Midregional pro-adrenomedullin and matrix metalloproteinase-2 levels in intrauterine growth restriction and small gestational age pregnancies: biochemical diagnostic difference

Abstract

Objective

Midregional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) and matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2) are such proteins, that decreased levels are demonstrated in defective placental functions, as preeclampsia. The aim of the study is to compare maternal serum MR-proADM and MMP-2 levels across pregnancies with intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), small for gestational age (SGA) and appropriate for gestational age (AGA), to biochemical screen the difference between SGA and IUGR.

Materials and methods

180 pregnant women were enrolled in a cross-sectional study: sixty pregnancies diagnosed for IUGR were included in group 1 (IUGR group), sixty pregnancies with SGA were in Group 2 (SGA group) and sixty pregnancies diagnosed for AGA, as control group. Maternal venous blood samples were collected at the time of enrollment, to assess serum MR-proADM and MMP-2 levels, by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

Results

The mean maternal serum MR-proADM and MMP-2 levels were lower in the IUGR group than in the SGA and AGA groups (p < .001 and p < .001). Maternal serum MR-proADM and MMP-2 cutoffs of 29.985 pg/mL and 1.875 ng/mL were found to be optimal to distinguish IUGR, with sensitivity of 98.3% and 98.3%, specificity of 83.3% and 89.2%, respectively.

Conclusion

Maternal serum MR-proADM and MMP-2 levels were significantly lower in pregnancies with IUGR. Maternal serum MR-proADM and MMP-2 measurements could be used to distinguish IUGR pregnancies from SGA pregnancies.

Keywords:

• Intrauterine growth restriction;
• matrix metalloproteinase-2;
• midregional pro-adrenomedullin;
• small for gestational age;
• pregnancy complications;

Disclosure statement

Authors certify that there is no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article and they reveal any financial interests or connections, direct or indirect or other situations that might raise the question of bias in the work reported or the conclusions, implications or opinions stated – including pertinent commercial or other sources of funding for the individual authors or for the associated departments or organizations, personal relationships or direct academic competition.