission could have positively affected pregnancy outcomes.</p><p>Infection represents the main maternal risk with expectant management of PPROM. In our study. In line with previous studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref29">29</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref30">30</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref31">31</xref>], we found that chorioamnionitis was mainly the maternal complication during the latency period, and endometritis was the most observed in postpartum period. Indeed, maternal risks with expectant management of PPROM includes chorioamnionitis (13% - 60%), endometritis (2% - 13%), sepsis (&lt;1%), and maternal death (1 - 2 cases per 1000) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref29">29</xref>]. Infection may be associated with PPROM as a cause or consequence. Often, infection before PPROM is subclinical [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref26">26</xref>] and is thought to originate in the lower reproductive tract [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref32">32</xref>]. Following rupture of membranes, previous studies reported that ascending bacterial invasion can lead to intrauterine infection in up to 60% of cases without antibacterial treatment [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref33">33</xref>]. Therefore, better quality and use of ANC services (early detection risk factor of PPROM), maternal infectious screening, and antibiotic prophylaxis during expectant management might be critical in preventing and controlling the infection.</p><p>Neonatal complications in PPROM are primarily related to the gestational age at rupture of membranes and ascending infection [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref34">34</xref>]. We observed a high frequency of neonatal death, mainly caused by neonatal infection with Maternal Infection in the early neonatal period. Moreover, the risk of neonatal death increased in patients who did not attend ANC appointments in infected women during the latency period, when the newborn weight was less than 1000 g, and when the age at birth varied between 28 and 30 weeks. Our results align with Caughey AB et al. (2), reporting a 4-fold increase in perinatal mortality and a 3-fold increase in neonatal morbidity associated with PPROM. Newborns may acquire early-onset neonatal infection from endogenous bacteria in the mother’s reproductive tract, which can cause disease in the newborn [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref35">35</xref>]. These ascending infections may occur before or during labor. After crossing through the vaginal canal, and amniotic sac, colonized bacteria from the maternal urogenital tract spread into the amniotic fluid [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref36">36</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118773-ref37">37</xref>].</p><p>This study has some limitations. Due to their limited incomes, some patients couldn’t complete all the required laboratory explorations, increasing our difficulties in analyzing biological results. However, this is the first large study assessing the impact of the conservative management of PROM in our setting, demonstrating the beneficial effect of that attitude on maternal and newborn outcomes.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>In the university hospital of Kinshasa, the expectant management of PROM before 34 weeks allowed the prolongation of pregnancies, which could have positively affected pregnancy outcomes by reducing the risks related to prematurity. However, efforts to limit infectious complications that arise during the hospitalization of these premature babies remain needed. Moreover, awareness of communities on the importance of routine and timely ANC attendance could allow the early diagnosis and management of PROM. Further studies are required 1) to explore the challenges faced by women who visited ANC clinics and barriers to utilization of ANC among pregnant women; 2) to assess the impact of ANC attendance on PROM and related outcomes.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Ethical Consideration</title><p>The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the School of Public Health, Kinshasa University, D.R. Congo, and patient consent was not necessary since it was a retrospective study.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Authors’ Contributions</title><p>M.R.M was involved in conceptualization, funding acquisition, supervision, validation, Writing-review editing; M.A.M. performed the investigation, Data curation, formal analysis, Writing-original draft; M.A.M., L.A.J, K.K.B. and S.M. performed Data curation, Validation, Visualization, MAM was involved in the Methodology, Formal analysis, Software; TUA was in charge of Project administration, Resources, Supervision; BT supervised the Data curation, Validation, Visualization, Supervision; and K.P.M. prepared the draft manuscript, K.P.M. was involved in Data curation, Validation, Visualization, Writing-original draft, Writing-review editing.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Declaration of Competing Interest</title><p>The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.</p></sec><sec id="s9"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Mwimba, R.M., Mulaila, A.M., Ambis, J.L., Muela, A.M., Umba, A.T., Nsiangangu, B.K., Azama, M.S., Bakambuvua, T.B. and Muyayalo, K.P. (2022) Expectant Management of Preterm Ruptured Membranes before 34 Gestational Weeks at the University Hospital of Kinshasa, a Tertiary Referral Hospital in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 12, 633-648. