open access

Vol 89, No 12 (2018)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Obstetrics
Published online: 2018-12-28
Get Citation

An investigation of the effect of placental growth factor on intrapartum fetal compromise prediction in terminduced high risk pregnancies

Mehmet Şükrü Budak, Gülten Toprak, Sedat Akgöl, Mehmet Obut, Cemil Oglak, Ihsan Baglı, Ilker Kahramanoglu
DOI: 10.5603/GP.a2018.0118
·
Pubmed: 30618039
·
Ginekol Pol 2018;89(12):700-704.

open access

Vol 89, No 12 (2018)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Obstetrics
Published online: 2018-12-28

Abstract

Objectives: To date, there is no available test to predict the risk of intrapartum fetal compromise (IFC) during labor, either starting spontaneously or induced due to obstetrics indications. The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of placental growth factor (PIGF) in identifying cases that develop intrapartum fetal compromise (IFC) in term high-risk pregnancies induced for labor.
Material and methods: This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted on 40 IFC+ cases and 40 IFC- cases with
high-risk term pregnancy and labor induction started in the Health Sciences University Gazi Yaşargil Training and Research Hospital, between January 2018 and April 2018. Comparisons were made between the groups in respect of placental growth factor (PIGF) levels, and obstetric and neonatal outcomes.
Results: The PIGF level was found to be statistically significantly lower in the IFC+ cases compared to the IFC- cases. For a PIGF cutoff value of 32 pg/mL for the prediction of IFC+ cases, sensitivity was 74.4%, specificity 73.2%, NPV 75% and PPV 72.5%, with a statistically significant difference determined between the groups. The IFC+ development risk increased 7.91-fold in patients with PIGF ≤ 32 pg/mL.
Conclusions: The PIGF levels in cases of IFC+ high risk pregnancies were found to be statistically significantly lower than those of IFC- cases. However, further, large-scale randomized controlled research is necessary to demonstrate this relationship better.

Abstract

Objectives: To date, there is no available test to predict the risk of intrapartum fetal compromise (IFC) during labor, either starting spontaneously or induced due to obstetrics indications. The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of placental growth factor (PIGF) in identifying cases that develop intrapartum fetal compromise (IFC) in term high-risk pregnancies induced for labor.
Material and methods: This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted on 40 IFC+ cases and 40 IFC- cases with
high-risk term pregnancy and labor induction started in the Health Sciences University Gazi Yaşargil Training and Research Hospital, between January 2018 and April 2018. Comparisons were made between the groups in respect of placental growth factor (PIGF) levels, and obstetric and neonatal outcomes.
Results: The PIGF level was found to be statistically significantly lower in the IFC+ cases compared to the IFC- cases. For a PIGF cutoff value of 32 pg/mL for the prediction of IFC+ cases, sensitivity was 74.4%, specificity 73.2%, NPV 75% and PPV 72.5%, with a statistically significant difference determined between the groups. The IFC+ development risk increased 7.91-fold in patients with PIGF ≤ 32 pg/mL.
Conclusions: The PIGF levels in cases of IFC+ high risk pregnancies were found to be statistically significantly lower than those of IFC- cases. However, further, large-scale randomized controlled research is necessary to demonstrate this relationship better.

Get Citation

Keywords

term high-risk pregnancy; labor induction; placental growth factor; intrapartum fetal compromise

About this article
Title

An investigation of the effect of placental growth factor on intrapartum fetal compromise prediction in terminduced high risk pregnancies

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Vol 89, No 12 (2018)

Pages

700-704

Published online

2018-12-28

DOI

10.5603/GP.a2018.0118

Pubmed

30618039

Bibliographic record

Ginekol Pol 2018;89(12):700-704.

Keywords

term high-risk pregnancy
labor induction
placental growth factor
intrapartum fetal compromise

Authors

Mehmet Şükrü Budak
Gülten Toprak
Sedat Akgöl
Mehmet Obut
Cemil Oglak
Ihsan Baglı
Ilker Kahramanoglu

