[妊娠肝内胆汁淤积症和无症状妊娠高胆汁血症孕妇血清胆汁酸谱的特征和诊断价值]。

L S Gou, X Yin, J Liu, F Suo, X Y Wu, Z Z Wang, Q L Wang, B L Dong, M S Gu, D Y Liu
{"title":"[妊娠肝内胆汁淤积症和无症状妊娠高胆汁血症孕妇血清胆汁酸谱的特征和诊断价值]。","authors":"L S Gou, X Yin, J Liu, F Suo, X Y Wu, Z Z Wang, Q L Wang, B L Dong, M S Gu, D Y Liu","doi":"10.3760/cma.j.cn112141-20231004-00126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To analyze serum bile acid profiles in pregnant women with normal pregnancy, intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) and asymptomatic hypercholanemia of pregnancy (AHP), and to evaluate the application value of serum bile acid profiles in the diagnosis of ICP and AHP. <b>Methods:</b> The clinical data of 122 pregnant women who underwent prenatal examination in Xuzhou Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital from June 2022 to May 2023 were collected, including 54 cases of normal pregnancy group, 28 cases of ICP group and 40 cases of AHP group. Ultraperformance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry was used to measure the levels of 15 serum bile acids in each group, including cholic acid (CA), chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA), deoxycholic acid (DCA), lithocholic acid (LCA), ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), glycolcholic acid (GCA), glycochenodeoxycholic acid (GCDCA), glycodeoxycholic acid (GDCA), glycolithocholic acid (GLCA), glycoursodeoxycholic acid (GUDCA), taurocholic acid (TCA), taurochenodeoxycholic acid (TCDCA), taurodeoxycholic acid (TDCA), taurolithocholic acid (TLCA) and tauroursodeoxycholic acid (TUDCA). Principal component analysis (PCA) and orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) were used to screen differential bile acids. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of differential bile acids and combined indicators between groups. <b>Results:</b> (1) Compared with normal pregnancy group, the serum levels of LCA, GCA, GCDCA, GDCA, GLCA, UDCA, TCA, TCDCA, TDCA, TLCA, GUDCA and TUDCA in ICP group were significantly different (all <i>P</i><0.05), while the levels of LCA, DCA, GCA, GCDCA, GDCA, GLCA, TCA, TCDCA, TDCA, TLCA, GUDCA and TUDCA in AHP group were significantly different (all <i>P</i><0.05). Compared with ICP group, the serum levels of CDCA, DCA, UDCA, TDCA, GUDCA and TUDCA in AHP group were significantly different (all <i>P<</i>0.05). (2) In the OPLS-DA model, the differential bile acids between ICP group and AHP group were TUDCA, TCA, UDCA, GUDCA and GCA, and their variable importance in projection (VIP) were 1.489, 1.345, 1.344, 1.184 and 1.111, respectively. TCA, GCDCA, GCA, TDCA, GDCA and TCDCA were the differentially expressed bile acids between AHP group and normal pregnancy group, and their VIP values were 1.236, 1.229, 1.197, 1.145, 1.139 and 1.138, respectively. (3) ROC analysis showed that the area under the curve (AUC) of TUDCA, TCA, UDCA, GUDCA and GCA in the differential diagnosis of ICP and AHP was 0.860, and the sensitivity and specificity were 67.9% and 95.0%, respectively. The AUC of TCA, GCDCA, GCA, TDCA, GDCA and TCDCA in the diagnosis of AHP was 0.964, and the sensitivity and specificity were 95.0% and 93.1%, respectively. <b>Conclusions:</b> There are differences in serum bile acid profiles among normal pregnant women, ICP and AHP. The serum bile acid profiles of pregnant women have potential application value in the differential diagnosis of ICP and AHP and the diagnosis of AHP.</p>","PeriodicalId":10050,"journal":{"name":"中华妇产科杂志","volume":"59 4","pages":"270-278"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Characteristics and diagnostic value of serum bile acids profile in pregnant women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy and asymptomatic hypercholanemia of pregnancy].