Mg. Neerhof et al., Lamellar body counts compared with traditional phospholipid analysis as anassay for evaluating fetal lung maturity, OBSTET GYN, 97(2), 2001, pp. 305-309
Objective: To compare lamellar body counts with the lecithin/sphingomyelin
ratio and phosphatidylglycerol analysis in terms of assessment of risk of r
espiratory distress syndrome (RDS).
Methods: Lamellar body counts, lecithin-sphingomyelin ratios (L/Ss), and ph
osphatidylglycerol levels were assessed in 1611 amniotic fluid samples obta
ined at four clinical sites from pregnant women whose fetuses were at risk
for RDS. Cases in which delivery occurred within 72 hours of sample collect
ion (n = 833) were analyzed. Specific cutoffs for predicting the likelihood
of RDS for both the lamellar body count and the LIS had been derived previ
ously at each of the clinical sites based on receiver operating characteris
tic curves using unrelated samples, whereas phosphatidylglycerol was report
ed as either mature (present) or immature (absent). Standard clinical and r
adiographic criteria were used to diagnose RDS, and the diagnosis was confi
rmed by review of newborn records.
Results: One hundred (12.0%) of the 833 infants delivered within 72 hours o
f sample collection developed RDS. The negative predictive value of the lam
ellar body count (97.7%) was similar to that of the CIS (96.8%) and slightl
y better than that of phosphatidylglycerol analysis (94.7%) (P =.048). The
lamellar body count performed as well as phospholipid analysis irrespective
of gestational age or patient population.
Conclusion: The lamellar body count compares favorably with traditional pho
spholipid analysis as an assay for assessment of fetal lung maturity. Lamel
lar body counts are preferable because they are faster, more objective, les
s labor intensive, less technique dependent, and less expensive and because
they can be performed with equipment available in every hospital laborator
y. (Obstet Gynecol 2001;97;305-9. (C) 2001 by The American College of Obste
tricians and Gynecologists.).