利用胎盘功能生化检测改善妊娠结局。

Use of biochemical tests of placental function for improving pregnancy outcome.

作者信息

Heazell Alexander E P, Whitworth Melissa, Duley Lelia, Thornton Jim G

机构信息

Maternal and Fetal Health Research Centre, University of Manchester, 5th floor (Research), St Mary's Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK, M13 9WL.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Nov 25;2015(11):CD011202. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011202.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The placenta has an essential role in determining the outcome of pregnancy. Consequently, biochemical measurement of placentally-derived factors has been suggested as a means to improve fetal and maternal outcome of pregnancy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether clinicians' knowledge of the results of biochemical tests of placental function is associated with improvement in fetal or maternal outcome of pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 July 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials assessing the merits of the use of biochemical tests of placental function to improve pregnancy outcome.Studies were eligible if they compared women who had placental function tests and the results were available to their clinicians with women who either did not have the tests, or the tests were done but the results were not available to the clinicians. The placental function tests were any biochemical test of placental function carried out using the woman's maternal biofluid, either alone or in combination with other placental function test/s.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed trial quality. Authors of published trials were contacted for further information.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials were included, two quasi-randomised controlled trials and one randomised controlled trial. One trial was deemed to be at low risk of bias while the other two were at high risk of bias. Different biochemical analytes were measured - oestrogen was measured in one trial and the other two measured human placental lactogen (hPL). One trial did not contribute outcome data, therefore, the results of this review are based on two trials with 740 participants.There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of death of a baby (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 2.13, two trials, 740 participants (very low quality evidence)) or the frequency of a small-for-gestational-age infant (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.19, one trial, 118 participants (low quality evidence)).In terms of this review's secondary outcomes, there was no evidence of a clear difference between women who had biochemical tests of placental function compared with standard antenatal care for the incidence of stillbirth (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.88, two trials, 740 participants (very low quality evidence)) or neonatal death (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.39 to 6.74, two trials, 740 participants, very low quality evidence)) although the directions of any potential effect were in opposing directions. There was no evidence of a difference between groups in elective delivery (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.14, two trials, 740 participants (low quality evidence)), caesarean section (one trial, RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.52, one trial, 118 participants (low quality evidence)), change in anxiety score (mean difference -2.40, 95% CI -4.78 to -0.02, one trial, 118 participants), admissions to neonatal intensive care (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.01, one trial, 118 participants), and preterm birth before 37 weeks' gestation (RR 2.90, 95% CI 0.12 to 69.81, one trial, 118 participants). One trial (118 participants) reported that there were no cases of serious neonatal morbidity. Maternal death was not reported.A number of this review's secondary outcomes relating to the baby were not reported in the included studies, namely: umbilical artery pH < 7.0, neonatal intensive care for more than seven days, very preterm birth (< 32 weeks' gestation), need for ventilation, organ failure, fetal abnormality, neurodevelopment in childhood (cerebral palsy, neurodevelopmental delay). Similarly, a number of this review's maternal secondary outcomes were not reported in the included studies (admission to intensive care, high dependency unit admission, hospital admission for > seven days, pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, and women's perception of care).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support the use of biochemical tests of placental function to reduce perinatal mortality or increase identification of small-for-gestational-age infants. However, we were only able to include data from two studies that measured oestrogens and hPL. The quality of the evidence was low or very low.Two of the trials were performed in the 1970s on women with a variety of antenatal complications and this evidence cannot be generalised to women at low-risk of complications or groups of women with specific pregnancy complications (e.g. fetal growth restriction). Furthermore, outcomes described in the 1970s may not reflect what would be expected at present. For example, neonatal mortality rates have fallen substantially, such that an infant delivered at 28 weeks would have a greater chance of survival were those studies repeated; this may affect the primary outcome of the meta-analysis.With data from just two studies (740 women), this review is underpowered to detect a difference in the incidence of death of a baby or the frequency of a small-for-gestational-age infant as these have a background incidence of approximately 0.75% and 10% of pregnancies respectively. Similarly, this review is underpowered to detect differences between serious and/or rare adverse events such as severe neonatal morbidity. Two of the three included studies were quasi-randomised, with significant risk of bias from group allocation. Additionally, there may be performance bias as in one of the two studies contributing data, participants receiving standard care did not have venepuncture, so clinicians treating participants could identify which arm of the study they were in. Future studies should consider more robust randomisation methods and concealment of group allocation and should be adequately powered to detect differences in rare adverse events.The studies identified in this review examined two different analytes: oestrogens and hPL. There are many other placental products that could be employed as surrogates of placental function, including: placental growth factor (PlGF), human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), plasma protein A (PAPP-A), placental protein 13 (PP-13), pregnancy-specific glycoproteins and progesterone metabolites and further studies should be encouraged to investigate these other placental products. Future randomised controlled trials should test analytes identified as having the best predictive reliability for placental dysfunction leading to small-for-gestational-age infants and perinatal mortality.