\",\"authors\":\"L S Gou, X Yin, J Liu, F Suo, X Y Wu, Z Z Wang, Q L Wang, B L Dong, M S Gu, D Y Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.3760/cma.j.cn112141-20231004-00126\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To analyze serum bile acid profiles in pregnant women with normal pregnancy, intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) and asymptomatic hypercholanemia of pregnancy (AHP), and to evaluate the application value of serum bile acid profiles in the diagnosis of ICP and AHP. <b>Methods:</b> The clinical data of 122 pregnant women who underwent prenatal examination in Xuzhou Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital from June 2022 to May 2023 were collected, including 54 cases of normal pregnancy group, 28 cases of ICP group and 40 cases of AHP group. Ultraperformance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry was used to measure the levels of 15 serum bile acids in each group, including cholic acid (CA), chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA), deoxycholic acid (DCA), lithocholic acid (LCA), ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), glycolcholic acid (GCA), glycochenodeoxycholic acid (GCDCA), glycodeoxycholic acid (GDCA), glycolithocholic acid (GLCA), glycoursodeoxycholic acid (GUDCA), taurocholic acid (TCA), taurochenodeoxycholic acid (TCDCA), taurodeoxycholic acid (TDCA), taurolithocholic acid (TLCA) and tauroursodeoxycholic acid (TUDCA). Principal component analysis (PCA) and orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) were used to screen differential bile acids. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of differential bile acids and combined indicators between groups. <b>Results:</b> (1) Compared with normal pregnancy group, the serum levels of LCA, GCA, GCDCA, GDCA, GLCA, UDCA, TCA, TCDCA, TDCA, TLCA, GUDCA and TUDCA in ICP group were significantly different (all <i>P</i><0.05), while the levels of LCA, DCA, GCA, GCDCA, GDCA, GLCA, TCA, TCDCA, TDCA, TLCA, GUDCA and TUDCA in AHP group were significantly different (all <i>P</i><0.05). Compared with ICP group, the serum levels of CDCA, DCA, UDCA, TDCA, GUDCA and TUDCA in AHP group were significantly different (all <i>P<</i>0.05). (2) In the OPLS-DA model, the differential bile acids between ICP group and AHP group were TUDCA, TCA, UDCA, GUDCA and GCA, and their variable importance in projection (VIP) were 1.489, 1.345, 1.344, 1.184 and 1.111, respectively. TCA, GCDCA, GCA, TDCA, GDCA and TCDCA were the differentially expressed bile acids between AHP group and normal pregnancy group, and their VIP values were 1.236, 1.229, 1.197, 1.145, 1.139 and 1.138, respectively. (3) ROC analysis showed that the area under the curve (AUC) of TUDCA, TCA, UDCA, GUDCA and GCA in the differential diagnosis of ICP and AHP was 0.860, and the sensitivity and specificity were 67.9% and 95.0%, respectively. The AUC of TCA, GCDCA, GCA, TDCA, GDCA and TCDCA in the diagnosis of AHP was 0.964, and the sensitivity and specificity were 95.0% and 93.1%, respectively. <b>Conclusions:</b> There are differences in serum bile acid profiles among normal pregnant women, ICP and AHP. The serum bile acid profiles of pregnant women have potential application value in the differential diagnosis of ICP and AHP and the diagnosis of AHP.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10050,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"中华妇产科杂志\",\"volume\":\"59 4\",\"pages\":\"270-278\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"中华妇产科杂志\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112141-20231004-00126\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华妇产科杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112141-20231004-00126","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:分析正常妊娠、妊娠肝内胆汁淤积症(ICP)和无症状妊娠高胆汁血症(AHP)孕妇的血清胆汁酸谱:分析正常妊娠、妊娠期肝内胆汁淤积症(ICP)和无症状妊娠高胆管血症(AHP)孕妇的血清胆汁酸谱,并评估血清胆汁酸谱在ICP和AHP诊断中的应用价值。方法收集2022年6月-2023年5月在徐州市妇幼保健院进行产前检查的122例孕妇的临床资料,其中正常妊娠组54例,ICP组28例,AHP组40例。采用超高效液相色谱-串联质谱法检测各组15种血清胆汁酸的含量,包括胆酸(CA)、陈去氧胆酸(CDCA)、脱氧胆酸(DCA)、石胆酸(LCA)、熊去氧胆酸(UDCA)、乙二醇胆酸(GCA)、甘氨胆酸(GCA)、甘醇脱氧胆酸(GCDCA)、甘脱氧胆酸(GDCA)、甘醇利胆酸(GLCA)、甘氨脱氧胆酸(GUDCA)、牛磺酸(TCA)、牛磺酸脱氧胆酸(TCDCA)、牛磺酸脱氧胆酸(TDCA)、牛磺酸利胆酸(TLCA)和牛磺酸脱氧胆酸(TUDCA)。采用主成分分析(PCA)和正交偏最小二乘判别分析(OPLS-DA)筛选差异胆汁酸。采用接收者操作特征曲线(ROC)分析组间差异胆汁酸和综合指标的诊断效果。结果:(1)与正常妊娠组相比,ICP 组血清中 LCA、GCA、GCDCA、GDCA、GLCA、UDCA、TCA、TCDCA、TDCA、TLCA、GUDCA 和 TUDCA 的水平有显著差异(均 PPP0.05)。(2)在 OPLS-DA 模型中,ICP 组与 AHP 组的差异胆汁酸为 TUDCA、TCA、UDCA、GUDCA 和 GCA,它们在预测中的变量重要性(VIP)分别为 1.489、1.345、1.344、1.184 和 1.111。TCA、GCDCA、GCA、TDCA、GDCA 和 TCDCA 是 AHP 组与正常妊娠组之间差异表达的胆汁酸,其 VIP 值分别为 1.236、1.229、1.197、1.145、1.139 和 1.138。(3)ROC分析显示,TUDCA、TCA、UDCA、GUDCA和GCA在ICP和AHP鉴别诊断中的曲线下面积(AUC)为0.860,敏感性和特异性分别为67.9%和95.0%。TCA、GCDCA、GCA、TDCA、GDCA 和 TCDCA 在 AHP 诊断中的 AUC 为 0.964,灵敏度和特异度分别为 95.0% 和 93.1%。结论正常孕妇、ICP和AHP的血清胆汁酸谱存在差异。孕妇血清胆汁酸谱在ICP和AHP的鉴别诊断以及AHP的诊断中具有潜在的应用价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[Characteristics and diagnostic value of serum bile acids profile in pregnant women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy and asymptomatic hypercholanemia of pregnancy].

