| Literature DB >> 31959152 |
Valentina Bruno1, Carlo Ticconi2, Federica Martelli3, Marzia Nuccetelli4, Maria Vittoria Capogna2, Roberto Sorge5, Emilio Piccione2, Adalgisa Pietropolli6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The potential role of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) in recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) pathogenesis is still debated, although some evidences suggest that they could affect pregnancy outcome, leading to a higher miscarriage rate in these patients. A hypothesized mechanism is through changes in uterine flow in pre-conceptional stage, by modifying endometrial receptivity in RPL. However, scant data are available, in pregnancy, about their role in RPL placental perfusion, also in relation to its potential treatments, such as low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). The aim of this study is to retrospectively further investigate the correlation between two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) uterine and placental flow indexes and the presence or the absence of ANA in women with unexplained RPL (uRPL), treated or not treated with LMWH.Entities:
Keywords: ANA; LMWH; Placental blood flow supply; VOCAL; uRPL
Year: 2020 PMID: 31959152 PMCID: PMC6971936 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-020-2724-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.007
Fig. 22D ultrasound analysis of uterine flux index (PI). PI values detected in ANA- (n = 11) and ANA+ (n = 16) control pregnant women, ANA- (n = 6) and ANA+ (n = 7) RPL pregnant patients not treated with LMWH, ANA- (n = 9) and ANA+ (n = 14) RPL pregnant patients treated with LMWH. Data are expressed as means ± SD. ANOVA two factors followed by Bonferroni’s post-hoc test: n.s. PI = pulsatility index
Fig. 13D power Doppler acquisition images. a 3D power Doppler image of a placenta at 12 + 2 weeks in a multiplanar mode. Placenta rotated horizontally. Image shows the placental bed after tracing. b Sampling of placental volumes by 3D sonography: Two dimensional ultrasound and Power Doppler imaging of the placental vessels. c: 3D volume rendering
Clinical characteristics of studied patients
RPL ( | RPL ( | Controls ( | One-way ANOVA | |||||
| Not-treated | LMWH-treated | |||||||
ANA - (n = 10) | ANA + (n = 10) | ANA - ( | ANA + (n = 14) | ANA - (n = 11) | ANA + (n = 16) | F | ||
Age (years) | 34 | 35 | 36 | 35 | 36 | 36 | 0.4 | ns |
BMI (Kg/m2) | 25 | 26 | 24 | 24 | 24 | 26 | 0.78 | NS |
| Number of miscarriages | 3 | 3 | 2.9 | 3.1 | – | – | 0.1 | NS |
| Week of miscarriage | 8.4 | 8.7 | 8.5 | 9 | – | – | 0.16 | NS |
| Blood pressure | 97,2 / 73,2 | 108,7 / 75,7 | 109,7 / 77,2 | 110,2 / 78,07 | 113,1 / 74,91 | 104,3 / 77,75 | 1,08/1,7 | NS |
| gestational week of the delivery | 39,1 | 39,2 | 39,4 | 39,2 | 39,9 | 39,4 | 0,87 | NS |
| Birth weight | 3279 | 3241 | 0,34 | NS | ||||
Data are expressed as Mean + SD or mean only
ANA antinuclear antibodies; RPL recurrent pregnancy loss; BMI body mass index; NS not significant; ONE-WAY ANOVA one-way analysis of variance
2-D and 3-D Power Doppler Indexes values obtained for each group and subgroup
| Control women | Not-treated RPL women | LMWH-treated RPL women | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANA- | ANA+ | ANA- | ANA+ | ANA- | ANA+ | |
| PI | 1.35 ± 0.52 | 1.16 ± 0.43 | 1.12 ± 0.21 | 1.31 ± 0.46 | 1.37 ± 0.48 | 1.26 ± 0.42 |
| FI | 42.46 ± 2.81 | 40.53 ± 4.39 | 43.24 ± 8.46 | 38.71 ± 6.97 | 44.18 ± 6.85 | 46.22 ± 4.57 |
| VFI | 5.41 ± 2.05 | 6.34 ± 4.51 | 9.31 ± 2.57 | 5.13 ± 2.1 | 4.93 ± 2.94 | 6.91 ± 5.32 |
| VI | 12.79 ± 4.76 | 15.31 ± 9.3 | 20.35 ± 6.16 | 13.35 ± 5.32 | 8.61 ± 5.39 | 11.11 ± 4.09 |
Values of PI, FI, VI and VFI obtained for each group and subgroup. Data are expressed as Mean + S.D.
Fig. 33D ultrasound analysis of VI index. a. VI values detected in ANA- (n = 11) and ANA+ (n = 16) control pregnant women, ANA- (n = 6) and ANA+ (n = 7) RPL pregnant patients not treated with LMWH, ANA- (n = 9) and ANA+ (n = 14) RPL pregnant patients treated with LMWH. Data are expressed as means ± SD. ANOVA two factors followed by Bonferroni’s post-hoc test. (*) Bonferroni’ s test p = 0,01. VI = vascularisation index. C = VI cut-off determined at the ROC curve: 11,08. b. ROC curve: area 0,80; VI cut-off determined 11,08; sensitivity 85% and specificity 67%
Fig. 43D ultrasound analysis of VFI and FI indexes. a. VFI and b) FI values detected in ANA- (n = 11) and ANA+ (n = 16) control pregnant women, ANA- (n = 6) and ANA+ (n = 7) RPL pregnant patients not treated with LMWH, ANA- (n = 9) and ANA+ (n = 14) RPL pregnant patients treated with LMWH. Data are expressed as means ± SD. ANOVA two factors followed by Bonferroni’s post-hoc test: n.s. VFI = vascularisation flow index; FI = flow index