Clinical significance of normalization of uterine artery pulsatility index with maternal heart rate for the evaluation of uterine circulation in pregnancy‐induced hypertension

Abstract

K E Y W O R D S:Doppler; heart rate; pregnancy induced hypertension; pulsatility index; uterine artery ABSTRACT Objective To investigate whether the use of normalized pulsatility index (PI) improves evaluation of the fetal prognosis in pregnancy-induced hypertension (PIH). Method

Maternal but not fetoplacental health can be improved by metformin in a murine diet‐induced model of maternal obesity and glucose intolerance

“…The pulsatility and resistance index of the uterine artery were corrected for maternal heart rate (Ochi et al . 2003). Both indices are a surrogate measure for the vessel resistance and vascular compliance (Holmgren et al .…”

“…Uterine artery Doppler measurements were obtained by using the bladder and the split of the uterine and iliac artery from the abdominal aorta as landmarks (Zhang & Croy, 2009). The pulsatility and resistance index of the uterine artery were corrected for maternal heart rate (Ochi et al 2003). Both indices are a surrogate measure for the vessel resistance and vascular compliance (Holmgren et al 2020).…”

Acute efficacy of a sublingual dose of nifedipine on uterine arterial blood flow: preliminary data in prematurely menopausal women

“…As reported by Ochi et al , HR and uterine artery PI are inversely correlated; to correct for the influence of HR on the uterine artery PI we normalized PI for HR using the following formula derived from previous studies34, 35: normalized PI (NPI) = 0.693/(0.895 − 0.00241 × HR) × PI.…”

Antepartum continuous epidural ropivacaine therapy reduces uterine artery vascular resistance in pre-eclampsia: a randomized, dose-ranging, placebo-controlled study

“…where D is the difference to be detected (effect measure), V¼s 2 (1/n 1 þ1/n 2 ), s the SD (s 2 the variance), n 1 and n 2 the sample sizes of the two study groups, Z a/2 the critical z-value (1.96 for a two-sided test, where P¼0.05), and V[] the standard normal cumulative distribution function. We drew power against sample size curves using the SDs reported in two previous studies using PI (Yoneyama and colleagues 25 SD 0.41; Ochi and colleagues 26 SD 0.32). On the basis of these two studies, a sample size of 10 patients would give 0.82 and 0.96 power, respectively, to detect a difference of 0.75 in the PI between 0.1% ropivacaine and placebo within the ACET subgroup (five per group).…”