中国医科大学学报  2021, Vol. 50 Issue (5): 449-452

文章信息

王阳, 赵岩
WANG Yang, ZHAO Yan
初次妊娠患者发生前置胎盘的影响因素分析
Analysis of factors associated with placenta previa in primigravidas
中国医科大学学报, 2021, 50(5): 449-452
Journal of China Medical University, 2021, 50(5): 449-452

文章历史

收稿日期:2020-10-14
网络出版时间:2021-05-17 10:49
初次妊娠患者发生前置胎盘的影响因素分析
王阳 , 赵岩     
中国医科大学附属盛京医院妇产科, 沈阳 110004
摘要目的 探讨初次妊娠患者发生前置胎盘的影响因素及其对妊娠结局的影响。方法 收集2016年1月至2019年1月于我院行剖宫产手术的6 475例初次妊娠患者的临床资料,其中,373例前置胎盘患者为病例组,6 102例非前置胎盘患者为对照组。采用t检验或χ2检验比较2组年龄、采用辅助生殖技术、子宫肌瘤、子宫内膜异位症、胎盘位置(前壁或后壁)、职业(有或无)、卵巢肿瘤和孕前体质量指数(BMI)等指标差异,并进一步对有统计学意义指标采用多因素logistic回归分析。采用χ2检验或t检验比较2组止血处理措施(宫腔球囊压迫、子宫动脉上行支结扎、B-lynch缝合止血)、子宫切除、胎盘植入、术中失血量、输血、住院时间等指标差异。结果 与对照组比较,病例组辅助生殖技术、子宫肌瘤和子宫内膜异位症发生率显著增高(P < 0.05)。进一步多因素logistic回归分析显示,辅助生殖技术[OR=2.94,95% CI:(2.00~4.35),P < 0.01]、子宫肌瘤[OR=2.70,95% CI:(1.89~3.85),P < 0.01]和子宫内膜异位症[OR=2.56,95% CI:(1.64~4.00),P < 0.01]是初次妊娠妇女发生前置胎盘的独立危险因素。病例组术中采用非常规止血措施(子宫球囊压迫、子宫动脉上行支结扎)和子宫切除术比例显著超过对照组(均P < 0.001);病例组术中失血量、术中输血和住院时间均显著高于对照组(均P < 0.05)。结论 辅助生殖技术、子宫肌瘤和子宫内膜异位症是初次妊娠患者发生前置胎盘的独立危险因素。前置胎盘患者剖宫产术中需采用更多的非常规止血措施。
关键词前置胎盘    初次妊娠    辅助生殖技术    子宫肌瘤    子宫内膜异位症    
Analysis of factors associated with placenta previa in primigravidas
WANG Yang , ZHAO Yan     
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110004, China
Abstract: Objective To investigate factors associated with placenta previa in primigravidas and their impact on pregnancy outcomes. Methods A total of 6 475 primigravidas who underwent cesarean section in Shengjing hospital from January 2016 to January 2019 were retrospectively evaluated, including 373 patients with placenta previa as the experimental group and 6 102 patients without placenta previa as the control group. t test or chi-square test was used to compare the age difference, assisted reproductive technologies, uterine myoma, endometriosis, placental position (anterior or posterior), occupation (professional or non-professional), ovarian tumor, and pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) between the two groups. Logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the statistically significant indexes. Chi-square test or t test was used to compare the hemostatic measures (uterine balloon tamponade, uterine artery branch ligation, B-Lynch sutures), hysterectomy, placenta accreta, blood loss, blood transfusion, length of hospital stay, and other indicators between the two groups. Results Compared to the control group, the incidence of assisted reproductive technologies, uterine myoma, and endometriosis in the placenta previa group were significantly higher (P < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis showed that assisted reproductive technologies (OR=2.94, 95% CI: 2.00-4.35, P < 0.01), uterine myoma (OR=2.70, 95% CI: 1.89-3.85, P < 0.01) and endometriosis (OR=2.56, 95% CI: 1.64-4.00, P < 0.01) were independent risk factors for placenta previa in primigravidas.The application of hemostasis methods (uterine balloon tamponade and uterine artery branch ligation), hysterectomy in the placenta previa group were significantly greater than that in the control group (P < 0.001). The volume of blood loss, the number of blood transfusions, and the length of hospital stay in the placenta previa group were significantly higher than that in the control group (P < 0.05). Conclusion Assisted reproductive technologies, uterine myoma, and endometriosis were independent risk factors of placenta previa in primigravidas. In addition, more unconventional hemostasis measures should be applied to patients with placenta previa.

