European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology · 2016
The sFlt-1/PlGF ratio associates with prolongation and adverse outcome of pregnancy in women with (suspected) preeclampsia: analysis of a high-risk cohort.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Saleh Langeza, Verdonk Koen, Jan Danser A H, Steegers Eric A P, Russcher Henk, van den Meiracker Anton H, Visser Willy
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the additive value of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio for diagnosing preeclampsia (PE) and predicting prolongation of pregnancy and adverse outcome in a cohort of women with PE or at high risk of PE.
STUDY DESIGN: Patients with suspected or confirmed clinical PE were recruited. At time of inclusion blood for measurement of sFlt-1and PlGF was taken. Values were determined after delivery. A cut-off ratio of ≥85 was defined as a positive test.
RESULTS: A total of 107 patients were included. Of the patients, 62 (58%) met the clinical criteria of PE at time of blood sampling. In 10% of these patients (n=6) the ratio was <85 (false negative), whereas in 7% (n=3) of patients without clinical PE the ratio was ≥85 (false positive), resulting in positive and negative predictive values of 95% and 88% respectively. One patient with false positive ratio developed superimposed PE and 2 developed gestational hypertension, and adverse outcome occurred in all three. An adverse pregnancy outcome was only encountered in 1 of the 6 patients with a false negative ratio. Using a binary regression model with adjustment for gestational age <34 weeks, the adverse outcome risk was 11 times increased on the basis of clinical PE, and 30 times on the basis of an elevated ratio (P=0.036).
CONCLUSION: The additive value of an increased ratio for diagnosing PE is limited since most patients with clinical PE also have a positive ratio. However, an elevated ratio is superior to the clinical diagnosis of PE for predicting an adverse pregnancy outcome. Furthermore, irrespective of clinical PE, a low ratio is inversely correlated with prolongation of pregnancy.
STUDY DESIGN: Patients with suspected or confirmed clinical PE were recruited. At time of inclusion blood for measurement of sFlt-1and PlGF was taken. Values were determined after delivery. A cut-off ratio of ≥85 was defined as a positive test.
RESULTS: A total of 107 patients were included. Of the patients, 62 (58%) met the clinical criteria of PE at time of blood sampling. In 10% of these patients (n=6) the ratio was <85 (false negative), whereas in 7% (n=3) of patients without clinical PE the ratio was ≥85 (false positive), resulting in positive and negative predictive values of 95% and 88% respectively. One patient with false positive ratio developed superimposed PE and 2 developed gestational hypertension, and adverse outcome occurred in all three. An adverse pregnancy outcome was only encountered in 1 of the 6 patients with a false negative ratio. Using a binary regression model with adjustment for gestational age <34 weeks, the adverse outcome risk was 11 times increased on the basis of clinical PE, and 30 times on the basis of an elevated ratio (P=0.036).
CONCLUSION: The additive value of an increased ratio for diagnosing PE is limited since most patients with clinical PE also have a positive ratio. However, an elevated ratio is superior to the clinical diagnosis of PE for predicting an adverse pregnancy outcome. Furthermore, irrespective of clinical PE, a low ratio is inversely correlated with prolongation of pregnancy.