Abstract
Aims: To investigate maternal circulating apelin levels in pregnancies with and without preeclampsia.
Design and Method: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies reporting circulating apelin in women who develop preeclampsia. We searched databases for appropriate studies published through December 2021, without language restriction. The quality of studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa-Scale. Data were pooled as mean difference (MDs) or standardized MDs (SMDs) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). A random-effects model enabled reporting of differences between groups, minimizing the effects of uncertainty associated with inter-study variability on the effects of different endpoints.
Results: We identified a total of 122 studies, and ten of them reported circulating apelin in women with and without preeclampsia. Maternal apelin did not show a difference in preeclamptic compared to normotensive women (SMD: −0.38, 95%CI −0.91 to 0.15), although there was high heterogeneity between the included studies (I2 = 95%). Participants with preeclampsia had higher body mass index, lower gestational age at delivery, and birth weight. Preeclamptic pregnant women with higher BMI showed significantly lower apelin levels in the subgroup analysis. There was no significant apelin difference in the preeclampsia severity sub-analysis.
Conclusion: There was no significant difference in apelin levels in pregnant women with and without preeclampsia.
摘要
目的
探讨妊娠合并与不合并子痫前期的孕妇循环中apelin的水平。
设计和方法
对报告了发生先兆子痫的女性循环中apelin水平的观察性研究进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。我们在数据库中检索截止到2021年12月发表的合适研究, 没有语言限制。采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表对研究质量进行评估。数据以均数差(MDS)或标准化均数差(SMDS)和95%可信区间(95%CI)进行合并。随机效应模型能够报告不同组间的差异, 最大限度地减少与研究间变异性相关的不确定性对不同终点的影响。
结果
我们总共确定了122项研究, 其中10项报告了患有和不患有先兆子痫的妇女循环中的apelin水平。母体apelin在子痫前期组与正常血压组之间无差异(SMD:−0.38, 95%CI −0.91∼0.15), 尽管纳入的研究具有高度的异质性(I2=95%)。有先兆子痫者体重指数更高, 分娩时胎龄更小, 胎儿出生体重更低。在亚组分析中, 体重指数较高的先兆子痫孕妇的apelin水平更低。根据先兆子痫严重性进行亚组分析, apelin无显著差异。
结论
先兆子痫孕妇与非先兆子痫孕妇血清apelin水平无明显差异。
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Ethics statement
Formal institutional review board approval was not required as this manuscript only addresses data extracted from already published studies.
Funding
The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.