medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2021, Number 01

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2021; 89 (01)

Hemodynamic variables of arterial stiffness in pregnant women and their relationship with low weight for gestational age

Flórez-Rios AM, Alzate-Giraldo J, Zuleta-Tobón JJ, Gallego-Vélez LI, Ascuntar-Tello J, Jaimes-Barragán FA

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 34-42
PDF size: 180.84 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To identify a maternal variable of arterial stiffness and a cut-off point that identifies neonates with low weight for gestational age, with a sensitivity› 75%.
Materials and Methods: Prospective cohort study, in a health institution in Medellín (Colombia) between April 2017 and February 2019. Patients ›15 years of age, with gestation ≤17 weeks were included. Pregnant women with chronic arterial hypertension, a fetus with malformations incompatible with life, multiple gestation, refusal to participate, or the development of a hypertensive disorder associated with pregnancy were excluded. The aortic enlargement index, pulse wave velocity, and central aortic systolic pressure were measured during pregnancy and their relationship with the presence of low weight for gestational age at birth was evaluated. The discrimination of the variables with respect to the outcome was carried out by means of the area under the curve (AUC ROC), in addition the model of generalized estimable equations was used for the difference between the “rate of change” of the variables.
Results: After a loss of 6.4% of the pregnant women, the follow-up of 1661 patients was completed, of which 18.1% corresponded to pregnant women with neonates with low weight for gestational age. When evaluating the AUC-ROC of the arterial stiffness variables, none of the cut-off points evaluated for each of the variables reached the expected sensitivity.
Conclusions: The variables of arterial stiffness evaluated seem not to be a useful tool to predict the risk of fetal growth deficit.


REFERENCES

  1. Unterscheider J, et al. Optimizing the definition of intrauterine growth restriction: the multicenter prospective PORTO Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 208 (4): 290 e1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.02.007.

  2. McCowan LM, et al. Evidence-based national guidelines for the management of suspected fetal growth restriction: comparison, consensus, and controversy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218 (2S): S855-S68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ajog.2017.12.004.

  3. Lausman A, et al. Screening, diagnosis, and management of intrauterine growth restriction. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2012; 34 (1): 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701- 2163(16)35129-5

  4. Osman MW, Mintu N, Eamonn B, Asma K, et al. Association between arterial stiffness and wave reflection with subsequent development of placental-mediated diseases during pregnancy: findings of a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hypertens. 2018; 36 (5): 1005-14. https:// doi.org/10.1097/HJH.0000000000001664.

  5. Albu AR, Anca AF, Horhoianu VV, Horhoianu IA. Predictive factors for intrauterine growth restriction. J Medicine life. 2014; 7 (2): 165-71.

  6. Figueras F, Gratacos E. Update on the diagnosis and classification of fetal growth restriction and proposal of a stage-based management protocol. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2014; 36(2):86-98. https://doi.org/10.1159/000357592.

  7. Karagiannis G, Akolekar R, Sarquis R, Wright D, et al. Prediction of small-for-gestation neonates from biophysical and biochemical markers at 11-13 weeks. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2011; 29 (2): 148-54. https://doi.org/10.1159/000321694

  8. Rodriguez A, Tuuli MG, Odibo AO. First-, Second-, and Third- Trimester Screening for Preeclampsia and Intrauterine Growth Restriction. Clin Lab Med. 2016; 36 (2): 331-51. 10.1016/j.cll.2016.01.007.

  9. Pay ASD, Froen JF, Staff AC, Jacobson B. Symphysis-fundus measurement - the predictive value of a new reference curve. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2017; 137 (10): 717-20. 10.4045/tidsskr.16.1022.

  10. Departamento de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación COLCIENCIAS, Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social. Guía de Práctica Clínica para la prevención, detección temprana y tratamiento del embarazo, parto o puerperio. 2013. https://www.minsalud.gov.co/sites/rid/Lists/Biblioteca- Digital/RIDE/INEC/IETS/Gu%C3%ADa.completa.Embarazo. Parto.2013.pdf.

  11. Tomimatsu T, Fujime M, Kanayama T, et al. Abnormal pressure-wave reflection in pregnant women with chronic hypertension: association with maternal and fetal outcomes. Hypertens Res. 2014; 37 (11): 989-92. https://doi. org/10.1038/hr.2014.109.

  12. Khalil A, Sodre D, Syngelaki A, Akolekar R, et al. Maternal hemodynamics at 11-13 weeks of gestation in pregnancies delivering small for gestational age neonates. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2012; 32 (4): 231-8. https://doi. org/10.1159/000339480.

  13. Reference Values for Arterial Stiffness’ Collaboration. Determinants of pulse wave velocity in healthy people and in the presence of cardiovascular risk factors: ‘establishing normal and reference values’. Eur Heart J. 2010; 31 (19): 2338-50. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehq165

  14. Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Harrist RB, Park SK, et al. Computer assisted analysis of fetal age in the third trimester using multiple fetal growth parameters. J Clin Ultrasound. 1983; 11 (6): 313-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.1870110605

  15. Papageorghiou AT, Kennedy SH, Salomon LJ, Altman DG, et al. The INTERGROWTH-21(st) fetal growth standards: toward the global integration of pregnancy and pediatric care. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218 (2S): S630-S40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.01.011




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com