前置胎盘是指妊娠28周后胎盘位置低于胎先露部, 附着在子宫下段、下缘达到或覆盖宫颈内口[1]。国内研究[2]报道前置胎盘发病率为0.24%~1.57%, 且呈逐年上升趋势。前置胎盘常导致妊娠晚期阴道流血, 是引起产后出血、孕产妇死亡的主要病因[3-5]。研究[6]表明多次流产史、剖宫产史和宫腔操作史等是导致前置胎盘的重要危险因素。目前, 初次妊娠妇女前置胎盘的发病率逐年升高, 且病因不明确。本研究探讨初次妊娠妇女发生前置胎盘的危险因素及其对妊娠结局的影响, 旨在早期识别高危因素, 以便孕期密切监测, 术中及产后积极预防相关并发症。

1 材料与方法 1.1 研究对象及分组

收集2016年1月至2019年1月于中国医科大学附属盛京医院行剖宫产分娩的患者的临床资料。纳入标准: (1) 妊娠28~41周;(2) 初次妊娠;(3) 剖宫产终止妊娠。前置胎盘诊断标准: 妊娠28周后胎盘附着于子宫下段达到或覆盖子宫颈内口, 位置低于胎先露部;同时术中根据胎盘位置确诊。排除标准: (1) 子宫畸形;(2) 既往妊娠史(人工流产、引产史);(3) 双胎或多胎妊娠;(4) 临床数据记录缺失、不全者。本研究共纳入病例6 475例, 其中前置胎盘患者373例(病例组), 非前置胎盘患者6 102例(对照组)。

1.2 临床指标

收集并统计2组年龄、采用辅助生殖技术、子宫肌瘤、子宫内膜异位症、胎盘位置(前壁或后壁)、职业(有、无)、卵巢肿瘤和孕前体质量指数(body mass index, BMI) 等指标。统计2组止血处理措施(宫腔球囊压迫、子宫动脉上行支结扎、B-lynch缝合止血)、子宫切除、胎盘植入、术中失血量、输血、住院时间等指标。

1.3 统计学分析

采用SPSS 19.0统计软件进行统计学分析, 计量资料采用x±s表示, 组间比较采用t检验;计数资料用率(%) 表示, 组间比较采用χ2检验。以P < 0.05为标准, 将有统计学差异的指标纳入多因素logistic回归模型, P < 0.05为差异有统计学意义。

2 结果 2.1 2组临床指标比较

结果显示, 与对照组比较, 病例组采用辅助生殖技术、患有子宫肌瘤、子宫内膜异位症比例显著升高(均P < 0.05)。而2组比较年龄、胎盘位置(前壁或后壁)、职业(有或无)、卵巢肿瘤和孕前BMI无统计学差异(均P > 0.05), 见表 1

表 1 2组临床指标比较 Tab.1 Comparison of clinical data between the placenta previa group and control group
Item Placenta previa group (n = 373) Control group (n = 6 102) P
Age (year) 30.7±4.4 33.6±5.2 0.083
Pre-pregnancy BMI (kg/m2) 23.32±3.26 23.17±3.35 0.400
Assisted reproductive technologies [n (%)] 32(8.6) 189(3.1) < 0.001
Ovarian tumor [n (%)] 12(3.2) 174(2.9) 0.681
Uterine myoma [n (%)]    38(10.2) 251(4.1) < 0.001
Endometriosis [n (%)] 22(5.9) 174(2.9) 0.001
Placental location [n (%)] 0.750
  Anterior 152(40.8) 3 457(56.7)
  Posterior 121(59.2) 2 645(33.3)
Occupation [n (%)] 0.221
  Professional 216(57.9) 3 728(61.1)
  Non-professional 157(42.1) 2 374(38.9)

2.2 2组妊娠结局比较

结果显示, 与对照组比较, 病例组术中应用止血处理措施(宫腔球囊压迫、子宫动脉上行支结扎) 及子宫切除患者比例明显增加(均P < 0.05)。患者来源(平诊和急诊)、应用B-lynch缝合止血比例2组比较无统计学差异(P > 0.05)。与对照组比较, 病例组胎盘植入、输血比例, 术中失血量、住院时间明显增加(P < 0.05), 见表 2

