MARATTO

article · Evidence Based Women s Health Journal

Study of the Changes of Pulsatility Index (PI) in Uterine Artery in Patients with Recurrent Pregnancy Loss

2024Open accessBenha University

Abstract

Background: Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is a distressing condition affecting women of childbearing age, often with unexplained causes. Pulsatility Index (PI) in uterine arteries has been proposed as a potential diagnostic marker.Objectives: To assess disparities in uterine artery PI between women experiencing recurrent unexplained first-trimester miscarriages and those with no prior history of miscarriage.Study Design: A case-control study.Materials and Methods: A cohort of 100 non-pregnant women was the focus of this research. They were categorized into two distinct groups: the RPL group, denoted as Group A, and the control group, identified as Group B. All participants underwent comprehensive clinical evaluations, including an exhaustive medical history, general health, abdominal and pelvic examinations, in addition to two-dimensional ultrasound assessments and Doppler studies aimed at quantifying the PI of the uterine arteries.Results: A statistically significant variance was observed in PI of the right uterine artery between the RPL group and the control group. The mean PI values were 2.000 (±0.451) and 2.248 (±0.322), respectively. A notable distinction in the PI of the left uterine artery between the RPL group and the control group was also detected (P-value < 0.05). Furthermore, PI values of both the right and left uterine arteries exhibited a statistically significant difference between the RPL and control groups (P-value < 0.05).Conclusion: The mean uterine artery PI value was greater in RPL group in contrast to control group. This suggests an elevated resistance to blood flow within uterine arteries among women who have experienced RPL.

Research topics

  • Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
  • Ectopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and Management

Sustainable Development Goals

Read the original research

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

DOI: 10.21608/ebwhj.2023.245173.1269

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.