Search

INTRODUCTION: Risk evaluation for preeclampsia in early pregnancy allows identification of women at high risk. Prediction models for preeclampsia often include circulating concentrations of placental growth factor (PlGF); however, the models are usually limited to a specific PlGF method of analysis. The aim of this study was to compare three different PlGF methods of analysis in a Swedish cohort to assess their convergent validity and appropriateness for use in preeclampsia risk prediction models in the first trimester of pregnancy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: First-trimester blood samples were collected in gestational week 11+0 to 13+6 from 150 pregnant women at Uppsala University Hospital during November 2018 until November 2020. These samples were analyzed using the different PlGF methods from Perkin Elmer, Roche Diagnostics, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. RESULTS: There were strong correlations between the PlGF results obtained with the three methods, but the slopes of the correlations clearly differed from 1.0: PlGFPerkinElmer = 0.553 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.518-0.588) * PlGFRoche -1.112 (95% CI -2.773 to 0.550); r = 0.966, mean difference -24.6 (95% CI -26.4 to -22.8). PlGFPerkinElmer = 0.673 (95% CI 0.618-0.729) * PlGFThermoFisher -0.199 (95% CI -2.292 to 1.894); r = 0.945, mean difference -13.8 (95% CI -15.1 to -12.6). PlGFRoche = 1.809 (95% CI 1.694-1.923) * PlGFPerkinElmer +2.010 (95% CI -0.877 to 4.897); r = 0.966, mean difference 24.6 (95% CI 22.8-26.4). PlGFRoche = 1.237 (95% CI 1.113-1.361) * PlGFThermoFisher +0.840 (95% CI -3.684 to 5.363); r = 0.937, mean difference 10.8 (95% CI 9.4-12.1). PlGFThermoFisher = 1.485 (95% CI 1.363-1.607) * PlGFPerkinElmer +0.296 (95% CI -2.784 to 3.375); r = 0.945, mean difference 13.8 (95% CI 12.6-15.1). PlGFThermoFisher = 0.808 (95% CI 0.726-0.891) * PlGFRoche -0.679 (95% CI -4.456 to 3.099); r = 0.937, mean difference -10.8 (95% CI -12.1 to -9.4). CONCLUSION: The three PlGF methods have different calibrations.

Introduction: The impact of placenta previa on pregnancy, delivery and infant outcomes has been extensively studied. However, less is known about the possible association of placental location other than previa with pregnancy outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate if placental location other than previa is associated with adverse pregnancy, delivery and infant outcomes. Material and methods: This is a population-based cohort study, with data from the regional population-based Stockholm-Gotland Obstetric Cohort, Sweden, from 2008 to 2014. The study population included 74 087 nulliparous women with singleton pregnancies resulting in live-born infants, with information about placental location from the second-trimester ultrasound screening. The association between placental location (fundal, lateral, anterior or posterior) and pregnancy outcomes was estimated using logistic regression analysis. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated, and adjustments were made for maternal age, height, country of birth, smoking in early pregnancy, sex of the infant and in vitro fertilization. Main outcome measures were pregnancy, delivery and infant outcomes. Results: Compared with posterior placental location, fundal and lateral placental locations were associated with a number of adverse pregnancy outcomes, the most important being: very preterm birth (<32 weeks of gestation) (adjusted OR [aOR] 1.78, 95% CI 1.18-2.63 and aOR 2.12, 95% CI 1.39-2.25, respectively), moderate preterm birth (32-36 weeks of gestation) (aOR 1.23, 95% CI 1.001-1.51 and aOR 1.62, 95% CI 1.32-2.00, respectively), small-for-gestational-age birth (aOR 1.67, 95% CI 1.34-2.07 and aOR 1.77, 95% CI 1.39-2.25, respectively) and manual removal of the placenta in vaginal births (aOR 3.27, 95% CI 2.68-3.99 and aOR 3.27, 95% CI 2.60-4.10, respectively). Additionally, lateral placental location was associated with preeclampsia (aOR 1.30, 95% CI 1.03-1.65) and severe postpartu