4.4 Article

First trimester screening for intra-uterine growth restriction and early-onset pre-eclampsia

Journal

PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS
Volume 31, Issue 10, Pages 955-961

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pd.2807

Keywords

placental growth factor; pregnancy-associated-plasma-protein-A; pre-eclampsia; intra-uterine growth restriction; screening

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To assess first trimester placental growth factor (PlGF) and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) as screening markers for early-onset pre-eclampsia (PE) and intra-uterine growth restriction (IUGR). Methods PlGF concentration was retrospectively measured in first trimester serum specimens of 23 cases of early-onset PE (<34 weeks), 26 cases of IUGR (birth weight <5th centile) and 5 controls per case. Levels were adjusted for gestational age (GA), ethnicity and smoking to obtain multiples of the expected median (MoM). Logistic regression was used to assess PlGF, PAPP-A and maternal characteristics as potential predictors of early-onset PE and IUGR. Results PlGF MoM levels were significantly lower in the early-onset PE group (P < 0.0001) compared with controls, but not in the IUGR group. PAPP-A MoM levels were significantly lower in the IUGR group (P < 0.01) compared with controls but not in the early-onset PE group. PlGF significantly improved the ability of systolic blood pressure at the first prenatal visit to predict early-onset PE [achieving a receiver-operating characteristics curve with area under the curve (AUC) of 0.8]. Combining systolic blood pressure at the first prenatal visit and PlGF did not significantly improve the predictive ability compared with PlGF alone (AUC = 0.83). Conclusion Serum PlGF is an acceptable marker in first trimester screening for early-onset PE, but a poor marker in screening for IUGR. Screening performance of serum PAPP-A is poor for both early-onset PE and IUGR. Copyright (C) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available