血液流变学指标预测妊娠糖尿病患者妊娠结局的价值

doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-1245.2024.17.028

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的　探讨血液流变学变化对妊娠糖尿病（GDM）患者妊娠结局的预测价值。方法　采用回顾性研究，选取2020年1月至12月于黄石市妇幼保健院产科检查并分娩的80例GDM孕妇（GDM组），根据妊娠结局分为妊娠结局良好组（35例）和妊娠结局不良组（45例），选择同期产前检查健康孕妇68例作为对照组。GDM组年龄（30.55±4.23）岁，体重（67.52±6.34）kg，受教育程度：高中及以下30例、大专25例、本科及以上25例；对照组年龄（29.84±3.91）岁，体重（66.08±6.01）kg，受教育程度：高中及以下28例、大专20例、本科及以上20例。比较两组研究对象血液流变学参数的变化，采用χ²检验、t检验进行比较，多变量logistic回归模型分析GDM患者妊娠结局不良的危险因素，受试者操作特征曲线（ROC）评估血液流变学参数预测GDM患者妊娠结局不良的诊断效能。结果　GDM组的血浆黏度（PV）、血细胞压积（HCT）、高剪切全血黏度（HWBV）、低剪切全血黏度（LWBV）、红细胞沉降率（ESR）均高于对照组［（1.78±0.32）mPs·s比（1.54±0.33）mPs·s、（45.60±6.56）%比（37.64±5.71）%、（9.41±0.89）mPs·s比（7.61±1.44）mPs·s、（7.93±1.34）mPs·s比（5.36±1.73）mPs·s、（62.05±8.73）mm/h比（49.55±6.81）mm/h］，差异均有统计统计学意义（均P<0.05）。妊娠结局良好组PV、HCT、HWBV、LWBV低于妊娠结局不良组［（1.56±0.33）mPs·s比（1.95±0.17）mPs·s、（39.77±2.11）%比（50.14±5.12）%、（8.66±0.88）mPs·s比（10.00±0.16）mPs·s、（6.75±0.74）mPs·s比（8.85±0.95）mPs·s］，差异均有统计统计学意义（均P<0.05）；两组ESR比较，差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。血液流变学指标中，PV、HCT、HWBV、LWBV升高是GDM患者不良妊娠结局的潜在风险因素（OR=17.618、1.160、5.697、1.890，均P<0.05），四者联合检测评估不良妊娠结局发生的灵敏度为95.6%、特异度为97.1%、曲线下面积为0.980。结论　血液流变学指标在预测GDM患者妊娠结局中具有重要价值，联合检测可显著提高诊断的灵敏度和特异度。

关键词:

妊娠糖尿病, 血液流变学, 妊娠结局, 预测

Abstract:

Objective　To analyze and explore the value of hemorheological changes in the prediction of pregnancy outcomes in patients with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Methods　A retrospective analysis was conducted on 80 patients with GDM (a GDM group) who underwent obstetric examination and delivery at Huangshi Maternal and Child Health Hospital from January to December 2020. The patients were divided into a good pregnancy outcome group (35 cases) and a poor pregnancy outcome group (45 cases) according to the pregnancy outcomes. Sixty-eight healthy pregnant women who underwent prenatal examination during the same period were selected as a control group. The GDM group was (30.55±4.23) years old; their body weight was (67.52±6.34) kg; 30 cases' education level was high school or below, 25 cases' college, and 25 cases' bachelor's degree or above. The control group was (29.84±3.91) years old; their body weight was (66.08±6.01) kg; 28 cases' education level was high school or below, 20 cases' college, and 20 cases' bachelor's degree or above. The hemorheological parameters were compared between the two groups by χ² and t tests. The multivariate logistic regression model was used to analyze the risk factors affecting poor pregnancy outcomes in the patients. The diagnostic efficacies of hemorheological parameters in predicting poor pregnancy outcomes in the patients were assessed using the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). Results　The plasma viscosity (PV), hematocrit (HCT), high shear whole blood viscosity (HWBV), low shear whole blood viscosity (LWBV), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) of the GDM group were higher than those of the control group [(1.78±0.32) mPs·s vs. (1.54±0.33) mPs·s, (45.60±6.56)% vs. (37.64±5.71)%, (9.41±0.89) mPs·s vs. (7.61±1.44) mPs·s, (7.93±1.34) mPs·s vs. (5.36±1.73) mPs·s, and (62.05±8.73) mm/h vs. (49.55±6.81) mm/h], with statistical differences (all P<0.05). The PV, HCT, HWBV, and LWBV of the good pregnancy outcome group were lower than those of the poor pregnancy outcome group [(1.56±0.33) mPs·s vs. (1.95±0.17) mPs·s, (39.77±2.11)% vs. (50.14±5.12)%, (8.66±0.88) mPs·s vs. (10.00±0.16) mPs·s, and (6.75±0.74) mPs·s vs. (8.85±0.95) mPs·s], with statistical differences (all P<0.05); there were no statistical differences in the ESR between the two groups (P>0.05). PV, HCT, HWBV, and LWBV were correlated with the occurrence of adverse pregnancy outcomes in the patients and were the potential risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes (OR=17.618, 1.160, 5.697, and 1.890; all P<0.05). The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve of the combination of the four indicators for assessing adverse pregnancy outcomes in the patients were 95.6%, 97.1%, and 0.980. Conclusion　Hemorheological indicators have significant value in predicting the pregnancy outcomes of GDM patients, and combined detection can significantly improve the sensitivity and specificity of the diagnosis.

Key words:

Gestational diabetes mellitus, Hemorheological parameters, Pregnancy outcomes, Prediction

吴捷项琼莉.