摘要

背景

胎盘在决定妊娠结局方面起着至关重要的作用。因此,有人建议通过对胎盘衍生因子进行生化检测,来改善胎儿和母亲的妊娠结局。

目的

评估临床医生对胎盘功能生化检测结果的了解,是否与改善胎儿或母亲的妊娠结局相关。

检索方法

我们检索了Cochrane妊娠与分娩组试验注册库(2015年7月31日)以及检索到的研究的参考文献列表。

入选标准

评估使用胎盘功能生化检测以改善妊娠结局的优点的随机、整群随机或半随机对照试验。如果研究比较了进行胎盘功能检测且临床医生可获得检测结果的女性与未进行检测或检测后临床医生无法获得结果的女性,则该研究符合入选标准。胎盘功能检测是指使用女性母体生物流体单独或与其他胎盘功能检测联合进行的任何胎盘功能生化检测。

数据收集与分析

两位综述作者独立评估试验是否纳入、提取数据并评估试验质量。已发表试验的作者被联系以获取更多信息。

主要结果

纳入了三项试验,两项半随机对照试验和一项随机对照试验。一项试验被认为偏倚风险较低,而其他两项试验偏倚风险较高。测量了不同的生化分析物——一项试验测量了雌激素,另外两项测量了人胎盘催乳素(hPL)。一项试验未提供结局数据,因此,本综述的结果基于两项试验,共740名参与者。没有证据表明婴儿死亡发生率存在差异(风险比(RR)0.88,95%置信区间(CI)0.36至2.13,两项试验,740名参与者(极低质量证据))或小于胎龄儿的发生率存在差异(RR 0.44,95%CI 0.16至1.19,一项试验,118名参与者(低质量证据))。就本综述的次要结局而言,没有证据表明进行胎盘功能生化检测的女性与接受标准产前护理的女性在死产发生率(RR 0.56,95%CI 0.16至1.88,两项试验,740名参与者(极低质量证据))或新生儿死亡发生率(RR 1.62,9%CI 0.39至6.74,两项试验,740名参与者,极低质量证据))上存在明显差异,尽管任何潜在影响的方向相反。两组在择期分娩(RR 0.98,95%CI 0.84至1.14,两项试验,740名参与者(低质量证据))、剖宫产(一项试验,RR 0.48,CI 0.15至1.52,一项试验,118名参与者(低质量证据))、焦虑评分变化(平均差 -2.40,95%CI -4.78至 -0.02,一项试验,118名参与者)、新生儿重症监护病房入院率(RR 0.32,95%CI 0.03至3.01,一项试验,118名参与者)以及妊娠37周前早产发生率(RR 2.90,95%CI 0.12至69.81,一项试验,118名参与者)上没有证据表明存在差异。一项试验(118名参与者)报告没有严重新生儿发病病例。未报告孕产妇死亡情况。纳入研究中未报告本综述中许多与婴儿相关的次要结局,即:脐动脉pH < 7.0、新生儿重症监护超过七天、极早产(< 32周妊娠)、需要通气、器官衰竭、胎儿异常、儿童神经发育(脑瘫、神经发育迟缓)。同样,纳入研究中也未报告本综述中许多与母亲相关的次要结局(重症监护病房入院、高依赖病房入院、住院超过七天、先兆子痫、子痫以及女性对护理的感知)。

作者结论

没有足够的证据支持使用胎盘功能生化检测来降低围产期死亡率或增加小于胎龄儿的识别率。然而,我们仅能纳入两项测量雌激素和hPL的研究数据。证据质量低或极低。其中两项试验是在20世纪70年代对患有各种产前并发症的女性进行的,这些证据不能推广到并发症风险低的女性或患有特定妊娠并发症(如胎儿生长受限)的女性群体。此外,20世纪70年代描述的结局可能无法反映目前的预期情况。例如,新生儿死亡率已大幅下降,因此,如果重复这些研究,28周出生的婴儿存活几率会更高;这可能会影响荟萃分析的主要结局。仅基于两项研究(740名女性)的数据,本综述检测婴儿死亡发生率或小于胎龄儿发生率差异的能力不足,因为这些情况在妊娠中的背景发生率分别约为0.75%和10%。同样,本综述检测严重和/或罕见不良事件(如严重新生儿发病)差异的能力也不足。纳入的三项研究中有两项是半随机的,组分配存在显著偏倚风险。此外,可能存在执行偏倚,因为在提供数据的两项研究之一中,接受标准护理的参与者未进行静脉穿刺,因此治疗参与者的临床医生可以确定他们所在的研究组。未来的研究应考虑采用更稳健的随机方法和隐藏组分配,并且应有足够的能力检测罕见不良事件的差异。本综述中确定的研究检测了两种不同的分析物:雌激素和hPL。还有许多其他胎盘产物可作为胎盘功能的替代指标,包括:胎盘生长因子(PlGF)、人绒毛膜促性腺激素(hCG)、血浆蛋白A(PAPP - A)、胎盘蛋白13(PP - 13)、妊娠特异性糖蛋白和孕酮代谢产物,应鼓励进一步研究这些其他胎盘产物。未来的随机对照试验应测试被确定为对导致小于胎龄儿和围产期死亡风险的胎盘功能障碍具有最佳预测可靠性的分析物。

引用本文的文献

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索