How should we interpret lactate in labour? A reference study

11Citations
Citations of this article
38Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: To investigate maternal lactate concentrations in labour and the puerperium. Design: Reference study. Setting: Tertiary obstetric unit. Population: 1279 pregnant women with good perinatal outcomes at term. Methods: Electronic patient records were searched for women who had lactate measured on the day of delivery or in the following 24 hours, but who were subsequently found to have a very low likelihood of sepsis, based on their outcomes. Main outcome measures: The normative distribution of lactate and C-reactive protein (CRP), differences according to the mode of birth, and the proportion of results above the commonly used cut-offs (≥2 and ≥4 mmol/l). Results: Lactate varied between 0.4–5.4 mmol/l (median 1.8 mmol/l, interquartile range [IQR] 1.3–2.5). It was higher in women who had vaginal deliveries than caesarean sections (median 1.9 vs. 1.6 mmol/l, pdiff < 0.001), demonstrating the association with labour (particularly active pushing in the second stage). In contrast, CRP was more elevated in women who had caesarean sections (median 71.8 mg/l) than those who had vaginal deliveries (33.4 mg/l, pdiff < 0.001). In total, 40.8% had a lactate ≥2 mmol/l, but 95.3% were <4 mmol/l. Conclusions: Lactate in labour and the puerperium is commonly elevated above the levels expected in healthy pregnant or non-pregnant women. There is a paucity of evidence to support using lactate or CRP to make decisions about antibiotics around the time of delivery but, as lactate is rarely higher than 4 mmol/l, this upper limit may still represent a useful severity marker for the investigation and management of sepsis in labour.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Dockree, S., O’Sullivan, J., Shine, B., James, T., & Vatish, M. (2022). How should we interpret lactate in labour? A reference study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 129(13), 2150–2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17264

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free