3.8 Article

Case Control Study to Compare Serum Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) Level in Women with Recurrent Pregnancy Loss (RPL) Compared to Women with Term Pregnancy

Journal

JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY OF INDIA
Volume 69, Issue SUPPL 2, Pages S95-S102

Publisher

SPRINGER INDIA
DOI: 10.1007/s13224-018-1097-5

Keywords

Recurrent pregnancy loss; Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF); Antiphospholipid syndrome

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is defined as three or more spontaneous pregnancy losses before the 20th week of gestation or fetal weight of < 500 gm from the last menstrual period. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is essential for implantation, development of embryo and placental angiogenesis. Women with low VEGF level are believed to be at higher risk of RPL. Objective To measure the level of VEGF in women with RPL and compare it with women with 1 or more successful pregnancies. Methods This is a Case control study carried out in King George Medical University, Lucknow from August 2015 to 2016. Participants sample size was 60 women. Thirty women with 3 or more spontaneous abortions were included as cases, and 30 women with at least 1 successful term pregnancy were controls. Serum VEGF level was analyzed using ELISA kit. Main outcome measured: 1. Serum VEGF level in the two groups. 2. Serum VEGF level in different underlying etiologies in women with RPL. Results Mean VEGF level was 105.3 pg/mL in RPL cases, while it was 156.8 pg/mL in fertile controls. (p = 0.01). VEGF level was 86.2 pg/mL in patients with anatomical defects, 109 pg/mL in APLA syndrome, 85.1 pg/mL in hypothyroidism and 122.2 pg/mL in unexplained RPL. Conclusion The mean serum VEGF level was significantly lower in women with recurrent pregnancy loss compared with women with successful term pregnancy, implicating its role in maintaining pregnancy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available