4.2 Article

Mid-pregnancy levels of angiogenic markers as indicators of pathways to preterm delivery

Journal

JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE
Volume 25, Issue 7, Pages 1135-1141

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/14767058.2011.625458

Keywords

Endoglin; placental growth factor; preeclampsia; small-for-gestational age; soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1

Funding

  1. March of Dimes Foundation [20FY01-38, 20-FY04-37]
  2. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  3. National Institute of Nursing Research [R01 HD34543]
  4. Thrasher Research Foundation [02816-7]
  5. Diabetes UK [RD 05-0003099]
  6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [U01 DP000143-01]
  7. Michigan State University [T32 HD046377]
  8. Harvard Diversity and Community Partnership Faculty Fellowship Award

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine whether mid-pregnancy levels of angiogenic markers were associated with increased risk of preterm delivery (PTD). Methods: We studied a subcohort from the Pregnancy Outcomes and Community Health Study for whom mid-pregnancy angiogenic markers (soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 [sFlt-1], soluble endoglin [sEng] and placental growth factor [PlGF]) and covariate data were available (N = 1301). Angiogenic marker levels were grouped as high/not high (sFlt-1 and sEng), low/not low (PlGF) and high/intermediate/low (sFlt-1). Associations between levels of angiogenic markers and PTD/PTD subtype were determined for women who were nonsmokers during pregnancy (N = 933). Results: Low PlGF and high sEng were associated with medically-indicated PTD and PTD <35 weeks, largely due to preeclampsia (PE). Excluding PE and small-for-gestational-age infants, low sFlt-1 was positively associated with medically-indicated PTD. Conclusions: Among nonsmokers, mid-pregnancy levels of angiogenic markers may mark multiple pathways leading to PTD, only one attributable to PE.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available