4.4 Article

Placental vascular lesions differ between male and female fetuses in early-onset preeclampsia

期刊

ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS
卷 306, 期 3, 页码 717-722

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-021-06328-9

关键词

Preeclampsia; Placental pathology; Placental insufficiency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that women with preeclampsia have a higher rate of MVM lesions in placental histopathology compared to men, indicating a sex-specific difference in placental pathophysiological adaptation in early preeclampsia.
Purpose A growing body of evidence accumulate pointing to sex-specific differences in placental adaptation to pregnancy complications. We aimed to study if there is a difference in placental histopathology lesions, between female and male fetuses in pregnancies complicated with preeclampsia. Methods The medical files of all patients with preeclampsia, were reviewed. Placental lesions were classified to lesions related to maternal or fetal malperfusion lesions (MVM, FVM), vascular and villous changes, and inflammatory lesions. Comparison was performed between the male and the female groups. Results The study included 441 preeclamptic patients. Women in the male preeclampsia group (n = 225) had higher rate of chronic hypertension (p = 0.05) and diabetes mellitus (p < 0.005), while women in the female preeclampsia group (n = 216) had higher rate of thrombophilia. There were no between groups differences in neonatal outcome or placental histopathology lesions. The early preeclampsia cohort included 91 patients. Placentas from the female early preeclampsia group (n = 44) had more vascular changes related to MVM lesions (decidual arteriopathy), as compared to the male early preeclampsia group (n = 47), 50% vs. 25%, p = 0.01. Conclusions Higher rate of placental MVM lesions in the female as compared to male group correspond with sex-specific difference of placental pathophysiological adaptation, in early preeclampsia.

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

4.4
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