Pregnancy outcomes analysis of preeclampsia pregnant women with different 24 h proteinuria quantification

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-5250.2019.02.014

Objective

To investigate the maternal and fetal pregnancy outcomes of preeclampsia (PE) pregnant women with different 24 h urine protein quantification.

Methods

A total of 190 PE pregnant women who gave birth at Guangdong Women and Children′s Hospital from January 2015 to December 2017 were selected into this study. According to 24 h urine protein guantification results of 109 pregnant women, they were divided into 3 groups: group A (n=53, 24 h urine protein guantification was 300-1 000 mg), group B (n=71, 24 h urine protein guantification was 1 001-2 000 mg) and group C (n=66, 24 h urine protein guantification was more than 2 000 mg). General clinical data (age, gravidity, parity, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, platelet count, newborn birth weight and gestational age), biochemical indicators, such as aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), prothrombin time (PT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), and pregnancy outcomes, such as rates of vaginal delivery, cesarean section, placental abruption, blood transfusion treatment, antihypertensive therapy, fetal respiratory distress syndrome, neonates transferred into neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), premature birth, pleural effusion of pregnant women, eclampsia and HELLP syndrome of PE pregnant women were retrospectively analyzed. Kruskal-Wallis H rank-sum test was used to analyze the AST, ALT, LDH, blood urea nitrogen levels, PT and APTT in pregnant women of three groups. And chi-square test was used to analyze the rates of vaginal delivery, cesarean section, placental abruption, blood transfusion treatment, antihypertensive therapy, and fetal growth restriction among three groups. The study was in accordance with World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki revised in 2013.

Results

① The urine output within 24 h of 190 PE pregnant women were 1 240-3 010 mL; 24 h urine protein quantification were 302-7 342 mg. The ratio of urine protein to creatinine was 0.31-5.60. There were no significant differences in the age, gravidity, parity, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, platelet count, newborn birth weight, gestational age and proportion of pregnant women with severe PE among three groups (P>0.05). ② There were significant differences in LDH, blood urea nitrogen and APTT levels among three groups (χ²=25.980, P<0.001; χ²=14.770, P=0.001; χ²=16.569, P<0.001). ③The rates of newborns transferred to NICU in group A, group B and group C were 30.2% (16/53), 50.7% (36/71) and 68.2% (45/66), respectively, and the incidences of eclampsia were 0 (0/53), 0 (0/71) and 7.6% (5/66), receptively. There were significant differences among three groups in the rate of newborns transferred to NICU and the incidence of eclampsia (χ²=16.985, P<0.001; χ²=7.255, P=0.006).

Conclusions

Although 24 h urine protein quantification cannot determine the severity of PE, maternal and fetal complications should be treated more cautiously when 24 h urine protein quantification is high.

Key words: Pre-eclampsia, Pregnancy complications, Proteinuria, Pregnancy outcome, Pregnant women

表1 3组子痫前期孕妇一般临床资料比较

组别	例数	年龄(岁，±s)	孕次[次，M(P₂₅～P₇₅) ]	产次[次，M(P₂₅～P₇₅) ]	收缩压(mmHg，±s)	舒张压(mmHg，±s)
A组	53	31.6±2.7	3(1～5)	2(1～5)	152.0±9.3	93.7±7.9
B组	71	31.2±2.3	2(1～5)	2(1～4)	151.3±8.1	92.9±7.7
C组	66	31.8±2.6	2(1～5)	1(1～4)	153.6±8.1	96.2±8.3
检验值	?	F＝0.173	χ²＝1.230	χ²＝4.350	F＝1.175	F＝2.772
P值	?	0.842	0.541	0.114	0.324	0.080
组别	例数	血小板计数(×10⁹/L，±s)	新生儿出生体重(g，±s)	孕龄(周，±s)	重度PE[例数(%)]
A组	53	232±91	2 532±112	35.9±2.5	23(43.4)
B组	71	228±85	2 527±136	35.5±2.5	28(39.4)
C组	66	239±79	2 525±125	35.3±3.2	31(47.0)
检验值	?	F＝2.463	F＝0.935	F＝0.073	χ²＝0.793
P值	?	0.104	0.405	0.930	0.673

