Li Mingyang, Zhou Renyi, Yu Daier, Chen Dan, Zhao Aimin
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, PR China.
Shanghai Key Laboratory of Gynecologic Oncology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, PR China.
Hum Reprod. 2024 Oct 1;39(10):2221-2232. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deae181.
Could the risk of subsequent pregnancy loss be predicted based on the risk factors of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) patients?
A nomogram, constructed from independent risk factors identified through multivariate logistic regression, serves as a reliable tool for predicting the likelihood of subsequent pregnancy loss in RPL patients.
Approximately 1-3% of fertile couples experience RPL, with over half lacking a clear etiological factor. Assessing the subsequent pregnancy loss rate in RPL patients and identifying high-risk groups for early intervention is essential for pregnancy counseling. Previous prediction models have mainly focused on unexplained RPL, incorporating baseline characteristics such as age and the number of previous pregnancy losses, with limited inclusion of laboratory and ultrasound indicators.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The retrospective study involved 3387 RPL patients who initially sought treatment at the Reproductive Immunology Clinic of Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2022. Of these, 1153 RPL patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: RPL was defined as two or more pregnancy losses (including biochemical pregnancy loss) with the same partner before 28 weeks of gestation. Data encompassing basic demographics, laboratory indicators (autoantibodies, peripheral immunity coagulation, and endocrine factors), uterine and endometrial ultrasound results, and subsequent pregnancy outcomes were collected from enrolled patients through initial questionnaires, post-pregnancy visits fortnightly, medical data retrieval, and telephone follow-up for lost patients. R software was utilized for data cleaning, dividing the data into a training cohort (n = 808) and a validation cohort (n = 345) in a 7:3 ratio according to pregnancy success and pregnancy loss. Independent predictors were identified through multivariate logistic regression. A nomogram was developed, evaluated by 10-fold cross-validation, and compared with the model incorporating solely age and the number of previous pregnancy losses. The constructed nomogram was evaluated using the AUC, calibration curve, decision curve analysis (DCA), and clinical impact curve analysis (CICA). Patients were then categorized into low- and high-risk subgroups.
We included age, number of previous pregnancy losses, lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin IgM, anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin complex IgM, anti-double-stranded DNA antibody, arachidonic acid-induced platelet aggregation, thrombin time and the sum of bilateral uterine artery systolic/diastolic ratios in the nomogram. The AUCs of the nomogram were 0.808 (95% CI: 0.770-0.846) in the training cohort and 0.731 (95% CI: 0.660-0.802) in the validation cohort, respectively. The 10-fold cross-validated AUC ranged from 0.714 to 0.925, with a mean AUC of 0.795 (95% CI: 0.750-0.839). The AUC of the nomogram was superior compared to the model incorporating solely age and the number of previous pregnancy losses. Calibration curves, DCAs, and CICAs showed good concordance and clinical applicability. Significant differences in pregnancy loss rates were observed between the low- and high-risk groups (P < 0.001).
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study was retrospective and focused on patients from a single reproductive immunology clinic, lacking external validation data. The potential impact of embryonic chromosomal abnormalities on pregnancy loss could not be excluded, and the administration of medication to all cases impacted the investigation of risk factors for pregnancy loss and the model's predictive efficacy.
This study signifies a pioneering effort in developing and validating a risk prediction nomogram for subsequent pregnancy loss in RPL patients to effectively stratify their risk. We have integrated the nomogram into an online web tool for clinical applications.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82071725). All authors have no competing interests to declare.
N/A.
能否根据复发性流产(RPL)患者的危险因素预测其后续流产风险?
通过多因素逻辑回归确定的独立危险因素构建的列线图,是预测RPL患者后续流产可能性的可靠工具。
约1%-3%的育龄夫妇经历复发性流产,其中半数以上病因不明。评估RPL患者的后续流产率并识别高危人群以便早期干预,对妊娠咨询至关重要。以往的预测模型主要关注不明原因的RPL,纳入了年龄和既往流产次数等基线特征,实验室和超声指标纳入较少。
研究设计、规模、持续时间:这项回顾性研究纳入了2020年1月1日至2022年12月31日期间在上海交通大学医学院附属仁济医院生殖免疫科初诊的3387例RPL患者。其中,1153例RPL患者符合纳入标准并纳入分析。
研究对象/材料、地点、方法:RPL定义为与同一伴侣在妊娠28周前发生两次或更多次流产(包括生化妊娠流产)。通过初始问卷、妊娠后每两周一次的随访、医疗数据检索以及对失访患者的电话随访,从纳入患者中收集基本人口统计学数据、实验室指标(自身抗体、外周免疫凝血和内分泌因素)、子宫和子宫内膜超声结果以及后续妊娠结局。使用R软件进行数据清理,根据妊娠成功和流产情况按7:3的比例将数据分为训练队列(n = 808)和验证队列(n = 345)。通过多因素逻辑回归确定独立预测因素。绘制列线图,通过10倍交叉验证进行评估,并与仅纳入年龄和既往流产次数的模型进行比较。使用受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC)、校准曲线、决策曲线分析(DCA)和临床影响曲线分析(CICA)对构建的列线图进行评估。然后将患者分为低风险和高风险亚组。
我们将年龄、既往流产次数、狼疮抗凝物、抗心磷脂IgM、抗磷脂酰丝氨酸/凝血酶原复合物IgM、抗双链DNA抗体、花生四烯酸诱导的血小板聚集、凝血酶时间以及双侧子宫动脉收缩期/舒张期比值之和纳入列线图。训练队列中列线图的AUC为0.808(95%CI:0.770-0.846),验证队列中为0.731(95%CI:0.66-0.802)。10倍交叉验证的AUC范围为0.714至0.925,平均AUC为0.795(95%CI:0.750-0.839)。与仅纳入年龄和既往流产次数的模型相比,列线图的AUC更高。校准曲线、DCA和CICA显示出良好的一致性和临床适用性。低风险和高风险组之间的流产率存在显著差异(P < 0.001)。
局限性、注意事项:本研究为回顾性研究,且仅聚焦于单一生殖免疫科的患者,缺乏外部验证数据。无法排除胚胎染色体异常对流产的潜在影响,且对所有病例用药影响了流产危险因素的研究及模型的预测效能。
本研究是为RPL患者后续流产开发和验证风险预测列线图以有效分层其风险的开创性工作。我们已将列线图整合到在线网络工具中以供临床应用。
研究资金/利益冲突:本研究得到中国国家自然科学基金(82071725)的支持。所有作者均无利益冲突声明。
无。