English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objectives—To conduct a secondary analysis of prediction accuracy of biophysical markers for suspected Preeclampsia (PE), Fetal Growth Restriction (FGR) and the two combined near delivery in a Slovenian cohort. Methods—This was a secondary analysis of a database of a total 125 Slovenian pregnant women attending a high-risk pregnancy clinic due to suspected PE (n = 31), FGR (n = 16) and PE + FGR (n = 42) from 28–39 weeks gestation and their corresponding term (n = 21) and preterm (PTD, n = 15) controls. Data for Mean Arterial blood Pressure (MAP) and Uterine artery pulsatility index (UtA PI) estimated by Doppler sonography were extracted from the database of patients who were tested at admission to the high-risk clinic with the suspected complications. The reactive hyperemia index (RHI), and the Augmentation Index (AIX%) were extracted from the patient database using measured values obtained with the assistance of the Endo PAT, a device set to measure the signal of the peripheral arterial tone (PAT) from the blood vessels endothelium. Linear regression coefficients, Box and Whisker plots, Area under the Curve (AUC) of receiver Operation Characteristic (ROC) curves, and multiple regression were used to assess the marker accuracy using detection rate (DR) and false-positive rate (FPR) and previously reported cut-offs for estimating the positive and negative predictive value (NPV and PPV). The SPSS non-parametric statistics (Kruskal Wallis and Mann–Whitney) and Spearman’s regression coefficient were used to assess marker accuracy; p   0.6 for UtA Doppler PI over GA for PE and FGR, whereas for RHI over BMI, the regression coefficient was r &gt; 0.5 (p &lt; 0.001 for each). Very high correlations were also found between UtA Doppler PI and sFlt-1/PlGF or PlGF (r = −0.495, p &lt; 0.001), especially in cases of FGR. Conclusion—The classical biophysical markers MAP and UtA Doppler PI provided diagnostic accuracy for PE and FGR &lt; 34 wks gestation. A multiple biophysical marker analysis was required to reach diagnostic accuracy for all cases of these complications. The UtA Doppler PI and maternal serum sFlt-1/PlGF or PlGF were equally accurate for early cases to enable the choice of the markers for the clinical use according to the more accessible method.

Biophysical Markers of Suspected Preeclampsia, Fetal Growth Restriction and The Two Combined—How Accurate They Are?