表1 3组子痫前期孕妇一般临床资料比较

组别	例数	年龄(岁，±s)	孕次[次，M(P₂₅～P₇₅) ]	产次[次，M(P₂₅～P₇₅) ]	收缩压(mmHg，±s)	舒张压(mmHg，±s)
A组	53	31.6±2.7	3(1～5)	2(1～5)	152.0±9.3	93.7±7.9
B组	71	31.2±2.3	2(1～5)	2(1～4)	151.3±8.1	92.9±7.7
C组	66	31.8±2.6	2(1～5)	1(1～4)	153.6±8.1	96.2±8.3
检验值	?	F＝0.173	χ²＝1.230	χ²＝4.350	F＝1.175	F＝2.772
P值	?	0.842	0.541	0.114	0.324	0.080
组别	例数	血小板计数(×10⁹/L，±s)	新生儿出生体重(g，±s)	孕龄(周，±s)	重度PE[例数(%)]
A组	53	232±91	2 532±112	35.9±2.5	23(43.4)
B组	71	228±85	2 527±136	35.5±2.5	28(39.4)
C组	66	239±79	2 525±125	35.3±3.2	31(47.0)
检验值	?	F＝2.463	F＝0.935	F＝0.073	χ²＝0.793
P值	?	0.104	0.405	0.930	0.673

表2 3组子痫前期孕妇的生化指标比较[M(P₂₅～P₇₅) ]

组别	例数	AST水平(U/L)	ALT水平(U/L)	LDH水平(U/L)	血尿素氮水平(mg/dL)	PT(s)	APTT(s)
A组	53	42(9～440)	50(5～699)	224(150～878)	8.6(4.8～22.6)	11.5(9.4～13.7)	27.9(21.0～36.4)
B组	71	40(11～186)	48(4～179)	285(147～831)	9.7(5.0～18.0)	11.1(9.1～14.3)	25.4(20.4～32.6)
C组	66	38(10～75)	46(4～54)	324(168～722)	10.5(5.0～18.0)	11.0(8.3～16.1)	21.7(22.5～47.9)
χ²值	?	2.120	3.481	25.980	14.770	0.279	16.569
P值	?	0.346	0.175	<0.001	0.001	0.248	<0.001

表2 3组子痫前期孕妇的生化指标比较[M(P₂₅～P₇₅) ]

组别	例数	AST水平(U/L)	ALT水平(U/L)	LDH水平(U/L)	血尿素氮水平(mg/dL)	PT(s)	APTT(s)
A组	53	42(9～440)	50(5～699)	224(150～878)	8.6(4.8～22.6)	11.5(9.4～13.7)	27.9(21.0～36.4)
B组	71	40(11～186)	48(4～179)	285(147～831)	9.7(5.0～18.0)	11.1(9.1～14.3)	25.4(20.4～32.6)
C组	66	38(10～75)	46(4～54)	324(168～722)	10.5(5.0～18.0)	11.0(8.3～16.1)	21.7(22.5～47.9)
χ²值	?	2.120	3.481	25.980	14.770	0.279	16.569
P值	?	0.346	0.175	<0.001	0.001	0.248	<0.001

表3 3组子痫前期孕妇的妊娠结局比较[例数(%)]

组别	例数	阴道分娩	剖宫产术分娩	胎盘早剥	输血治疗	降血压治疗	胎儿宫内生长受限
A组	53	19(35.8)	34(64.2)	1(1.9)	1(1.9)	30(56.6)	2(3.8)
B组	71	27(38.0)	44(62.0)	1(1.4)	1(1.4)	45(63.3)	6(8.5)
C组	66	21(31.8)	45(68.2)	4(6.0)	3(4.5)	48(72.7)	10(15.2)
χ²值	?	0.589	0.589	2.328	1.338	3.439	4.575
P值	?	0.745	0.745	0.331	0.531	0.185	0.115
组别	例数	胎儿呼吸窘迫综合征	孕妇胸腔积液	新生儿转入NICU	早产	子痫	HELLP综合征
A组	53	2(3.8)	7(13.2)	16(30.2)	30(56.6)	0(0)	0(0)
B组	71	8(11.3)	4(5.6)	36(50.7)	38(53.5)	0(0)	1(1.4)
C组	66	10(15.2)	8(12.1)	45(68.2)	52(78.8)	5(7.6)	1(1.5)
χ²值	?	4.107	2.440	16.985	1.486	7.255	0.964
P值	?	0.129	0.314	<0.001	0.498	0.006	0.667

表3 3组子痫前期孕妇的妊娠结局比较[例数(%)]