References (29)
  1. Pashte SV, Choudhari SS. Diagnosis and management of fetal dıstress: a review based on modern concept and ancient ayurvedic granthas. European Journal of Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2016; 3(12): 560–562.
  2. Bligh LN, Greer RM, Kumar S. The relationship between maternal placental growth factor levels and intrapartum fetal compromise. Placenta. 2016; 48: 63–67.
  3. Rasmussen LG, Lykke JA, Staff AC. Angiogenic biomarkers in pregnancy: defining maternal and fetal health. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015; 94(8): 820–832.
  4. Prior T, Kumar S. Expert review--identification of intra-partum fetal compromise. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015; 190: 1–6.
  5. Vrachnis N, Kalampokas E, Sifakis S, et al. Placental growth factor (PlGF): a key to optimizing fetal growth. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013; 26(10): 995–1002.
  6. Osol G, Celia G, Gokina N, et al. Placental growth factor is a potent vasodilator of rat and human resistance arteries. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2008; 294(3): H1381–H1387.
  7. Poon LCY, Akolekar R, Lachmann R, et al. Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy: screening by biophysical and biochemical markers at 11-13 weeks. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 35(6): 662–670.
  8. Audibert F, Boucoiran I, An Na, et al. Screening for preeclampsia using first-trimester serum markers and uterine artery Doppler in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 203(4): 383.e1–383.e8.
  9. Chappell LC, Duckworth S, Seed PT, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of placental growth factor in women with suspected preeclampsia: a prospective multicenter study. Circulation. 2013; 128(19): 2121–2131.
  10. Molvarec A, Szarka A, Walentin S, et al. Circulating angiogenic factors determined by electrochemiluminescence immunoassay in relation to the clinical features and laboratory parameters in women with pre-eclampsia. Hypertens Res. 2010; 33(9): 892–898.
  11. Benton SJ, McCowan LM, Heazell AEP, et al. Placental growth factor as a marker of fetal growth restriction caused by placental dysfunction. Placenta. 2016; 42: 1–8.
  12. Åsvold BO, Vatten LJ, Romundstad PR, et al. Angiogenic factors in maternal circulation and the risk of severe fetal growth restriction. Am J Epidemiol. 2011; 173(6): 630–639.
  13. von El, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. 2008; 61(4): 344–9.
  14. Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Jahrbuch für Wissenschaft und Ethik. 2009; 14(1).
  15. Hedriana HL. Ultrasound measurement of fetal urine flow. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 40(2): 337–351.
  16. Lewis D, Downe S. FIGO Intrapartum Fetal Monitoring Expert Consensus Panel. FIGO consensus guidelines on intrapartum fetal monitoring: Intermittent auscultation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015; 131(1): 9–12.
  17. Sherrell H, Dunn L, Clifton V, et al. Systematic review of maternal Placental Growth Factor levels in late pregnancy as a predictor of adverse intrapartum and perinatal outcomes. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018; 225: 26–34.
  18. Triunfo S, Lobmaier S, Parra-Saavedra M, et al. Angiogenic factors at diagnosis of late-onset small-for-gestational age and histological placental underperfusion. Placenta. 2014; 35(6): 398–403.
  19. Benton S, Yockell-Lelièvre J, Grynspan D, et al. Low maternal placental growth factor is associated with abnormal placental morphology in fetuses with suspected intrauterine growth restriction. Placenta. 2014; 35(9): A44.
  20. Llurba E, Crispi F, Verlohren S. Update on the pathophysiological implications and clinical role of angiogenic factors in pregnancy. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2015; 37(2): 81–92.
  21. Lobmaier SM, Figueras F, Mercade I, et al. Angiogenic factors vs Doppler surveillance in the prediction of adverse outcome among late-pregnancy small-for- gestational-age fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 43(5): 533–540.
  22. Valiño N, Giunta G, Gallo DM, et al. Biophysical and biochemical markers at 30-34 weeks' gestation in the prediction of adverse perinatal outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 47(2): 194–202.
  23. Valiño N, Giunta G, Gallo DM, et al. Biophysical and biochemical markers at 35-37 weeks' gestation in the prediction of adverse perinatal outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 47(2): 203–209.
  24. Prior T, Mullins E, Bennett P, et al. Prediction of intrapartum fetal compromise using the cerebroumbilical ratio: a prospective observational study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 208(2): 124.e1–124.e6.
  25. Prior T, Mullins E, Bennett P, et al. Prediction of fetal compromise in labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123(6): 1263–1271.
  26. Sabdia S, Greer RM, Prior T, et al. Predicting intrapartum fetal compromise using the fetal cerebro-umbilical ratio. Placenta. 2015; 36(5): 594–598.
  27. Khalil AA, Morales-Rosello J, Morlando M, et al. Is fetal cerebroplacental ratio an independent predictor of intrapartum fetal compromise and neonatal unit admission? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 213(1): 54.e1–54.e10.
  28. Benzouina S, Boubkraoui MEM, Mrabet M, et al. Fetal outcome in emergency versus elective cesarean sections at Souissi Maternity Hospital, Rabat, Morocco. Pan Afr Med J. 2016; 23: 197.
  29. Gurunule A, Warke H. Maternal and foetal outcome in elective versus emergency caesarean sections. International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017; 6(4): 1222.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl