4.8 Article

Predictive Value of the sFlt-1:PlGF Ratio in Women with Suspected Preeclampsia

期刊

NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 374, 期 1, 页码 13-22

出版社

MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1414838

关键词

-

资金

  1. Roche Diagnostics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND The ratio of soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) to placental growth factor (PlGF) is elevated in pregnant women before the clinical onset of preeclampsia, but its predictive value in women with suspected preeclampsia is unclear. METHODS We performed a prospective, multicenter, observational study to derive and validate a ratio of serum sFlt-1 to PlGF that would be predictive of the absence or presence of preeclampsia in the short term in women with singleton pregnancies in whom preeclampsia was suspected (24 weeks 0 days to 36 weeks 6 days of gestation). Primary objectives were to assess whether low sFlt-1:PlGF ratios (at or below a derived cutoff) predict the absence of preeclampsia within 1 week after the first visit and whether high ratios (above the cutoff) predict the presence of preeclampsia within 4 weeks. RESULTS In the development cohort (500 women), we identified an sFlt-1:PlGF ratio cutoff of 38 as having important predictive value. In a subsequent validation study among an additional 550 women, an sFlt-1:PlGF ratio of 38 or lower had a negative predictive value (i.e., no preeclampsia in the subsequent week) of 99.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 97.9 to 99.9), with 80.0% sensitivity (95% CI, 51.9 to 95.7) and 78.3% specificity (95% CI, 74.6 to 81.7). The positive predictive value of an sFlt-1:PlGF ratio above 38 for a diagnosis of preeclampsia within 4 weeks was 36.7% (95% CI, 28.4 to 45.7), with 66.2% sensitivity (95% CI, 54.0 to 77.0) and 83.1% specificity (95% CI, 79.4 to 86.3). CONCLUSIONS An sFlt-1:PlGF ratio of 38 or lower can be used to predict the short-term absence of preeclampsia in women in whom the syndrome is suspected clinically. (Funded by Roche Diagnostics.)

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

4.8
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