组别	例数	阴道分娩	剖宫产术分娩	胎盘早剥	输血治疗	降血压治疗	胎儿宫内生长受限
A组	53	19(35.8)	34(64.2)	1(1.9)	1(1.9)	30(56.6)	2(3.8)
B组	71	27(38.0)	44(62.0)	1(1.4)	1(1.4)	45(63.3)	6(8.5)
C组	66	21(31.8)	45(68.2)	4(6.0)	3(4.5)	48(72.7)	10(15.2)
χ²值	?	0.589	0.589	2.328	1.338	3.439	4.575
P值	?	0.745	0.745	0.331	0.531	0.185	0.115
组别	例数	胎儿呼吸窘迫综合征	孕妇胸腔积液	新生儿转入NICU	早产	子痫	HELLP综合征
A组	53	2(3.8)	7(13.2)	16(30.2)	30(56.6)	0(0)	0(0)
B组	71	8(11.3)	4(5.6)	36(50.7)	38(53.5)	0(0)	1(1.4)
C组	66	10(15.2)	8(12.1)	45(68.2)	52(78.8)	5(7.6)	1(1.5)
χ²值	?	4.107	2.440	16.985	1.486	7.255	0.964
P值	?	0.129	0.314	<0.001	0.498	0.006	0.667

[1]	Ni S, Zhang Y, Deng Y, et al. AGT M235T polymorphism contributes to risk of preeclampsia: evidence from a Meta-analysis [J]. J Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone Syst, 2012, 13(3): 379-386.
[2]	Muniz L, Luizon MR, Palei AC, et al. eNOS tag SNP haplotypes in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy[J]. DNA Cell Biol, 2012, 31(12): 1665-1670.
[3]	庄旭，叶太阳，林建华．子痫前期易感基因研究进展与展望[J]. 实用妇产科杂志，2014，30(9): 664-667.
[4]	Koξyigit Y, Atamer Y, Atamer A, et al. Changes in serum levels of leptin, cytokines and lipoprotein in pre-eclamptic and normotensive pregnant women[J]. Gynecol Endocrinol, 2004, 19(5): 267-273.
[5]	Cunningham FG, Gant NF, Leveno KJ, et al. Williams obstetrics [M]. 21st Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Hardcover, 2001.
[6]	中华医学会妇产科学分会妊娠期高血压疾病学组．妊娠期高血压疾病诊治指南(2015)[J]. 中华妇产科杂志，2015，50(10): 721-728.
[7]	Hutcheon JA, Lisonkova S, Joseph KS. Epidemiology of pre-eclampsia and the other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy [J]. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 2011, 25(4): 391-403.
[8]	中华医学会妇产科学分会妊娠期高血压疾病学组．妊娠期高血压疾病诊治指南(2012版)[J]．中华妇产科杂志，2012，47(6): 476-480.
[9]	ACOG Practice Bulletin. Diagnosis and management of preeclampsia and eclampsia. Number 33, January 2002 [J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2002, 99(1): 159-167.
[10]	American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Task Force on Hypertension in Pregnancy. Hypertension in pregnaney report of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists′ Task Force on hypertension in pregnancy [J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2013, 122(5): 1122-1131.
[11]	Magee LA, Pels A, Helewa M, et al. Diagnosis, evaluation, and management of the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: executive summary [J]. J Obstet Gynaecol Can, 2014, 36(7): 575-576.
[12]	World Health Organization. WHO recommendations for prevention and treatment of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia [DB/OL]. (2011-11-02) [2018-03-17]. URL
[13]	Thornton CE, Makris A, Ogle RF, et al. Role of proteinuria in defining pre-eclampsia: clinical outcomes for women and babies [J]. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol, 2010, 37(4): 466-470.
[14]	Buchbinder A, Sibai BM, Caritis S, et al. Adverse perinatal outcomes are significantly higher in severe gestational hypertension than in mild preeclampsia [J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2002, 186(1): 66-71.
[15]	Sibai BM. Diagnosis, controversies, and management of the syndrome of hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelet count [J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2004, 103(5 Pt 1): 981-991.
[16]	Thangaratinam S, Coomarasamy A, O′Mahony F, et al. Estimation of proteinuria as a predictor of complications of pre-eclampsia: a systematic review [J]. BMC Med, 2009, 7: 10.
[17]	Chan P, Brown M, Simpson JM, et al. Proteinuria in pre-eclampsia: how much matters? [J]. BJOG, 2005, 112(3): 280-285.
[18]	Dong X, Gou W, Li C, et al. Proteinuria in preeclampsia: not essential to diagnosis but related to disease severity and fetal outcomes [J]. Pregnancy Hypertens, 2017, 8: 60-64.
[19]	Kim MJ, Kim YN, Jung EJ, et al. Is massive proteinuria associated with maternal and fetal morbidities in preeclampsia? [J]. Obstet Gynecol Sci, 2017, 60(3): 260-265.
[20]	Mateus J, Newman R, Sibai BM, et al. Massive urinary protein excretion associated with greater neonatal risk in preeclampsia [J]. AJP Rep, 2017, 7(1): e49-e58.
[21]	Newman MG, Robichaux AG, Stedman CM, et al. Perinatal outcomes in preeclampsia that is complicated by massive proteinuria [J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2003, 188(1): 264-268.
[22]	von Dadelszen P, Magee LA, Devarakonda RM, et al. The prediction of adverse maternal outcomes in preeclampsia [J]. J Obstet Gynaecol Can, 2004, 26(10): 871-879.
[23]	Bramham K, Poli-de-Figueiredo CE, Seed PT, et al. Association of proteinuria threshold in pre-eclampsia with maternal and perinatal outcomes: a nested case control cohort of high risk women [J]. PLoS One, 2013，8(10): e76083.
[24]	Tufnel DJ, Sherman AH, Waugh JJ, et al. The management of severe preeclampsia and eclampsia [M]. UK: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Press, 2006: 1-11.
[25]	Rath W, Fischer T. The diagnosis and treatment of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: new findings for antenatal and inpatient care [J]. Dtsch Arztebl Int, 2009, 106(45): 733-738.

