The comparison of placental abruption coupled with and without preeclampsia and/or intrauterine growth restriction in singleton pregnancies. (3rd May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ni, Shanshan; Wang, Xiaofeng; Cheng, Xiang
• Is Part Of: Journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine. Volume 34:Number 9(2021)
• Page Start: 1395
• Page End: 1400
• Publication Date: 2021-05-03
• Subjects: Intrauterine growth restriction -- ischemic placental disease -- placental abruption -- preeclampsia; Obstetrics -- Periodicals; Perinatology -- Periodicals; Infants (Newborn) -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Neonatology -- Periodicals; 618.2
• DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2019.1637850
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1476-7058

Abstract

Abstract: Background: To compare the clinical features of placental abruption coupled with and without preeclampsia and/or intrauterine growth restriction in singleton pregnancies. Methods: A retrospective study of 229 cases of placental abruption was performed and the subjects were collected from Tianjin Central Hospital of Gynecology and Obstetrics between January 2016 and December 2017. The abruption cases were divided into two groups: the abruption with other conditions of ischemic placental disease (IPD group) and the abruption without them (non-IPD group). The clinical features, such as maternal age, gravidity, parity, gestational age at delivery, maternal complications, bleeding volume, fetal gender, sensitivity of ultrasonography, primary symptoms, onset-to-delivery time, mode of delivery, birth weight, and Apgar score at 1 min, were compared between two groups. Results: The primary symptoms in the top three were the central nervous system symptoms involving headache, dizziness or blurred vision (55.0%), decreased fetal movements (13.75%), and abdominal pain (10.0%) in IPD group, while in non-IPD group the top three were vaginal bleeding combined with abdominal pain (31.54%), abdominal pain (22.82%), and vaginal bleeding (16.11%). Compared with non-IPD group, the neonatal outcomes including birth weight, Apgar score at 1 min, and gestation age at delivery were significantly poorer in the IPD group ( p < .000, p = .044, and p = .001, respectively). And the sensitivity of ultrasonography was significantly higher in non-IPD group ( p = .002). In both preterm and term abruption in IPD group, compared with non-IPD group, it was significantly different in terms of gestation age at delivery, onset-to-delivery time, and birth weight ( p < .05). In preterm abruption, IPD group had a significantly higher cesarean section rate than non-IPD group ( p = .019). It seemed patients in IPD group had a higher incidence of uterine apoplexy and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), but there was no statistical difference between the two groups in maternal complications including uterine apoplexy, blood transfusion, and DIC ( p = .310, p = .585, and p = .121, respectively). It seemed preterm abruption had a poorer maternal prognosis than term abruption in IPD and non-IPD group, but the result had no significant difference ( p > .05). Conclusions: Placental abruption complicated with preeclampsia and/or intrauterine growth restriction had a poorer prognosis of newborns, while there was no significant difference in maternal prognosis. And patients with preeclampsia and/or intrauterine growth restriction deserved careful observation during pregnancy, especially when they had central nervous system symptoms of headache, visual changes, or dizziness.