4.1 Article

Preeclampsia with and without intrauterine growth restriction-Two pathogenetically different entities?

Journal

HYPERTENSION IN PREGNANCY
Volume 35, Issue 4, Pages 573-582

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10641955.2016.1212872

Keywords

Decidua; intrauterine growth restriction; placenta; preeclampsia; throphoblast

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The objective of this study is to determine the differences in histopathological features of basal decidua and placenta in cases of preeclampsia with or without fetal intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). Methods: A prospective case-control study included a study group consisting of 30 pregnant women with preeclampsia completed by cesarean section (CS), in 19 of whom preeclampsia was associated with IUGR, and in 11 it was not. The control group consisted of 20 healthy pregnant women delivered by elective CS. Placentas and samples of placental bed obtained during CS were histopathologically (HP) analyzed after hematoxylin-eosin staining and immunohistochemical labeling of Cytokeratin 7 (CK7) trophoblastic cells in decidua. Results: Regarding the HP changes in the spiral arteries in preeclampsia, the most frequent features were inadequate transformation of spiral arteries with poor trophoblastic invasion (70.0%) and fibrinoid necrosis of the media (66.7%), and rarely acute atherosis (33.3%) and thrombosis (30.0%). Villous hypermaturity was more frequently found in placentas of patients with preeclampsia with IUGR (p < 0.05), while there were no differences between subgroups of preeclampsia with and without IUGR regarding some of HP alterations of placental bed. Conclusion: Alterations of the placental bed in terms of decidual vasculopathy are more the characteristics of the preeclampsia itself than IUGR, while changes in placental villi primarily follow the presence of IUGR, which could indicate that preeclampsia with and without IUGR are two pathogenetically different entities.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available