[1]	Haoyuan Yang, Jie Gong, Qingwei Zou, Hang Ruan. Current research status on adverse pregnancy outcomes of maternal and infant in pregnant women with asthma[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(05): 522-529.
[2]	Tiantian Chen, Xiaodong Wang, Haiyan Yu. Pregnancy outcome of twin pregnancy with Gitelman syndrome: a case report and literature review[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(05): 559-568.
[3]	Xiaoqing Ju, Yunjie Jin, Xiaoyan Wang. Influencing factors of uterine rupture during vaginal delivery in patients with scarred uterus after cesarean section[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(05): 575-581.
[4]	Juan Gu, Qingqing Sun, Fangfang Hu, Yijuan Cao, Yujuan Qi. Clinical application of endometrial receptivity array to improve pregnancy outcomes in women with repeated embryo implantation failure[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(05): 582-587.
[5]	Beibei Wang, Qixiu Dong, Hongyan Xi, Qingyun Yu, Lijun Zhang, Guang Shi. Analysis of influencing factors of medical abortion failure of pregnant women in early pregnancy and construction of related prediction model and its predictive value for medical abortion success[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(05): 588-594.
[6]	Xu Chen, Yuru Zhan, Chunhua Wang. Clinical value of ABO blood group combined with thyroid function in prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(05): 604-610.
[7]	Mengling Zhou, Zhiwei Xue, Shu Zhou. Changes in size of uterine myoma during pregnancy and its association with adverse pregnancy outcomes[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(05): 611-615.
[8]	Chenxi Ran, Rufei Shen, Mingyu Liao, Qian Liao, Ling Zhou, Yuling Zhang, Min Long. Treatment and management of pituitary tumor during pregnancy[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(04): 487-491.
[9]	Li Chen, Xueqin Lei, Lian Duan, Yue Zeng, Guolin He. Analysis of influencing factors of success of trial of labor after twice cesarean sections and its pregnancy outcomes[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(03): 287-294.
[10]	Guohua Ren, Xiaoxiao Du, Shanling Hong, Shuai Shao. Change and significance of serum interleukin-22, hydrogen sulfide, and osteoprotegerin levels of patients with hypertensive acute kidney injury in pregnancy[J]. Chinese Journal of Kidney Disease Investigation(Electronic Edition), 2023, 12(03): 150-155.
[11]	Yuyan Zhang, Bin Hu, Weihong Zhang, Mei Xu, Hui Zhu, Xinyue Yang, Hailing Liu. Relationship between echocardiography parameters and liver function during the second trimester of pregnancy and their predictive value for adverse pregnancy outcomes[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestion and Medical Imageology(Electronic Edition), 2023, 13(06): 499-504.
[12]	Xin Wang, Lin Liu, Zhejia Wen, Chunling Liu, Hong Zhang, Fang Lyu. Effect of stress exposure before pregnancy on subsequent pregnancy outcomes in mice[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(04): 431-437.
[13]	Xueyun Liu, Ying Fan, Aijun Yao, Shengmiao Zhang, Yani Lv, Bingqing Zhang, Xiaoyu Zhang, Heng. Liu. Effects of individualized whole-course nursing intervention based on WeChat mini program on pregnancy weight and delivery outcome[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(04): 455-460.
[14]	Xiaoxiang Wu, Bo Yang, Jingxuan Li, Fengling Zhang, Guihui Guo, Shaopei Zheng. Predictive value of umbilical artery ultrasonography parameters, neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, and sFlt-1/PLGF ratio for adverse pregnancy outcomes in patients with pregnancy induced hypertension syndrome[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(03): 266-271.
[15]	Lizi Zhang, Dunjin Chen. Adverse outcomes and longterm prognosis of placenta accreta spectrum disorders[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetric Emergency(Electronic Edition), 2023, 12(03): 155-158.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export