4.5 Article

Relation between abdominal subcutaneous fat tissue thickness and inflammatory markers during pregnancy

期刊

ARCHIVES OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 739-745

出版社

TERMEDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE LTD
DOI: 10.5114/aoms.2014.44865

关键词

pregnancy; adipose tissue; inflammation; subcutaneous fat tissue

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Subcutaneous abdominal fat thickness (SCFT) is important for predisposition to metabolic and cardiovascular diseases. Our aim was to evaluate maternal SCFT and metabolic changes (such as insulin resistance and high inflammatory markers) during pregnancy. Material and methods: A total of 92 pregnant women between 24-28 weeks of gestation were enrolled in the study. The SCFT was measured by ultrasonography and patients were divided into 2 groups according to thickness of maternal SCFT and body mass index (BMI). Groups were compared with each other for oral glucose loading test (OGL) results, and for haematological, biochemical and fetal biometric parameters. Results: After analysis of frequency for SCFT, the most appropriate cut-off value for grouping patients was found to be 15 mm for SCFT. In 48 cases SCFT was over 15 mm. High C reactive protein (CRP) was found in 47.9% (23) of cases with SCFT over 15 mm. Serum haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) level was significantly correlated with SCFT thickness. The most important factors for determination of OGL level were found to be serum HbA(1c) level, BMI and SCFT In obese subjects (BMI >= 25 kg/m(2)), levels of inflammatory markers and SCFT thickness were higher. The CRP and gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT) levels were significantly correlated with BMI and SCFT. Conclusions: High SCFT during pregnancy is associated with elevated inflammatory marker levels and HbA(1c). Pregnant women with thicker SCFT may be susceptible to the development of metabolic complications of pregnancy, such as gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and hypertension, as well as risk of future metabolic and cardiovascular disease.

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

4.5
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