4.6 Article

Antenatal placental assessment in the prediction of adverse pregnancy outcome after reduced fetal movement

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 13, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206533

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre pump-prime fellowship [HIGLa899]
  2. Action Medical Research Training Fellowship [GN2136]
  3. National Institute of Health Research Clinical Scientist fellowships [CS-13-009, CS-011-020]
  4. Tommy's -the Baby Charity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To assess the value of in utero placental assessment in predicting adverse pregnancy outcome after reported reduced fetal movements (RFM). Method A non-interventional prospective cohort study of women (N = 300) with subjective RFM at >= 28 weeks' gestation in singleton non-anomalous pregnancies at a UK tertiary maternity hospital. Clinical, sonographic (fetal weight, placental size and maternal, fetal and placental arterial Doppler) and biochemical (maternal serum hCG, hPL, progesterone, PIGF and sFlt-1) assessment was conducted. Multiple logistic regression identified combinations of measurements (models) most predictive of adverse pregnancy outcome (perinatal mortality, birth weight <10th centile, five minute Apgar score <7, umbilical arterial pH <7.1 or base excess <-10, neonatal intensive care admission). Models were compared by test performance characteristics (ROC curve, sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive value, positive/negative likelihood ratios) against baseline care (estimated fetal weight centile, amniotic fluid index and gestation at presentation). Results 61 (20.6%) pregnancies ended in adverse outcome. Models incorporating PIGF/sFlt-1 ratio and umbilical artery free loop Doppler impedance demonstrated modest improvement in ROC area for adverse outcome (baseline care 0.69 vs. proposed models 0.73-0.76, p<0.05). However, there was little improvement in other test characteristics (baseline vs. best proposed model: sensitivity 21.7% [95% confidence interval 13.1-33.6] vs. 35.8%% [24.4-49.3], specificity 96.6% [93.4-98.3] vs. 94.7% [90.7-97.0], PPV 61.9% [40.9-79.3] vs. 63.3% [45.5-78.1], NPV 82.8% [77.9-86.8] vs. 85.2% [80.0-89.2], positive LR 6.3 [2.814.6] vs. 6.7 [3.4-3.3], negative LR 0.81 [0.71-0.93] vs. 0.68 [0.55-0.83]) and wide confidence intervals. Negative post-test probability remained high (16.7% vs. 14.0%). Conclusion Antenatal placental assessment may improve identification of RFM pregnancies at highest risk of adverse pregnancy outcome but further work is required to understand and refine currently available outcome definitions and diagnostic techniques to improve clinical utility.

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

4.6
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