4.0 Article

Subfoveal Choroidal Thickness in Preeclampsia: Comparison with Normal Pregnant and Nonpregnant Women

期刊

SEMINARS IN OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 29, 期 1, 页码 11-17

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.3109/08820538.2013.839813

关键词

Preeclampsia; pregnancy; subfoveal choroidal thickness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To compare the subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT) in preeclampsia, normal pregnancy, and nonpregnant women using enhanced depth imaging optical coherence tomography (EDI-OCT). Methods: One hundred nineteen volunteers were enrolled in this prospective and comparative study. The participants were divided into three groups: group 1 (33 preeclamptic women), group 2 (46 normal pregnant), and group 3 (40 non-pregnant healthy women). The SFCT was measured by EDI-OCT. The refractive error, intraocular pressure (IOP), axial length (AL), central corneal thickness (CCT), systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and ocular perfusion pressure (OPP) were also measured. Medical records of pregnant women, including gestational age, maternal weight gain, weight, and proteinuria, were noted. Results: Mean SFCT of groups 1, 2, and 3 were 333.8 +/- 55.3 mu m (range 235-440 mu m), 368.6 +/- 67.6 mu m (range 223-517 mu m), and 334.8 +/- 59.9 mu m (range 197-432 mu m), respectively. The mean SFCT was thicker in group 2 than that in groups 1 and 3 (p = 0.045 and p = 0.038, respectively), whereas no significant difference was seen between groups 1 and 3 (p = 1.0). In group 1, SFCT showed a negative correlation with the CCT (p = 0.009, r = -0.493). In group 2, SFCT showed a positive correlation with OPP (p = 0.030, r = 0.321) and a negative correlation with gestational age and fetal weight (p = 0.008, r = -0.387 and p = 0.011, r = -0.373, respectively). Conclusion: Our results suggested that SFCT was significantly thicker in normal pregnant women than non-pregnant women. However, SFCT values of preeclamptic women were similar to those of non-pregnant women.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据