Key result
Non-angiogenic preeclampsia (sFlt1/PlGF ratio <85) was associated with a significantly lower rate of preterm delivery <34 weeks compared to angiogenic preeclampsia (8.7% vs 64.7%, p<0.0001).
Why the study?
Does a normal angiogenic profile (sFlt1/PlGF ratio <85) predict a lower risk of adverse outcomes in women with preeclampsia compared to an abnormal profile?
Cohort (n=97)
Does a normal angiogenic profile (sFlt1/PlGF ratio <85) predict a lower risk of adverse outcomes in women with preeclampsia compared to an abnormal profile?
Absolute Event Rate: 8.7% vs 64.7%
p-value: p=<0.0001
Non-angiogenic preeclampsia (sFlt1/PlGF ratio <85) is associated with a significantly lower risk of severe adverse outcomes and extreme prematurity compared to the angiogenic form.
May support expectant management in non-angiogenic preeclampsia; leaves open prospective validation of angiogenic profiling.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of preeclamptic women presenting with a normal plasma angiogenic profile with those subjects who are characterized by an abnormal angiogenic profile. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study in women presenting to obstetrical triage at <37 weeks of gestation and diagnosed with preeclampsia within 2 weeks of enrollment and in whom angiogenic factors (sFlt1 and PlGF) measurements were available. Patients were divided into two groups based on their circulating levels of these factors described as a ratio; the sFlt1/PlGF ratio, non-angiogenic preeclampsia (sFlt1/PlGF ratio <85) and angiogenic preeclampsia (sFlt1/PlGF ratio ≥85). The data are presented by sFlt1/PlGF category using median and quartile 1-quartile 3 for continuous variables and by frequency and sample sizes for categorical variables. RESULTS: In our cohort, the patients with non-angiogenic preeclampsia (N = 46) were more obese [BMI: 35.2 (31.6, 38.7) versus 31.1 (28.0, 39.0), p = 0.04], more likely to have preexisting diabetes (21.7% versus 2.0%, p = 0.002) and presented at a later gestational age [35 (32, 37) versus 32 (29, 34) weeks, p < 0.0001] as compared with women with angiogenic preeclampsia (N = 51). Women with non-angiogenic preeclampsia had no serious adverse outcomes (elevated liver function tests/low platelets: 0% versus 23.5%, abruption: 0% versus 9.8%, pulmonary edema: 0% versus 3.9%, eclampsia: 0% versus 2.0 %, small for gestational age: 0% versus 17.7% and fetal/neonatal death: 0% versus 5.9%) as compared with women with angiogenic preeclampsia. The rate of preterm delivery <34 weeks was 8.7% in non-angiogenic preeclampsia compared with 64.7% in angiogenic preeclampsia (p < 0.0001). Interestingly, delivery between 34 and 37 weeks and resource utilization (hospital admission days) were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION: In contrast to the angiogenic form, the non-angiogenic form of preeclampsia is characterized by little to no risk of preeclampsia-related adverse outcomes, other than iatrogenic prematurity. Incorporation of angiogenic biomarkers in the evaluation of preeclampsia may allow accurate and early identification of severe disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rana et al. (2013) conducted a cohort in Preeclampsia (n=97). Non-angiogenic preeclampsia (sFlt1/PlGF ratio <85) vs. Angiogenic preeclampsia (sFlt1/PlGF ratio ≥85) was evaluated on Preterm delivery <34 weeks (p=<0.0001). Non-angiogenic preeclampsia (sFlt1/PlGF ratio <85) was associated with a significantly lower rate of preterm delivery <34 weeks compared to angiogenic preeclampsia (8.7% vs 64.7%, p<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: