The predictive value of thromboelastography, routine blood indices, ultrasound parameters, and placental thickness in determining fetal outcome.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
American journal of translational research Pub Date : 2024-07-15 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.62347/ROVE7306
Liang Guo, Juan Qi, Na Li, Lina Ma, Xin Zhang
{"title":"The predictive value of thromboelastography, routine blood indices, ultrasound parameters, and placental thickness in determining fetal outcome.","authors":"Liang Guo, Juan Qi, Na Li, Lina Ma, Xin Zhang","doi":"10.62347/ROVE7306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the predictive value of thromboelastography, routine blood indices, ultrasound measurements, and placental thickness for fetal outcome.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis of 218 expectant mothers at our hospital from April 2020 to June 2022 was conducted. Mothers were classified into favorable (n=164) and adverse (n=54) fetal outcome groups. We compared thromboelastography, blood counts, and ultrasound parameters, including placental thickness, between the two groups. Predictive models using lasso regression were developed for individual assessment type and their combinations. Model efficacies were evaluated by ROC curves and Delong's test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thromboelastography indicated significantly higher values of R (P=0.004), Angle (P<0.001), and MA (P=0.002) while notably lower K (P<0.001) in the adverse outcome group compared to the favorable outcome group. Peripheral blood analysis showed elevated levels of WBC (P<0.001), CRP (P=0.001), and PLR (P<0.001) in the adverse outcome group. Ultrasound assessments revealed significant increases in S/D (P<0.001), PI (P=0.016), RI (P<0.001), and placental thickness (P<0.001) in the adverse outcome group. The areas under the curve (AUCs) for the thromboelastography (4 features), peripheral blood indices (3 features), ultrasound parameters (4 features), and combined index model (11 features) were 0.774, 0.779, 0.961, and 0.978, respectively. Delong's test indicated that the combined model's AUC did not significantly differ from that of the ultrasound parameters (P>0.05) but was superior to the models based on thromboelastography, peripheral blood indices, and placental thickness alone (P<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study underscores the unparalleled predictive value of ultrasound metrics in identifying the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, highlighting their critical role in prenatal risk assessment and monitoring frameworks.</p>","PeriodicalId":7731,"journal":{"name":"American journal of translational research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11301463/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of translational research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.62347/ROVE7306","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the predictive value of thromboelastography, routine blood indices, ultrasound measurements, and placental thickness for fetal outcome.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of 218 expectant mothers at our hospital from April 2020 to June 2022 was conducted. Mothers were classified into favorable (n=164) and adverse (n=54) fetal outcome groups. We compared thromboelastography, blood counts, and ultrasound parameters, including placental thickness, between the two groups. Predictive models using lasso regression were developed for individual assessment type and their combinations. Model efficacies were evaluated by ROC curves and Delong's test.

Results: Thromboelastography indicated significantly higher values of R (P=0.004), Angle (P<0.001), and MA (P=0.002) while notably lower K (P<0.001) in the adverse outcome group compared to the favorable outcome group. Peripheral blood analysis showed elevated levels of WBC (P<0.001), CRP (P=0.001), and PLR (P<0.001) in the adverse outcome group. Ultrasound assessments revealed significant increases in S/D (P<0.001), PI (P=0.016), RI (P<0.001), and placental thickness (P<0.001) in the adverse outcome group. The areas under the curve (AUCs) for the thromboelastography (4 features), peripheral blood indices (3 features), ultrasound parameters (4 features), and combined index model (11 features) were 0.774, 0.779, 0.961, and 0.978, respectively. Delong's test indicated that the combined model's AUC did not significantly differ from that of the ultrasound parameters (P>0.05) but was superior to the models based on thromboelastography, peripheral blood indices, and placental thickness alone (P<0.001).

Conclusion: This study underscores the unparalleled predictive value of ultrasound metrics in identifying the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, highlighting their critical role in prenatal risk assessment and monitoring frameworks.

血栓弹力图、血常规指数、超声参数和胎盘厚度对胎儿预后的预测价值。
目的评估血栓弹力图、血常规指标、超声测量和胎盘厚度对胎儿结局的预测价值:对我院 2020 年 4 月至 2022 年 6 月期间的 218 名孕妇进行回顾性分析。产妇被分为有利胎儿结局组(164 人)和不利胎儿结局组(54 人)。我们比较了两组之间的血栓弹力图、血细胞计数和超声参数,包括胎盘厚度。我们针对单个评估类型及其组合建立了拉索回归预测模型。通过 ROC 曲线和德隆检验评估了模型的有效性:结果:血栓弹力图显示的 R 值(P=0.004)和 Angle 值(P0.05)均明显高于基于血栓弹力图、外周血指数和胎盘厚度的模型(PC结论:该研究强调了基于血栓弹力图和胎盘厚度的预测模型的独特性:本研究强调了超声指标在识别不良妊娠结局风险方面无与伦比的预测价值,突出了其在产前风险评估和监测框架中的关键作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American journal of translational research
American journal of translational research ONCOLOGY-MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
自引率
0.00%
发文量
552
期刊介绍: Information not localized
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信