Why the study?
Does early pregnancy increase maternal serum ischaemia-modified albumin (IMA) levels compared to non-pregnant controls?
Does early pregnancy increase maternal serum ischaemia-modified albumin (IMA) levels compared to non-pregnant controls?
Maternal serum IMA is physiologically elevated in early pregnancy above the diagnostic threshold for myocardial ischaemia, indicating it should not be used as a cardiac marker in pregnant women.
Elevated IMA in early pregnancy may confound ischemia diagnosis; leaves open validation of pregnancy-specific thresholds in prospective studies.
BACKGROUND: A hypoxic intrauterine environment is believed to play a pivotal role in physiological trophoblast development. Ischaemia-modified albumin (IMA) is used in the measurement of cardiac ischaemia. We aimed to test the hypothesis that maternal serum IMA may be elevated in early pregnancy as a measurable manifestation of intrauterine ischaemia. METHODS: Prospective observational study in healthy women with singleton pregnancies (n=66) and non-pregnant controls (n=26). Maternal serum IMA levels were measured at 11-13 weeks of gestation and in non-pregnant women. RESULTS: The median IMA level in the pregnant group [115.14 kU/l; interquartile range (IQR) 102.33-124.71 kU/l] was significantly higher (P<0.001) than in non-pregnant controls (73.71 kU/l; IQR 60.38-82.78 kU/l). During pregnancy, absolute values of IMA were higher than the concentration used for the diagnosis of myocardial ischaemia (>95 kU/l) in 86% of women. CONCLUSIONS: In early pregnancy, IMA levels were above the concentration used for the diagnosis of myocardial ischaemia in most women, and should therefore not be used as a marker for cardiac ischaemia in pregnancy. Maternal serum IMA is elevated to supra-physiological levels in early normal pregnancy supporting the hypothesis that normal trophoblast development is associated with a hypoxic intrauterine environment, although other mechanisms leading to an IMA increase cannot be excluded.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Prefumo et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: