4.2 Article

Effect of viral load on pregnancy outcomes in chronic hepatitis B infection

期刊

JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY RESEARCH
卷 45, 期 9, 页码 1837-1842

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jog.14065

关键词

adverse neonatal outcome; adverse perinatal outcome; hepatitis B; pregnancy; viral load

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim This study aimed to evaluate perinatal and neonatal outcomes in pregnant women with chronic hepatitis B virus infection based on infection status and to identify cut-off values based on hepatitis B virus DNA viral load to predict composite adverse perinatal/neonatal outcomes. Methods Pregnant women with chronic hepatitis B virus who delivered at Hacettepe University between 2010 and 2018 were evaluated retrospectively. We included 95 patients. The patients were classified into two groups based on laboratory findings and viral load: group 1 (n = 63), immune inactive; and group 2 (n = 32), immune active. Maternal age, gravidity, parity, gestational week at birth, birth weight, 5th minute APGAR scores and composite perinatal and neonatal outcomes were compared between groups. Results Gestational week at birth, birth weight and 5th minute APGAR score in group 2 were lower than those in group 1 (P < 0.001, P < 0.005 and P < 0.001, respectively). The rates of composite adverse perinatal/neonatal outcome, preterm birth, fetal growth restriction, oligohydramnios, pre-eclampsia, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, small for gestational age and 5th minute APGAR score less than 7 were significantly higher in group 2 (P < 0.001). Hepatitis B virus DNA viral load of 17 515 IU/mL (72.7% sensitivity, 78.1% specificity) and 17 515 IU/mL (81.8% sensitivity, 80.8% specificity) were determined to be cut-off values for composite adverse perinatal and neonatal outcomes, respectively. Conclusion Care should be taken in patients with a viral load of greater than 17 515 IU/mL, and pregnancy should be postponed until the inactive phase of the disease for optimal results.

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

4.2
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