表 2 2组患者妊娠结局比较 Tab.2 Comparison of pregnancy outcomes between the two groups
Item Placenta previa group (n = 373) Control group (n = 6 102) P
Cesarean section [n (%)]
  Planed 211(56.6) 3 588(58.8) 0.503
  Emergency 162(43.4) 2 514(41.2) 0.485
Hemostasis measures [n (%)]
  Uterine balloon tamponade 37(9.9) 75(1.2) < 0.001
  Uterine artery branch ligation 23(6.2) 104(1.7) < 0.001
  B-lynch sutures 3(0.8) 18(0.3) 0.226
  Hysterectomy 2(0.5) 1(0.0) 0.001
Blood transfusion [n (%)] 13(3.5) 75(1.2) < 0.001
Placenta accreta [n (%)] 43(11.5) 18(0.3) < 0.001
Blood loss (mL) 412.1±650.4 271.3±176.1 < 0.001
Length of hospital stay (d) 7.02±5.16 4.26±0.56 < 0.001

2.3 前置胎盘危险因素的多因素logistic回归分析

将采用辅助生殖技术、子宫肌瘤和子宫内膜异位症纳入多因素logistic回归模型, 结果显示, 辅助生殖技术、子宫肌瘤和子宫内膜异位症是初次妊娠妇女发生前置胎盘的独立危险因素(均P < 0.01), 见表 3

表 3 前置胎盘影响因素的logistic回归分析 Tab.3 Logistic regression analysis of factors associated with placenta previa in primigravidas
Viable β P OR 95%CI
Assisted reproductive technologies -1.08 < 0.01 2.94 2.00-4.35
Endometriosis -1.00 < 0.01 2.70 1.89-3.85
Uterine myoma -0.95 < 0.01 2.56 1.64-4.00

3 讨论

前置胎盘是引起产后出血、导致孕产妇死亡的主要原因。但关于初次妊娠患者发生前置胎盘的确切病因仍不明确。本研究结果显示, 子宫内膜异位症、子宫肌瘤和辅助生殖技术均是初次妊娠发生前置胎盘的危险因素。

辅助生殖技术是初次妊娠发生前置胎盘的危险因素, 有研究[7]认为是因为使用促排卵药物到子宫内膜种植窗时, 许多调节子宫内膜容受性的基因处于调节失控状态, 进而降低了子宫内膜对胚胎的容受性, 同时影响滋养层细胞迁移因子的表达, 导致胎盘面积增大, 从而导致了前置胎盘的发生。还有研究[8]认为移植进入子宫腔的胚胎与子宫内膜发生相互作用, 决定胚胎能否着床及着床的位置。在胚胎采用机械性方法通过子宫颈送入宫腔中段的过程中, 移植管通过子宫颈内口时引起前列腺素释放, 引起子宫收缩, 导致胚胎种植于子宫下段引起前置胎盘的概率明显增加。有研究[9]发现80%胚胎植入在移植部位, 而辅助生殖受孕植入的位置过低则可能是引起前置胎盘的原因, 但同时有研究[10]表明不同的辅助生殖技术引起前置胎盘的概率没有差异。辅助生殖受孕引起前置胎盘的确切病因仍不明确, 需进一步深入研究。

本研究结果显示, 与对照组比较, 病例组子宫肌瘤患者明显增加, 这有可能与子宫肌瘤改变子宫腔形态, 导致胚胎植入部位异常有关。但由于样本量有限, 仍需要进一步研究论证。

子宫内膜异位症是初次妊娠发生前置胎盘的危险因素, 分析原因可能是子宫内膜异位症患者存在盆腔粘连, 子宫位置异常且固定, 限制了子宫的活动度或子宫肌层存在异常收缩, 使胚胎植入位置下移, 导致了前置胎盘发生[11]。有研究[12]认为子宫内膜异位症可以改变子宫内膜特性, 从而在胚胎植入的过程中影响相关因子的表达, 导致前置胎盘发生。也有研究[13]表明孕酮可影响分泌期子宫内膜的功能, 而子宫内膜异位症可引起孕酮抵抗, 导致前置胎盘发生。

胎盘位置异常是引起产后出血导致子宫切除的主要原因, 特别是前置胎盘合并胎盘植入患者[14], 病情严重时需切除子宫挽救生命。既往研究[15-17]认为引起产后出血的主要病因为宫缩乏力, 但随着近些年宫缩药物、宫腔球囊等治疗方法的应用, 宫缩乏力引起产后出血导致子宫切除的患者越来越少。本研究发现病例组术中应用止血措施(宫腔球囊压迫、子宫动脉上行支结扎和子宫切除) 比例明显高于对照组(P < 0.05)。病例组全子宫切除患者2例, 病因为患者前置胎盘合并胎盘植入, 与以往的研究结果一致。

