MARATTO

article · Evidence Based Women s Health Journal

Fetal Middle Cerebral to Uterine Artery Pulsatility Indices Ratios in Preeclampsia versus Normal Pregnancy

2024Open accessBenha University

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the predictive value of MCA/uterine artery pulsatility indices (PI) ratio in the third trimester of pregnancy for anticipating adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with preeclampsia, comparing it to the CPR (MCA/umbilical artery PI ratio).Study Design: A prospective study.Patients and Methods: The research involved 50 preeclampsia cases and 50 healthy pregnancies or births that were more than 26 weeks old. All participants underwent comprehensive laboratory testing, comprising Urine analysis, CBC, liver function tests, and renal function testing. Additionally, ultrasonography examinations were carried out at Benha University Hospital during the study period.Results: In the preeclampsia group, the mean MCA PI, MCA/UTA, and MCA/Umbilical artery PI were lower, while the mean uterine and umbilical artery PI were higher in contrast to control group, and these differences were statistically significant. Negative newborn results, such poor APGAR scores, preterm birth, NICU admission, SGA, and neonatal death, were all more prevalent in the preeclamptic group in contrast to control group, with significant differences variations observed. MCA/UTA ratio in pregnancies with preeclampsia demonstrated its effectiveness as a valuable predictor of adverse neonatal outcomes. Conclusion: The Cerebro-Uterine (CU) ratio was notably different between the two groups, being less in preeclampsia cases in contrast to control group. Furthermore, it was significantly linked to poor neonatal results. in pregnancies affected by preeclampsia. The CU ratio displayed a commendable ability to predict adverse neonatal outcomes

Research topics

  • Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
  • Cerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
  • Renal and Vascular Pathologies

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.21608/ebwhj.2023.245178.1270

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.