Objective: To analyze serum bile acid profiles in pregnant women with normal pregnancy, intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) and asymptomatic hypercholanemia of pregnancy (AHP), and to evaluate the application value of serum bile acid profiles in the diagnosis of ICP and AHP. Methods: The clinical data of 122 pregnant women who underwent prenatal examination in Xuzhou Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital from June 2022 to May 2023 were collected, including 54 cases of normal pregnancy group, 28 cases of ICP group and 40 cases of AHP group. Ultraperformance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry was used to measure the levels of 15 serum bile acids in each group, including cholic acid (CA), chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA), deoxycholic acid (DCA), lithocholic acid (LCA), ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), glycolcholic acid (GCA), glycochenodeoxycholic acid (GCDCA), glycodeoxycholic acid (GDCA), glycolithocholic acid (GLCA), glycoursodeoxycholic acid (GUDCA), taurocholic acid (TCA), taurochenodeoxycholic acid (TCDCA), taurodeoxycholic acid (TDCA), taurolithocholic acid (TLCA) and tauroursodeoxycholic acid (TUDCA). Principal component analysis (PCA) and orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) were used to screen differential bile acids. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of differential bile acids and combined indicators between groups. Results: (1) Compared with normal pregnancy group, the serum levels of LCA, GCA, GCDCA, GDCA, GLCA, UDCA, TCA, TCDCA, TDCA, TLCA, GUDCA and TUDCA in ICP group were significantly different (all P<0.05), while the levels of LCA, DCA, GCA, GCDCA, GDCA, GLCA, TCA, TCDCA, TDCA, TLCA, GUDCA and TUDCA in AHP group were significantly different (all P<0.05). Compared with ICP group, the serum levels of CDCA, DCA, UDCA, TDCA, GUDCA and TUDCA in AHP group were significantly different (all P<0.05). (2) In the OPLS-DA model, the differential bile acids between ICP group and AHP group were TUDCA, TCA, UDCA, GUDCA and GCA, and their variable importance in projection (VIP) were 1.489, 1.345, 1.344, 1.184 and 1.111, respectively. TCA, GCDCA, GCA, TDCA, GDCA and TCDCA were the differentially expressed bile acids between AHP group and normal pregnancy group, and their VIP values were 1.236, 1.229, 1.197, 1.145, 1.139 and 1.138, respectively. (3) ROC analysis showed that the area under the curve (AUC) of TUDCA, TCA, UDCA, GUDCA and GCA in the differential diagnosis of ICP and AHP was 0.860, and the sensitivity and specificity were 67.9% and 95.0%, respectively. The AUC of TCA, GCDCA, GCA, TDCA, GDCA and TCDCA in the diagnosis of AHP was 0.964, and the sensitivity and specificity were 95.0% and 93.1%, respectively. Conclusions: There are differences in serum bile acid profiles among normal pregnant women, ICP and AHP. The serum bile acid profiles of pregnant women have potential application value in the differential diagnosis of ICP and AHP and the diagnosis of AHP.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12682
期刊介绍:
期刊最新文献
[Analysis of perinatal outcomes in pregnant women with the resolution of placenta previa in the second trimester]. [Clinical effect of secondary LEEP combined with transcervical resection of endocervical tissue for cervical precancerous lesions with positive internal margin after the first LEEP]. [Diagnostic value of prenatal ultrasound screening and analysis of pregnancy outcomes in velamentous umbilical cord insertion]. [Expanded carrier screening for 216 diseases in a cohort of 3 097 healthy Chinese individuals of childbearing age]. [Expert consensus on diagnosis and treatment of chronic pelvic pain].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1