综上所述, 辅助生殖技术、子宫肌瘤和子宫内膜异位症是引起初次妊娠患者发生前置胎盘的高危因素。因此, 临床上需密切关注存在这些危险因素患者, 进而改善患者的妊娠结局。本研究尚有许多不足之处, 样本量较小, 不能排除前置胎盘发生的所有干扰因素, 且收集的病例皆来自同一医院, 今后需增加样本量, 广泛收集病例来进一步论证。

参考文献
[1]
王泽华, 王艳丽. 妇产科学[M]. 8版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2019: 48.
[2]
JING L, WEI G, MENGFAN S, et al. Effect of site of placentation on pregnancy outcomes in patients with placenta previa[J]. PLoS One, 2018, 13(7): e0200252. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0200252
[3]
HUQUE S, ROBERTS I, FAWOLE B, et al. Risk factors for peripartum hysterectomy among women with postpartum haemorrhage: analysis of data from the woman trial[J]. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 2018, 18(1): 186. DOI:10.1186/s12884-018-1829-7
[4]
DUTTA S, DEY B, CHANU S, et al. A retrospective study of placenta accreta, percreta, and increta in peripartum hysterectomies in a tertiary care institute in northeast India[J]. Cureus, 2020, 11(12): e11399. DOI:10.7759/cureus.11399
[5]
ALLAM IS, GOMAA IA, FATHI HM, et al. Incidence of emergency peripartum hysterectomy in Ain-shams University Maternity Hospital, Egypt: a retrospective study[J]. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2014, 290(5): 891-896. DOI:10.1007/s00404-014-3306-5
[6]
MATALLIOTAKIS M, VELEGRAKIS A, GOULIELMOS GN, et al. Association of placenta previa with a history of previous cesarian deliveries and indications for a possible role of a genetic component[J]. Balkan J Med Genet, 2017, 20(2): 5-10. DOI:10.1515/bjmg-2017-0022
[7]
GASPARRI ML, NIRGIANAKIS K, TAGHAVI K, et al. Placenta previa and placental abruption after assisted reproductive technology in patients withendometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2018, 298(1): 27-34. DOI:10.1007/s00404-018-4765-x
[8]
WENNBERG AL, OPDAHL S, BERGH C, et al. Effect of maternal age on maternal and neonatal outcomes after assisted reproductive technology[J]. Fertil Steril, 2016, 106(5): 1142-1149. e14. DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.06.021
[9]
COROLEU B, BARRI PN, CARRERAS O, et al. The usefulness of ultrasound guidance in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a prospective randomized clinical trial[J]. Hum Reprod, 2002, 17(11): 2885-2890. DOI:10.1093/humrep/17.11.2885
[10]
VERCELLINI P, PARAZZINI F, PIETROPAOLO G, et al. Pregnancy outcome in women with peritoneal, ovarian and rectovaginal endometriosis: a retrospective cohort study[J]. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gynaecol, 2012, 119(12): 1538-1543. DOI:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03466.x
[11]
ZULLO F, SPAGNOLO E, SACCONE G, et al. Endometriosis and obstetrics complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Fertil Steril, 2017, 108(4): 667-672. e5. DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.07.019
[12]
LEONE ROBERTI MAGGIORE U, FERRERO S, MANGILI G, et al. A systematic review on endometriosis during pregnancy: diagnosis, misdiagnosis, complications and outcomes[J]. Hum Reprod Update, 2016, 22(1): 70-103. DOI:10.1093/humupd/dmv045
[13]
BERLAC JF, HARTWELL D, SKOVLUND CW, et al. Endometriosis increases the risk of obstetrical and neonatal complications[J]. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2017, 96(6): 751-760. DOI:10.1111/aogs.13111
[14]
GOVINDAPPAGARI S, WRIGHT JD, ANANTH CV, et al. Risk of peripartum hysterectomy and center hysterectomy and delivery volume[J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2016, 128(6): 1215-1224. DOI:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001722
[15]
FAN D, XIA Q, LIU L, et al. The incidence of postpartum hemorrhage in pregnant women with placenta previa: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. PLoS One, 2017, 12(1): e0170194. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0170194
[16]
CHEN L, WANG XD, WANG HY, et al. Clinical evaluation of prophylacti abdominal aortic balloon occlusion in patients with placenta accreta: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 2019, 19(1): 30. DOI:10.1186/s12884-019-2175-0
[17]
MARASCHINI A, LEGA I, D'ALOJA P, et al. Women undergoing peripartum hysterectomy due to obstetric hemorrhage: a prospective population-based study[J]. Acta Obstet et Gynecol Scand, 2020, 99(2): 274-282. DOI:10.1111/aogs.13727