血液流变学指标预测妊娠糖尿病患者妊娠结局的价值 [J]. 国际医药卫生导报, 2024, 30(17): 2965-2969.

Wu Jie, Xiang Qiongli.

Value of hemorheological parameters in prediction of pregnancy outcomes in patients with gestational diabetes mellitus [J]. International Medicine and Health Guidance News, 2024, 30(17): 2965-2969.

参考文献

[1] 周英凤,黄娜,李丽,等. 基于保护动机理论的妊娠期糖尿病孕妇血糖管理决策行为模型的构建[J]. 中华护理杂志,2023,58(4):433-439. DOI:10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769. 2023.04.007.
[2] 秦煜,余雨枫,邹子翔,等. 妊娠期糖尿病患者产前血糖管理的证据总结[J]. 中国护理管理,2023,23(3):444-449. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-1756.2023.03.022.
[3] 戴亚端,张小玲,吴碧瑜,等. 线上孕妇学校联合回授法在妊娠期糖尿病孕妇及其配偶中的应用及效果评价[J]. 中华护理杂志,2023,58(11):1285-1292. DOI:10.3761/j.issn. 0254-1769.2023.11.001.
[4] 杨小容,蒋维连,覃芳,等. 孕前超重的妊娠期糖尿病患者再次妊娠体质量管理的阻碍因素研究[J]. 中国护理管理,2023,23(3):351-355. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-1756. 2023.03.007.
[5] 梁玉贞,刘杰. 妊娠期高血压患者血清VEGF、IL-18、MCP-1水平及与血液流变学指标关系[J]. 中国计划生育学杂志,2020,28(1):60-63. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1004-8189. 2020.01.014.
[6] 王文丽,凡连云,周惠娜. 孕中期血脂水平、血液流变学与妊娠结局的相关性研究[J]. 新疆医科大学学报,2020,43(12):1599-1603. DOI:10.3639/j.issn.1009-5551. 2020.12.015.
[7] 李成,周健. 2019年ADA糖尿病医学诊疗标准解读[J/CD]. 中国医学前沿杂志(电子版),2019,11(1):66-74. DOI:10.12037/YXQY.2019.01-08.
[8] Goyal A, Gupta Y, Tandon N. Overt diabetes in pregnancy[J]. Diabetes Ther, 2022,13(4):589-600. DOI: 10.1007/s13300-022-01210-6.
[9] 赵欣,张眉花,隽娟. 妊娠期糖尿病筛查:美国预防服务工作组推荐声明解读[J/CD]. 中国医学前沿杂志(电子版),2023,15(6):1-3. DOI:10.12037/YXQY.2023.06-01.
[10] 梁胜男,李光辉. 妊娠期糖尿病相关孕期增重的研究进展[J]. 中华妇产科杂志,2023,58(3):225-230. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn112141-20220710-00450.
[11] Moon JH, Jang HC. Gestational diabetes mellitus: diagnostic approaches and maternal-offspring complications[J]. Diabetes Metab J, 2022,46(1):3-14. DOI: 10.4093/dmj.2021.0335.
[12] Modzelewski R, Stefanowicz-Rutkowska MM, Matuszewski W, et al. Gestational diabetes mellitus-recent literature review[J]. J Clin Med, 2022,11(19):5736. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11195736.
[13] Preda A, Pădureanu V, Moța M, et al. Analysis of maternal and neonatal complications in a group of patients with gestational diabetes mellitus[J]. Medicina (Kaunas), 2021,57(11):1170. DOI: 10.3390/medicina57111170.
[14] Briana DD, Malamitsi-Puchner A. Cardiovascular implications of gestational diabetes mellitus for the mother and fetus/neonate[J]. Curr Med Res Opin, 2022,38(10):1703. DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2022.2113695.
[15] Wicklow B, Retnakaran R. Gestational diabetes mellitus and its implications across the life span[J]. Diabetes Metab J, 2023,47(3):333-344. DOI: 10.4093/dmj.2022.0348.
[16] Martha L, Kimura T, Yoshida A, et al. Association between insulin resistance and cardinal rheological parameters in young healthy Japanese individuals during 75g oral glucose tolerance test[J]. Endocr Metab Immune Disord Drug Targets, 2022;22(1):125-132. DOI: 10.2174/1871530321666210720124554.
[17] 于春梅,李武珊,王青.妊娠糖尿病孕妇胰岛素相关指标水平变化及临床意义[J].国际医药卫生导报,2023,29(17):2459-2462.DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-1245. 2023.17.020.
[18] Biro K, Feher G, Vekasi J, et al. Hemorheological parameters in diabetic patients: role of glucose lowering therapies[J]. Metabolites, 2021,11(12):806. DOI: 10.3390/metabo11120806.
[19] 王明,孙彩萍,吴彦玲,等. 妊娠期糖尿病合并子痫前期患者糖脂代谢指标水平、血液流变学变化与围生结局的相关性[J]. 检验医学与临床,2023,20(4):535-538. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-9455.2023.04.023.
[20] 王文丽,凡连云,周惠娜. 孕中期血脂水平、血液流变学与妊娠结局的相关性研究[J]. 新疆医科大学学报,2020,43(12):1599-1603. DOI:10.3639/j.issn.1009-5551. 2020.12.015.
[21] 杨李丽,蒋波,杨年,等. 孕期血脂水平、血液流变学与孕妇妊娠结局的关系[J]. 四川医学,2020,41(5):526-530. DOI:10.16252/j.cnki.issn1004-0501-2020.05.019.
[22] 栾珊珊,卢佳丽,王常宏. 子痫前期孕妇甲状腺功能、血清PLGF、HCT与胎儿生长受限关系[J]. 中国计划生育学杂志,2023,31(9):2171-2175,2180. DOI:10.3969/j.issn. 1004-8189.2023.09.033.