Preterm and term preeclampsia: differences in biochemical parameter and pregnancy outcomes

ABSTRACT

Objective: To analyze the similarities and differences in the clinical parameters, laboratory biomarkers, and pregnancy outcomes between preterm and term preeclampsia (PE).

Methods: Data on 185 women diagnosed with PE were collected from a Jiangsu Province Hospital from January 2017 to December 2017 and analyzed. 74 (40%) patients were diagnosed with preterm PE, of which 70 (94.6%) patients with PE with severe features (PEs) and the rest with PE. 111 (60%) patients were diagnosed with term PE, of which 54 (48.6%) patients with PEs and the rest with PE.

Results: Preterm PE group had significantly higher blood pressure than that of term PE, with mean delivery at gestational age of 34.3$\pm$2.1 weeks for preterm PE and 39$\pm$1.2 weeks for term PE. Preterm PE group was associated with previous cesarean section and PE history, fetal growth restriction (FGR), non-reassuring fetal status (NRFS), and fetal umbilical artery (UA) systolic velocity/diastolic velocity ratio (S/D R) abnormality, neonatal lower birth weight, lower APGAR score, and higher NICU transfer rate. 74.3% of pregnant women from preterm PE group had proteinuria of +2 to +4, whilst only 37.8% pregnant women from term PE group developed that condition. Liver and renal function, also serum Ca and K were significantly higher in preterm PE.

Conclusion: Our study found that preterm PE significantly correlated with higher incidence of PEs, neonatal morbidities, also higher liver and kidney function compared to term PE. These results may be helpful for obstetricians to make accurate quantification of risk regarding every result of antenatal check-up, and perform close follow up if any abnormalities were found on blood pressure, ultrasound, or blood tests.

KEYWORDS:

• Preeclampsia
• pregnancy outcomes
• preterm

Declaration of interest

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties. Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Additional information

Funding

This manuscript was not funded.