Search

The purpose of this review is to elucidate the different laboratory and biomarker testing methods available for screening and diagnosis of preeclampsia. These include routine testing, such as blood pressure readings, qualitative and quantitative urine testing, complete blood count with platelets, serum creatinine levels, liver chemistries, and serum bilirubin levels. This review also details the use of non-routine testing, such as screening for angiogenic and anti-angiogenic markers, such as placental growth factor (PlGF) and soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 (sFlt-1). Blood pressure measurements and proteinuria are the most routinely used screening tools used for preeclampsia and there are limited data on the utility of other screening techniques because of a greater focus on the etiology and treatment of preeclampsia. Similarly, serum angiogenic biomarkers are not routinely collected, so there is limited evidence regarding using them as screening tools for preeclampsia and more data are needed to determine their significance in the screening and diagnosis of preeclampsia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vasa previa is a pregnancy complication that occurs when unprotected fetal blood vessels traverse the cervical os, placing the fetus at high risk of exsanguination and fetal death. These fetal vessels may be compromised by fetal movement and compression, leading to poor oxygen distribution and asphyxiation. Diagnostic tools for vasa previa management and preterm labor (PTL) include transvaginal ultrasound, cervical length (CL) surveillance and use of fetal fibronectin (FFN) testing. These tools can prove to be quite useful as they allow for lead time in the prediction of PTL and spontaneous rupture of membranes which can result in devastating outcomes for pregnancies affected by vasa previa. We conducted a literature review on vasa previa management and the usefulness of FFN and CL surveillance in predicting PTL and found 36 related papers. Although there is limited research available to show the impact of FFN and CL surveillance in the management of vasa previa, there is sufficient evidence to support FFN and CL surveillance in predicting the onset of PTL, which can have devastating consequences for the pregnancies affected. It can be extrapolated that these tools, by helping to determine pregnancies at risk for PTL, could improve management and outcomes in patients with vasa previa. Future studies investigating the management of vasa previa with FFN and CL surveillance to reduce the burden of PTL and its associated comorbidities are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key points: What is already known?Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) for monogenic conditions is now available, and patients commonly pursue this despite normal sonographic findings or the absence of pertinent family history. What does this study add?This case underscores the limitations of NIPS for monogenic conditions in low‐risk populations and the importance of pre‐ and post‐test genetic counseling, family history, and parental testing.Further research is needed to determine the clinical utility of NIPS for single gene disorders in low‐risk populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]