The need to redefine preeclampsia.

Expert opinion on medical diagnostics Pub Date : 2012-07-01 Epub Date: 2012-05-22 DOI:10.1517/17530059.2012.691093
Jimmy Espinoza
{"title":"The need to redefine preeclampsia.","authors":"Jimmy Espinoza","doi":"10.1517/17530059.2012.691093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The current definition of preeclampsia is based on convention and not on maternal and/or perinatal outcomes. This article reviews some of the limitations of the conventional definition of preeclampsia and recent evidence suggesting that there is a dose-response relationship between the magnitude of uteroplacental ischemia and the timing of onset of preeclampsia.</p><p><strong>Areas covered: </strong>This clinical opinion reviews the limitations of the conventional cutoff for 24-h proteinuria during pregnancy, problems with blood pressure measurement in pregnant women and recent insights into the pathophysiology of preeclampsia including the role of angiogenic imbalances.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>New criteria to redefine preeclampsia has to rely on studies that compare the degree of proteinuria, the severity of hypertension and perhaps the magnitude of angiogenic imbalances in relation with maternal and/or perinatal outcomes. We propose a hypothetical sub-classification of preeclampsia according to whether there is evidence of absolute or relative uteroplacental ischemia in view of the lack of placental pathology support for the cutoff of 34 weeks to sub-classify preeclampsia.</p>","PeriodicalId":72996,"journal":{"name":"Expert opinion on medical diagnostics","volume":"6 4","pages":"347-57"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1517/17530059.2012.691093","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert opinion on medical diagnostics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1517/17530059.2012.691093","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2012/5/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Introduction: The current definition of preeclampsia is based on convention and not on maternal and/or perinatal outcomes. This article reviews some of the limitations of the conventional definition of preeclampsia and recent evidence suggesting that there is a dose-response relationship between the magnitude of uteroplacental ischemia and the timing of onset of preeclampsia.

Areas covered: This clinical opinion reviews the limitations of the conventional cutoff for 24-h proteinuria during pregnancy, problems with blood pressure measurement in pregnant women and recent insights into the pathophysiology of preeclampsia including the role of angiogenic imbalances.

Expert opinion: New criteria to redefine preeclampsia has to rely on studies that compare the degree of proteinuria, the severity of hypertension and perhaps the magnitude of angiogenic imbalances in relation with maternal and/or perinatal outcomes. We propose a hypothetical sub-classification of preeclampsia according to whether there is evidence of absolute or relative uteroplacental ischemia in view of the lack of placental pathology support for the cutoff of 34 weeks to sub-classify preeclampsia.

需要重新定义先兆子痫。
导言:目前先兆子痫的定义是基于惯例,而不是基于产妇和/或围产期结局。本文回顾了子痫前期传统定义的一些局限性,以及最近的证据表明子宫胎盘缺血程度与子痫前期发病时间之间存在剂量-反应关系。涵盖的领域:本临床意见回顾了妊娠期24小时蛋白尿的常规切断的局限性,孕妇血压测量的问题以及最近对子痫前期病理生理学的见解,包括血管生成失衡的作用。专家意见:重新定义先兆子痫的新标准必须依赖于比较蛋白尿程度、高血压严重程度以及可能与孕产妇和/或围产期结局相关的血管生成失衡程度的研究。鉴于缺乏胎盘病理学支持34周为子痫前期亚分类的截断时间,我们根据是否有绝对或相对子宫胎盘缺血的证据,提出子痫前期亚分类的假设。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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