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojog.2022.127057</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.118773-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Romero, R., Miranda, J., Chaemsaithong, P., Chaiworapongsa, T., Kusanovic, J.P., Dong, Z., et al. (2015) Sterile and Microbial-Associated Intra-Amniotic Inflammation in Preterm Prelabor Rupture of Membranes. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal &amp; Neonatal Medicine, 28, 1394-1409. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2014.958463</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Caughey, A.B., Robinson, J.N. and Norwitz, E.R. (2008) Contemporary Diagnosis and Management of Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes. Review in Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology, 1, 11-22.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Schmitz, T., Sentilhes, L., Lorthe, E., Gallot, D., Madar, H., Doret-Dion, M., et al. (2018) Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes: CNGOF Guidelines for Clinical Practice—Short Version. Gynécologie Obstétrique Fertilité &amp; Sénologie, 46, 998-1003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gofs.2018.10.016</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Blondel, B., Lelong, N., Kermarrec, M., Goffinet, F. and National Coordination Group of the National Perinatal Surveys (2012) Trends in Perinatal Health in France from 1995 to 2010. Results from the French National Perinatal Surveys. Journal de Gynécologie Obstétrique et Biologie de la Reproduction, 41, e1-e15.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgyn.2012.04.014</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yasmina, A. and Barakat, A. (2017) Prelabour Rupture of Membranes (PROM) at Term: Prognostic Factors and Neonatal Consequences. The Pan African Medical Journal, 26, Article No. 68. https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2017.26.68.11568</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pasquier, J.C. and Bujold, E. (2007) A Systematic Review of Intentional Delivery in Women with Preterm Prelabor Rupture of Membranes. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal &amp; Neonatal Medicine, 20, 567-568.  
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767050701412651</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chescheir, N. and Menard, M.K. (2012) Scheduled Deliveries: Avoiding Iatrogenic Prematurity. American Journal of Perinatology, 29, 27-34.  
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1285830</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hackenhaar, A.A., Albernaz, E.P. and da Fonseca, T.M. (2014) Preterm Premature Rupture of the Fetal Membranes: Association with Sociodemographic Factors and Maternal Genitourinary Infections. Jornal de Pediatria, 90, 197-202.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2013.08.003</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kenyon, S., Boulvain, M. and Neilson, J. (2003) Antibiotics for Preterm Rupture of Membranes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, No. 2, Article No. CD001058.  
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001058</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kayem, G. and Maillard, F. (2009) Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes: Active or Expectant Management? Gynécologie Obstétrique &amp; Fertilité, 37, 334-341.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gyobfe.2009.03.007</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Medina, T.M. and Hill, D.A. (2006) Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes: Diagnosis and Management. American Family Physician, 73, 659-664.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Magis, R. and Ducel, G. (1997) L’appréciation du risque et sa gestion. Techniques Hospitalières No. 617. 47-52.  
https://bdsp-ehesp.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=144071</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Patras, K.A. and Nizet, V. (2018) Group B Streptococcal Maternal Colonization and Neonatal Disease: Molecular Mechanisms and Preventative Approaches. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 6, Article No. 27. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2018.00027</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Slogrove, A.L., Goetghebuer, T., Cotton, M.F., Singer, J. and Bettinger, J.A. (2016) Pattern of Infectious Morbidity in HIV-Exposed Uninfected Infants and Children. Frontiers in Immunology, 7, Article No. 164.  
https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2016.00164</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Spaetgens, R., DeBella, K., Ma, D., Robertson, S., Mucenski, M. and Davies, H.D. (2002) Perinatal Antibiotic Usage and Changes in Colonization and Resistance Rates of Group B Streptococcus and Other Pathogens. Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology, 100, 525-533. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006250-200209000-00020</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bouchghoul, H., Kayem, G., Schmitz, T., Benachi, A., Sentilhes, L., Dussaux, C., et al. (2019) Outpatient versus Inpatient Care for Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes before 34 Weeks of Gestation. Scientific Reports, 9, Article No. 4280.  
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-40585-8</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mercer, B.M. (2003) Preterm Premature Rupture of the Membranes. Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology, 101, 178-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(02)02366-9</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Shree, R., Caughey, A.B. and Chandrasekaran, S. (2018) Short Interpregnancy Interval Increases the Risk of Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes and Early Delivery. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal &amp; Neonatal Medicine, 31, 3014-3020.  
