First-trimester aspirin allocation strategies and preterm preeclampsia in women with pregestational diabetes: A national multicenter observational cohort study.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
María M Goya, Begoña Vega Guedes, Mónica Ballesteros Pérez, Verónica Perea Castilla, Irene Vinagre Torres, Fernando Bugatto, Ana M Wägner Fahlin, Anna Megía Colet, Judit Amigó Farrán, Manel Mendoza
{"title":"First-trimester aspirin allocation strategies and preterm preeclampsia in women with pregestational diabetes: A national multicenter observational cohort study.","authors":"María M Goya, Begoña Vega Guedes, Mónica Ballesteros Pérez, Verónica Perea Castilla, Irene Vinagre Torres, Fernando Bugatto, Ana M Wägner Fahlin, Anna Megía Colet, Judit Amigó Farrán, Manel Mendoza","doi":"10.1111/aogs.70363","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Women with pregestational diabetes mellitus (PGDM) are at increased risk of preeclampsia (PE) and are commonly prescribed aspirin prophylaxis based on clinical risk factors alone. First-trimester screening algorithms may allow a more individualized allocation of aspirin. We aimed to compare the association between three first-trimester aspirin allocation strategies and the incidence of preterm PE in women with PGDM in routine clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This retrospective multicenter observational cohort study included 519 singleton pregnancies with PGDM managed at six tertiary hospitals in Spain between January 2017 and December 2022. Women were classified according to the strategy used to allocate aspirin prophylaxis: clinical risk factor-based prophylaxis, first-trimester algorithm-based screening without placental growth factor (PlGF), or algorithm-based screening including PlGF. The primary outcome was preterm PE (<37 weeks). Secondary outcomes included overall and severe PE, gestational age at delivery, spontaneous preterm birth, birthweight, small-for-gestational-age infants, and neonatal intensive care unit admission. Multivariable regression models were adjusted for prespecified maternal characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 519 pregnancies, 255 were managed using clinical risk factor-based prophylaxis, 119 using the algorithm without PlGF, and 145 using the algorithm with PlGF. Aspirin was prescribed to 100%, 16.8%, and 28.3% of women, respectively. Preterm PE rates were 4.7%, 5.9%, and 4.2%, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, no statistically significant differences in preterm PE were observed for the algorithm without PlGF (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-5.45) or with PlGF (aOR 1.33, 95% CI 0.41-3.91) compared with clinical risk factor-based prophylaxis. Secondary maternal and perinatal outcomes were also comparable across groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In women with PGDM, algorithm-based aspirin allocation strategies were associated with substantially lower aspirin exposure without evidence of increased preterm PE or adverse perinatal outcomes compared with clinical risk factor-based prophylaxis. However, given the observational design, baseline differences, and limited number of events, the study was not powered to demonstrate equivalence or exclude smaller clinically relevant differences. These findings should therefore be considered exploratory and require confirmation in adequately powered prospective studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":6990,"journal":{"name":"Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13643007/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.70363","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Women with pregestational diabetes mellitus (PGDM) are at increased risk of preeclampsia (PE) and are commonly prescribed aspirin prophylaxis based on clinical risk factors alone. First-trimester screening algorithms may allow a more individualized allocation of aspirin. We aimed to compare the association between three first-trimester aspirin allocation strategies and the incidence of preterm PE in women with PGDM in routine clinical practice.

Material and methods: This retrospective multicenter observational cohort study included 519 singleton pregnancies with PGDM managed at six tertiary hospitals in Spain between January 2017 and December 2022. Women were classified according to the strategy used to allocate aspirin prophylaxis: clinical risk factor-based prophylaxis, first-trimester algorithm-based screening without placental growth factor (PlGF), or algorithm-based screening including PlGF. The primary outcome was preterm PE (<37 weeks). Secondary outcomes included overall and severe PE, gestational age at delivery, spontaneous preterm birth, birthweight, small-for-gestational-age infants, and neonatal intensive care unit admission. Multivariable regression models were adjusted for prespecified maternal characteristics.

Results: Among 519 pregnancies, 255 were managed using clinical risk factor-based prophylaxis, 119 using the algorithm without PlGF, and 145 using the algorithm with PlGF. Aspirin was prescribed to 100%, 16.8%, and 28.3% of women, respectively. Preterm PE rates were 4.7%, 5.9%, and 4.2%, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, no statistically significant differences in preterm PE were observed for the algorithm without PlGF (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-5.45) or with PlGF (aOR 1.33, 95% CI 0.41-3.91) compared with clinical risk factor-based prophylaxis. Secondary maternal and perinatal outcomes were also comparable across groups.

Conclusions: In women with PGDM, algorithm-based aspirin allocation strategies were associated with substantially lower aspirin exposure without evidence of increased preterm PE or adverse perinatal outcomes compared with clinical risk factor-based prophylaxis. However, given the observational design, baseline differences, and limited number of events, the study was not powered to demonstrate equivalence or exclude smaller clinically relevant differences. These findings should therefore be considered exploratory and require confirmation in adequately powered prospective studies.

妊娠前期糖尿病妇女的阿司匹林分配策略与早产子痫前期:一项全国多中心观察队列研究
妊娠期糖尿病(PGDM)妇女发生子痫前期(PE)的风险增加,通常根据临床危险因素单独开具阿司匹林预防处方。孕早期筛查算法可能允许更个性化的阿司匹林分配。我们的目的是比较常规临床实践中三种妊娠早期阿司匹林分配策略与PGDM妇女早产PE发生率之间的关系。材料和方法:这项回顾性多中心观察性队列研究纳入了2017年1月至2022年12月在西班牙6家三级医院治疗的519例单胎妊娠PGDM。根据分配阿司匹林预防的策略对妇女进行分类:基于临床危险因素的预防,妊娠早期不含胎盘生长因子(PlGF)的基于算法的筛查,或包括PlGF的基于算法的筛查。主要结局是早产PE(结果:在519例妊娠中,255例采用基于临床危险因素的预防,119例使用不含PlGF的算法,145例使用带PlGF的算法)。服用阿司匹林的女性比例分别为100%、16.8%和28.3%。早产儿PE率分别为4.7%、5.9%和4.2%。多变量校正后,与基于临床危险因素的预防相比,不使用PlGF(校正优势比[aOR] 1.89, 95%可信区间[CI] 0.62-5.45)或使用PlGF (aOR 1.33, 95% CI 0.41-3.91)的方法在早产儿PE方面无统计学差异。二级产妇和围产期结局在各组间也具有可比性。结论:在患有PGDM的女性中,与基于临床危险因素的预防相比,基于算法的阿司匹林分配策略与显著降低阿司匹林暴露相关,没有证据表明早产PE增加或不良围产期结局。然而,考虑到观察设计、基线差异和有限的事件数量,该研究无法证明等效性或排除较小的临床相关差异。因此,这些发现应该被认为是探索性的,需要在充分有力的前瞻性研究中得到证实。
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
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
4.70%
发文量
180
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Published monthly, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica is an international journal dedicated to providing the very latest information on the results of both clinical, basic and translational research work related to all aspects of women’s health from around the globe. The journal regularly publishes commentaries, reviews, and original articles on a wide variety of topics including: gynecology, pregnancy, birth, female urology, gynecologic oncology, fertility and reproductive biology.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书