4.3 Article

Maternal Stress/Distress, Hormonal Pathways and Spontaneous Preterm Birth

期刊

PAEDIATRIC AND PERINATAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 237-246

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ppe.12042

关键词

preterm birth; stress; stressors; anxiety; stress hormones; HPA axis

资金

  1. Perinatal Epidemiological Research Initiative Program from the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation [20-FYO4-38]
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Although second-trimester blood corticotrophin-releasing hormone (CRH) levels are robustly associated with preterm birth, the findings with respect to cortisol have been inconsistent, as have been those relating stress hormones to measured stressors and maternal distress. Methods We measured plasma CRH, adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH), cortisol, cortisol-binding globulin, oestradiol and progesterone at 2426 weeks in a nested casecontrol study of 206 women who experienced spontaneous preterm birth and 442 term controls. We also related the hormonal levels to measures of environmental stressors, perceived stress and maternal distress (also assessed at 2426 weeks) and to placental histopathology. Results With the exception of an unexpectedly low oestradiol:progesterone ratio among cases (adjusted odds ratio=0.5 [95% confidence interval 0.3, 0.8] for ratios above the median in controls), none of the hormonal measures was independently associated with spontaneous preterm birth; placental histopathological evidence of infection/inflammation, infarction or decidual vasculopathy; or measures of maternal stress or distress. CRH levels were positively associated with cortisol, but not with ACTH, whereas ACTH was also positively associated with cortisol. Conclusions Our findings suggest an intact pituitaryadrenal axis and confirm the positive feedback effect of cortisol on (placental) CRH. Neither of these hormonal pathways, however, was strongly linked to maternal stress/distress or to the risk of spontaneous preterm birth.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据