4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Cardiac dysfunction and cell damage across clinical stages of severity in growth-restricted fetuses

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.06.056

关键词

cardiac function; Doppler ultrasound; heart fatty acid binding protein; intrauterine growth restriction; myocardial damage

资金

  1. MRC [G0700288, G0601295] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [G0700288, G0601295] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. British Heart Foundation [RG/09/001/25940] Funding Source: Medline
  4. Medical Research Council [G0601295, G0700288] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess cardiac function and cell damage in intrauterine growth-restricted ( IUGR) fetuses across clinical Doppler stages of deterioration. STUDY DESIGN: One hundred twenty appropriate-for-gestational-age and 81 IUGR fetuses were classified in stages 1/2/3 according umbilical artery present/absent/reversed end-diastolic blood flow, respectively. Cardiac function was assessed by modified-myocardial performance index, early-to-late diastolic filling ratios, cardiac output, and cord blood B-type natriuretic peptide; myocardial cell damage was assessed by heart fatty acid binding protein, troponin-I, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. RESULTS: Modified-myocardial performance index, blood B-type natriuretic peptide, and early-to-late diastolic filling ratios were increased in a stage-dependent manner in IUGR fetuses, compared with appropriate-for- gestational-age fetuses. Heart fatty acid-binding protein levels were higher in IUGR fetuses at stage 3, compared with control fetuses. Cardiac output, troponin-I, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein did not increase in IUGR fetuses at any stage. CONCLUSION: IUGR fetuses showed signs of cardiac dysfunction from early stages. Cardiac dysfunction deteriorates further with the progression of fetal compromise, together with the appearance of biochemical signs of cell damage.

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