Original ContributionLaboratory-confirmed gonorrhea and/or chlamydia rates in clinically diagnosed pelvic inflammatory disease and cervicitis
Introduction
Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is an infection that starts in the vagina and ascends into the uterus, fallopian tubes, and potentially into the peritoneal cavity [1]. It is a polymicrobial process classically associated with a sexually transmitted infection such as Neisseria gonorrhea (GC) or Chlamydia trachomatis (CT). Prior studies have documented the rates of GC/CT recovered from tubo-ovarian abscesses at laparoscopy as high as 77% [2]. This association with GC/CT is reflected in the choice of antibiotics recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for empiric treatment of PID. Often, PID is preceded by an isolated cervicitis that can ascend into the upper genital tract during menstruation or douching [3], [4]. Currently, it is estimated that 750 000 American women experience acute PID each year, and 75 000 become infertile because of it [5]. A large portion of ectopic pregnancies are caused by fallopian tube scarring from prior PID. The literature describes primary epidemics of GC and CT, followed by secondary epidemics of PID. The term tertiary epidemic has been used to refer to the expected surge in ectopic pregnancies after the PID outbreak [6].
The CDC sets guidelines for the diagnosis of PID (Table 1) [7]. The classic doctrine in medical education stresses the need for a low threshold for diagnosing and treating PID. In general practice, a female with lower abdominal pain and tenderness on bimanual pelvic examination without an alternate explanation (appendicitis, diverticulitis, cystitis, etc) is often given a clinical diagnosis of PID. However, cervical motion, uterine, and adnexal tenderness are physical examination findings with a significant subjective component. The criterion standard for PID diagnosis is identification of purulent salpingitis on laparoscopy; however, this is a highly invasive and resource-intense procedure that is very infrequently performed in the modern era of medicine [8]. The challenge for the emergency physician lies in the fact that most of the diagnostic criteria are clinically based, subjective, or nonspecific. It is known that the clinical diagnosis of PID is imprecise [9].
Currently, polymerase chain reaction tests of cervical or vaginal samples are most commonly performed to evaluate GC or CT infection. Polymerase chain reaction–based tests are a form of nuclear acid amplification technology with sensitivities and negative predictive values of more than 95% for both GC and CT; however, the results are not immediately available (turnaround time is 2-3 days at many institutions) [10], [11]. This limits the utility of this diagnostic test for the emergency physician who is deciding on an empiric antibiotic treatment for an individual patient.
Determining if an individual patient has subjective physical examination findings that meet the CDC case definition of PID can be a challenge. Even when the CDC minimum criteria are met, the specificity for PID is only 22% [9]. Undertreatment of PID may yield a significant morbidity to the individual patient; however, false-positive diagnoses may contribute to antibiotic resistant organisms. In 2006, the CDC discontinued the recommendation for using quinolones in PID treatment, given the unacceptably high rates of quinolone resistant GC.
There have been no studies that have looked at the correlation between clinically diagnosed PID or cervicitis and positive laboratory studies for GC/CT in the emergency department (ED) population. Prior studies have examined the rate of positive culture results from laparoscopically drained tubo-ovarian abscesses; however, this is not very useful to the emergency physician at the bedside [12]. Our study attempts to add to the knowledge base by examining the rates of laboratory-confirmed GC/CT in patients clinically diagnosed with PID or cervicitis in an urban ED. Secondary goals are to determine which of the clinical criteria were present in the individuals diagnosed with PID who tested positive for GC/CT.
Section snippets
Methods
This study is a retrospective chart review. It was approved by our institutional review board. We identified as key variables the results of laboratory studies for GC/CT that were performed on patients clinically diagnosed with PID or cervicitis. Secondary variables that we studied included physical examination findings in these patients and results of radiographic and laboratory investigations.
This study was conducted in the ED of an academic, urban trauma center that hosts an emergency
Results
A total of 1469 patients were diagnosed with cervicitis, and 343 patients were diagnosed with PID. Of the patients with cervicitis, 1.8% (27/1469) were GC positive and 9.3% (136/1469) were CT positive. Patients diagnosed with PID had a 4.4% (15/343) rate of positive GC and 10% (34/343) rate for CT. Coinfection with both organisms was documented in 1.8% (26/1469) of the patients with cervicitis and 2.6% (9/343) of the patients with PID (see Fig. 1). For the 58 patients diagnosed with PID who
Discussion
Pelvic inflammatory disease is a serious infection that can lead to future infertility and ectopic pregnancy. Due to the complications that can arise from untreated infections, guidelines that encourage aggressive treatment for patients who present with signs and symptoms of PID have been established. Unfortunately, there is currently no physical examination finding or radiographic study with sufficiently high sensitivity to exclude this diagnosis. Although GC and CT are the most common
Conclusion
There is a generally low prevalence of GC and CT in this ED population diagnosed with cervicitis or PID. There is a very low prevalence of coinfection.
Acknowledgments
Health Partners Institute for Medical Education provided an internal grant of $2000 for this project.
References (14)
- et al.
Pelvic inflammatory disease and tubo-ovarian abscess
Infect Dis Clin North Am
(2008) - et al.
Chlamydia trachomatis as a possible cause of peritonitis and perihepatitis in a young woman
Br J Vener Dis
(1980) - et al.
Observations concerning the microbial etiology of acute salpingitis
Obstet Gynecol Surv
(1994) - et al.
Douching and endometritis: results from the PID Evaluation and Clinical Health (PEACH) study
Sex Transm Dis
(2001) - et al.
The occurrence of chlamydial and gonococcal salpingitis during the menstrual cycle
JAMA
(1986) Pelvic inflammatory disease fact sheet
- et al.
Pelvic inflammatory disease epidemiology: what do we know and what do we need to know?
Sex Transm Infect
(2000)