|
|
|
| Comparison of the Values of Thromboelastogram and Traditional Coagulation Index in Monitoring Coagulation Function of Pregnant Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus |
| ZHANG Yang, et al |
| The Third Affiliated Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangong Guangzhou 510630, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Objective: To compare the monitoring value of thrombolysis and traditional coagulation indexes in pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Methods: A total of 86 GDM patients admitted to our hospital between January 2019 and November 2020 were selected as observation group, and 70 healthy pregnant women in the same period for pregnancy test were selected as control group. Both groups had traditional coagulation indexes and thrombus elastic graph (TEG) monitoring, the test results were compared and correlation of TEG and traditional coagulation index was analyzed. Results: Fibrinogen (FIB) and platelet (PLT) in the observation group were higher than those in the control group, and activated partial thrombin time (APTT) was lower than that in the control group, between-group variance showed P<0.05, but there were no significant differences in prothrombin time (PT) and D-dimer (D-D) between the two groups (P>0.05); the coagulation time (K value) and reaction time (R value) in observation group were lower than those in control group, while the Angle, maximum amplitude (MA) and coagulation composite index (CI value) in observation group were higher than those in control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05); Pearson correlation analysis showed that PLT and FIB were negatively correlated with K, and positively correlated with Angle, MA and CI (P<0.05). Conclusion: TEG index can reflect the coagulation function of pregnant women with GDM, and has higher predictive value than traditional coagulation indexes, which can be used as an auxiliary means for monitoring coagulation function indexes and provide reference for the early treatment of pregnant women with GDM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 王笑笑,刘情,张英奎,等.2016年河北省妊娠期糖尿病患病率和流行病学特点分析[J].中国全科医学,2018,21(21):2592~2596.
[2] 张会娟.妊娠糖尿病患者妊娠期间凝血功能指标的动态变化及临床意义[J].血栓与止血学,2021,27(1):120~121.
[3] 褚雪莲,毕芬燕,王益凤,等.妊娠糖尿病合并甲状腺功能减退孕妇的凝血功能指标表达及价值研究[J].中国卫生检验杂志,2021,31(6):719~722.
[4] 魏小辉,王育璠.2015年国际妇产科联盟(FIGO)妊娠期糖尿病诊疗指南解读[J].中华内分泌代谢杂志,2016,32(11):895~899.
[5] 王佩茹,陶峰,王霞,等.妊娠期糖尿病孕妇糖化血红蛋白水平与不良母婴结局的相关性[J].临床与病理杂志,2021,41(4):793~800.
[6] 邱淑芬,姜云.妊娠期糖尿病流行病学特征及危险因素和预防措施分析[J].中国预防医学杂志,2019,20(5):451~454.
[7] 乔国昱,何亚萍,周洁.妊娠期糖尿病并发甲状腺功能减退孕妇凝血功能指标的变化研究[J].现代检验医学杂志,2017,32(3):109~111.
[8] 张翀,董雪梅,叶萍,等.妊娠期糖尿病患者孕晚期凝血功能状态临床分析[J].中国实验诊断学,2021,25(6):857~859.
[9] Baboolall U,Zha Y,Gong X,et al.Variations of plasma D-dimer level at various points of normal pregnancy and its trends in complicated pregnancies:a retrospective observational cohort study[J].Medicine (Baltimore),2019,98(23):e15903.
[10] Xie X,Wang M,Lu Y,et al.Thromboelastography (TEG) in normal pregnancy and its diagnostic efficacy in patients with gestational hypertension,gestational diabetes mellitus,or preeclampsia[J].Clin Lab Anal,2021,35(2):e23623. |
|
|
|
2022, Vol. 28 
