4.3 Article

Plasma Levels of S100B in Preeclampsia and Association With Possible Central Nervous System Effects

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
Volume 27, Issue 8, Pages 1105-1111

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ajh/hpu020

Keywords

blood pressure; hypertension; neurological dysfunction; preeclampsia; S100B

Funding

  1. Swedish Society of Medicine
  2. Uppsala-Orebro Regional Research Council, Sweden
  3. Centre for Clinical Research, Dalarna, Sweden

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND S100B is supposed to be a peripheral biomarker of central nervous system (CNS) injury. The purpose of this study was to compare levels of S100B in women with preeclampsia with levels in healthy pregnant control subjects and furthermore to analyze levels of S100B in relation to possible CNS effects. METHODS A cross-sectional case-control study in antenatal care centers in Uppsala, Sweden, was performed. Fifty-three women with preeclampsia and 58 healthy pregnant women were recruited at similar gestational length; women with preeclampsia were recruited at time of diagnosis, and control subjects were recruited during their routine visit to an antenatal clinic. Plasma samples were collected, and levels of S100B were analyzed with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Information about demographic and clinical characteristics, including symptoms related to CNS affection, was collected from the medical records. The main outcome measures were plasma levels of S100B and possible CNS effects. RESULTS Levels of S100B were significantly higher among women with preeclampsia than among control subjects (0.12 mu g/L vs. 0.07 mu g/L; P < 0.001). In preeclampsia, there was a significant association between high levels of S100B and visual disturbances (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS S100B is increased among women with preeclampsia, and high levels of S100B associate with visual disturbances, which might reflect CNS affection in women with preeclampsia.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available