سه شنبه 28 فروردین 1403
[Archive]
دوره 8، شماره 4 - ( 4-1389 )
جلد 8 شماره 4 صفحات 172-167 |
برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Aali B S, Narooi S, Mojtabaean B, Nakhaee N. Screening utility of umbilical artery Doppler indices in patients with preeclampsia. IJRM 2010; 8 (4) :167-172
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-193-fa.html
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-193-fa.html
Screening utility of umbilical artery Doppler indices in patients with preeclampsia. International Journal of Reproductive BioMedicine. 1389; 8 (4) :167-172
چکیده: (2332 مشاهده)
Background: Doppler indices of umbilical artery are used as indicator of fetal well being.
Objective: To compare Doppler parameters of umbilical artery including pulsatility index (PI) and resistance index (RI) in patients with preeclampsia with those of normal pregnancies and to evaluate the diagnostic characteristics of these parameters in preeclampsia.
Materials and Methods: In a case control study, umbilical artery pulsatility and resistance indices were calculated at a free loop of umbilical cord in 25 preeclamptic patients and 75 uneventful pregnancies. Measurements were compared and diagnostic characteristics of the indices were determined. Results: Mean of pulsatility and resistance index were significantly higher in preeclampsia patients than the control group. Besides, patients with severe preeclampsia showed significantly higher values of PI and RI in comparison to those with mild preeclampsia. For PI, the cut-off of ≥0.98 yielded the highest sensitivity and specificity. Also, RI of 0.64 acquired a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 44%.
Conclusion: Umbilical artery pulsatility index and resistance index increase in preeclampsia and these changes tend to be greater in severe preeclampsia. Umbilical artery PI and RI seem to be more appropriate in excluding preeclampsia rather than confirming it, and we propose the cut-off values of 0.98 for PI and/or 0.64 for RI, to rule-out the disease.
Objective: To compare Doppler parameters of umbilical artery including pulsatility index (PI) and resistance index (RI) in patients with preeclampsia with those of normal pregnancies and to evaluate the diagnostic characteristics of these parameters in preeclampsia.
Materials and Methods: In a case control study, umbilical artery pulsatility and resistance indices were calculated at a free loop of umbilical cord in 25 preeclamptic patients and 75 uneventful pregnancies. Measurements were compared and diagnostic characteristics of the indices were determined. Results: Mean of pulsatility and resistance index were significantly higher in preeclampsia patients than the control group. Besides, patients with severe preeclampsia showed significantly higher values of PI and RI in comparison to those with mild preeclampsia. For PI, the cut-off of ≥0.98 yielded the highest sensitivity and specificity. Also, RI of 0.64 acquired a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 44%.
Conclusion: Umbilical artery pulsatility index and resistance index increase in preeclampsia and these changes tend to be greater in severe preeclampsia. Umbilical artery PI and RI seem to be more appropriate in excluding preeclampsia rather than confirming it, and we propose the cut-off values of 0.98 for PI and/or 0.64 for RI, to rule-out the disease.
نوع مطالعه: Original Article |
فهرست منابع
1. Divon MY, Ferber A. Umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry--an update. Semin Perinatol 2001; 25: 44-47. [DOI:10.1053/sper.2001.22892]
2. Cunningham FG, Hauth JC, Kenneth JL, Gilstrap L, Bloom SL, Wenstrom KD, eds. Williams Obstetrics. 22th Ed. 2005, McGraw-Hill: New York. 761-809.
3. Goldkrand JW, Moore DH, Lentz SU, Clements SP, Turner AD, Bryant JL. Volumetric flow in the umbilical artery: normative data. J Matern Fetal Med 2000; 9: 224-228.
https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6661(200007/08)9:4<224::AID-MFM7>3.0.CO;2-W [DOI:10.1002/1520-6661(200007/08)9:43.0.CO;2-W]
4. Acharya G, Wilsgaard T, Berntsen GK, Maltau JM, Kiserud T. Doppler indices in the second half of pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192: 937-944. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.09.019]
5. Hanson MA, Spencer J, Rodeck CH, eds. Fetus and Neonate, Physiology and Clinical Applications: The Circulation. Doppler Ultrasonography: applications in clinical practice, ed. T. Bj. 1993, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. 323-339.
6. Seyam YS, Al-Mahmeid MS, Al-Tamimi HK. Umbilical artery Doppler flow velocimetry in intrauterine growth restriction and its relation to perinatal outcome. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2002; 77: 131-137. [DOI:10.1016/S0020-7292(02)00027-9]
7. Baschat AA, Weiner CP. Umbilical artery doppler screening for detection of the small fetus in need of antepartum surveillance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 182:154-158. [DOI:10.1016/S0002-9378(00)70505-9]
8. Ertan AK, He JP, Hendrik HJ, Holländer M, Limbach HG, Schmidt W. [Reverse flow in fetal vessels and perinatal events]. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2004;208: 141-149. [DOI:10.1055/s-2004-827220]
9. Arauz JF, León JC, Velásquez PR, Jiménez GA, Pérez CJ. [Umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry and adverse perinatal outcome in severe pre-eclampsia]. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2008; 76: 440-449.
10. Chen J, Yu YH, Wang ZJ, Qin W, Zhang Q. Relationship between preeclampsia umbilical blood flow and perinatal outcomes. Nan fang yi ke da xue bao 2009; 29: 745-746.
11. Ozeren M, Dinç H, Ekmen U, Senekayli C, Aydemir V. Umbilical and middle cerebral artery Doppler indices in patients with preeclampsia. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1999; 82: 11-16. [DOI:10.1016/S0301-2115(98)00167-5]
12. Parra-Cordero M, Lees C, Missfelder-Lobos H, Seed P, Harris C. Fetal arterial and venous Doppler pulsatility index and time averaged velocity ranges. Prenat Diagn 2007; 27: 1251-1257. [DOI:10.1002/pd.1868]
13. Tchirikov M, Strohner M, Förster D, Hüneke B. A combination of umbilical artery PI and normalized blood flow volume in the umbilical vein: venous-arterial index for the prediction of fetal outcome. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009; 142: 129-133. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2008.10.015]
14. Chu K. An introduction to sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios. Emergency Medicine 1999; 11: 175-181. [DOI:10.1046/j.1442-2026.1999.00041.x]
15. Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Clinical Epidemiology: The Essentials. 4th Ed. 2005, Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
16. Swets J. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 1988; 240: 1285-1293. [DOI:10.1126/science.3287615]
17. Espallardo N. Decisions on diagnosis in family practice: Use of sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios. Asia Pacific Family Medicine 2003; 2: 229-232. [DOI:10.1111/j.1444-1683.2003.00095.x]
| بازنشر اطلاعات | |
 |
این مقاله تحت شرایط Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License قابل بازنشر است. |