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1362384</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Roberts, C.L., Wagland, P., Torvaldsen, S., Bowen, J.R., Bentley, J.P. and Morris, J.M. (2017) Childhood Outcomes Following Preterm Prelabor Rupture of the Membranes (PPROM): A Population-Based Record Linkage Cohort Study. Journal of Perinatology, 37, 1230-1235. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2017.123</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Schaaf, J.M., Mol, B.W., Abu-Hanna, A. and Ravelli, A.C. (2011) Trends in Preterm Birth: Singleton and Multiple Pregnancies in the Netherlands, 2000-2007. BJOG, 118, 1196-1204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03010.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mercer, B.M., Goldenberg, R.L., Meis, P.J., Moawad, A.H., Shellhaas, C., Das, A., et al. (2000) The Preterm Prediction Study: Prediction of Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes through Clinical Findings and Ancillary Testing. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 183, 738-745.  
https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2000.106766</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Parry, S. and Strauss, J.F. (1998) Premature Rupture of the Fetal Membranes. New England Journal of Medicine, 338, 663-670.  
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199803053381006</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">United Nations (2011) The Millennium Development Goals Report 2011. United Nation, New York.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Manuck, T.A., Rice, M.M., Bailit, J.L., Grobman, W.A., Reddy, U.M., Wapner, R.J., et al. (2016) Preterm Neonatal Morbidity and Mortality by Gestational Age: A Contemporary Cohort. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 215, 103.e1-e14.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Walker, M.W., Picklesimer, A.H., Clark, R.H., Spitzer, A.R. and Garite, T.J. (2014) Impact of Duration of Rupture of Membranes on Outcomes of Premature Infants. Journal of Perinatology, 34, 669-672. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2014.73</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lee, J., Romero, R., Kim, S.M., Chaemsaithong, P., Park, C.W., Park, J.S., Jun, J.K. and Yoon, B.H. (2016) A New Anti-Microbial Combination Prolongs the Latency Period, Reduces Acute Histologic Chorioamnionitis as Well as Funisitis, and Improves Neonatal Outcomes in Preterm PROM. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal &amp; Neonatal Medicine, 29, 707-720. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2015.1020293</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Waters, T.P. and Mercer, B. (2011) Preterm PROM: Prediction, Prevention, Principles. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 54, 307-312.  
https://doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0b013e318217d4d3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Buchanan, S., Crowther, C. and Morris, J. (2004) Preterm Prelabour Rupture of the Membranes: A Survey of Current Practice. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 44, 400-403.  
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-828X.2004.00256.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jazayeri, A. (2018, October 5) Premature Rupture of Membranes. 
https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/261137-overview</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Herbreteau, C. (2010) Rupture prématurée des membranes avant 34 semaines d’aménorrhée: étude de la flore vaginale chez les patientes hospitalisées en grossesse à haut risque. France Université de Nantes, Nantes.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Paumier, A., Gras-Leguen, C., Branger, B., Boog, G., Roze, J.C., Philippe, H.J., et al. (2008) Premature Rupture of Membranes before 32 Weeks of Gestation: Prenatal Prognosis Factors. Gynécologie Obstétrique &amp; Fertilité, 36, 748-756.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gyobfe.2008.04.020</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Menon, R. and Richardson, L.S. (2017) Preterm Prelabor Rupture of the Membranes: A Disease of the Fetal Membranes. Seminars in Perinatology, 41, 409-419.  
https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semperi.2017.07.012</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lorthe, E. (2018) Epidemiology, Risk Factors and Child Prognosis: CNGOF Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes Guidelines. Gynécologie Obstétrique Fertilité &amp; Sénologie, 46, 1004-1021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gofs.2018.10.019</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mercer, B.M. (1998) Management of Preterm Premature Rupture of the Membranes. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 41, 870-882.  
https://doi.org/10.1097/00003081-199812000-00011</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chan, G.J., Lee, A.C., Baqui, A.H., Tan, J. and Black, R.E. (2013) Risk of Early-Onset Neonatal Infection with Maternal Infection or Colonization: A Global Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLOS Medicine, 10, Article ID: e1001502.  
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001502</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Al-Adnani, M. and Sebire, N.J. (2007) The Role of Perinatal Pathological Examination in Subclinical Infection in Obstetrics. Best Practice &amp; Research Clinical Obstetrics &amp; Gynaecology, 21, 505-521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2007.02.001</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118773-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ayengar, V., Madhulika and Vani, S.N. (1991) Neonatal Sepsis Due to Vertical Transmission from Maternal Genital Tract. The Indian Journal of Pediatrics, 58, 661-664. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02820186.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>