Abstract

Pre-eclampsia (PE) is a leading cause of maternal and fetal/neonatal morbidity and mortality worldwide. Clinical diagnosis and definition of PE is commonly based on the measurement of non-specific signs and symptoms, principally hypertension and proteinuria1–3. However, due to the recognition that measurement of proteinuria is prone to inaccuracies and the fact that PE complications often occur before proteinuria becomes significant, most recent guidelines also support the diagnosis of PE on the basis of hypertension and signs of maternal organ dysfunction other than proteinuria3–5. Furthermore, the clinical presentation and course of PE is variable, ranging from severe and rapidly progressing early-onset PE, necessitating preterm delivery, to late-onset PE at term. There may be associated intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), further increasing neonatal morbidity and mortality. These features suggest that the classical standards for the diagnosis of PE are not sufficient to encompass the complexity of the syndrome. Undoubtedly, proper management of pregnant women at high risk for PE necessitates early and reliable detection and intensified monitoring, with referral to specialized perinatal care centers, to reduce substantially maternal, fetal and neonatal morbidity6,7. In the decade since Maynard et al.8 reported that excessive placental production of soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase receptor-1 (sFlt-1), an antagonist of vascular endothelial growth factor and placental growth factor (PlGF), contributes to the pathogenesis of PE, extensive research has been published demonstrating the usefulness of angiogenic markers in both diagnosis and the subsequent prediction and management of PE and placenta-related disorders. Various reports have demonstrated that disturbances in angiogenic and antiangiogenic factors are implicated in the pathogenesis of PE and have possible relevance in the diagnosis and prognosis of the disease. Increased serum levels of sFlt-1 and decreased levels of PlGF, thereby resulting in an increased sFlt-1/PlGF ratio, can be detected in the second half of pregnancy in women diagnosed to have not only PE but also IUGR or stillbirth, i.e. placenta-related disorders. These alterations are more pronounced in early-onset rather than late-onset disease and are associated with severity of the clinical disorder. Moreover, the disturbances in angiogenic factors are reported to be detectable prior to the onset of clinical symptoms (disease), thereby allowing discrimination of women with normal pregnancies from those at high risk for developing pregnancy complications, primarily PE9–30. Plasma concentrations of angiogenic/antiangiogenic factors are of prognostic value in obstetric triage: similar to the progressively worsening clinical course observed in women with early-onset PE, changes in the angiogenic profile leading to a more antiangiogenic state can be found. Current definitions of PE are poor in predicting PE-related adverse outcomes. A diagnosis of PE based on blood pressure and proteinuria has a positive predictive value of approximately 30% for predicting PE-related adverse outcomes31. Estimation of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio allows identification of women at high risk for imminent delivery and adverse maternal and neonatal outcome23,30,32–35. Moreover, it has also been shown that the time-dependent slope of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio between repeated measurements is predictive for pregnancy outcome and the risk of developing PE, and repeated measurements have been suggested36. However, the ‘optimal’ time interval for a follow-up test remains unclear. Finally, high values are closely related to the need to deliver immediately22,23,37. Additionally, in normal and complicated pregnancies, angiogenic factors are correlated with Doppler ultrasound parameters, mainly uterine artery (UtA) indices38–42. Combining the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio with UtA Doppler ultrasound, at the time of diagnosis of early-onset PE, has prognostic value mainly for perinatal complications, being limited for the prediction of maternal complications37,43. The additional measurement of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio has been shown to improve the sensitivity and specificity of Doppler measurement in predicting PE44–48, supporting its implementation in screening algorithms. Whereas studies on the predictive efficacy of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in the first trimester have yielded contradictory results49, reports on the use of this marker as an aid in prediction from the mid trimester onwards have led to its suggested use as a screening tool, especially for identifying all women developing PE and requiring delivery within the subsequent 4 weeks50–52. This short review of the literature highlights that measurement of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio has the potential to become an additional tool in the management of PE, particularly as automated tests that allow rapid and easy measurement of these markers are now widely available. Nevertheless, although these markers were incorporated recently into the German guidelines53, no formal recommendation regarding how to use sFlt-1, PlGF or the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio has been established in any official protocol. The purpose of this paper is to answer questions that are frequently asked around the use of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in the diagnosis and prediction of PE and regarding the implications for clinical practice, in particular, ‘When?’ and ‘In which women?’ should the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio be measured and, ‘What should be done with the results?’, and to provide guidance to educate physicians on the use of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in clinical practice. To achieve this, international experts in the use of angiogenic markers have strived to develop a consensus statement on the clinical use of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio and the consequential management in pregnant women with suspected PE or at a high risk of developing PE.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call