Reproduktiv salomatlik va uro-nefrologik tadqiqotlar jurnali 2026 №2
Subject of the article
PROGNOSTIC SIGNIFICANCE OF CLINICAL, LABORATORY, AND ECHOCARDIOGRAPHIC MARKERS OF ADVERSE OUTCOMES IN PERIPARTUM CARDIOMYOPATHY (87-94)
Authors
Kamilova N.M., Mirzoyeva Kh.M.,
Institution
Samarkand State Medical University
Abstract
Background: Peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) is a rare but potentially life-threatening form of heart failure characterized by left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Early prediction of disease course remains a major clinical challenge. Objective: To evaluate the prognostic significance of clinical, laboratory, and echocardiographic parameters and to develop an integrated risk model for adverse outcomes in PPCM. Methods: This comparative clinical observational study included 75 pregnant women, of whom 60 constituted the main group and 15 served as controls. The main group was stratified into three subgroups according to gestational age. All participants underwent clinical and instrumental assessment, including electrocardiography, echocardiography, and measurement of NT-proBNP, cathepsin D, prolactin, C-reactive protein, and interleukin-6. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and logistic regression were used for statistical evaluation. Results: Progression of PPCM was associated with increasing levels of NT-proBNP, prolactin, cathepsin D, and inflammatory markers, together with a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). An adverse outcome at 6 months postpartum was observed in 45% of patients. The strongest predictors of adverse outcome were elevated NT-proBNP, prolactin, cathepsin D, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, and reduced LVEF. The integrated PPCM-PRO model demonstrated high prognostic performance (AUC = 0.93). Conclusion: The PPCM-PRO model showed high prognostic value and may be useful for early risk stratification and optimization of clinical management in patients with PPCM.
Key words
peripartum cardiomyopathy; pregnancy; heart failure; NT-proBNP; prolactin; cathepsin D; echocardiography; prognosis; risk model
Literature
1. Bauersachs J, König T, van der Meer P, et al. Pathophysiology, diagnosis and management of peripartum cardiomyopathy. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019;21(7):827-843. doi:10.1002/ejhf.1493 2. Arbelo E, Protonotarios A, Gimeno JR, et al. 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of cardiomyopathies. Eur Heart J. 2023;44(37):3503-3626. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehad194 3. Sigauke F, Mayosi BM, Sliwa K. Peripartum cardiomyopathy: a comprehensive review. Heart Fail Rev. 2024. 4. Sliwa K, Hilfiker-Kleiner D. Peripartum cardiomyopathy. Lancet. 2025. 5. Arany Z, Elkayam U. Peripartum cardiomyopathy. Circulation. 2016;133(14):1397-1409. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.020491 6. Kryczka KE, et al. Biomarkers in peripartum cardiomyopathy. Biomolecules. 2024. 7. Hilfiker-Kleiner D, Kaminski K, Podewski E, et al. A cathepsin D-cleaved 16-kDa form of prolactin mediates postpartum cardiomyopathy. Cell. 2007;128(3):589-600. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.12.036 8. Forster O, Hilfiker-Kleiner D, Ansari AA, et al. Relevance of NT-proBNP in peripartum cardiomyopathy. Clin Res Cardiol. 2008;97:808- 814. 9. Goland S, Modi K, Bitar F, et al. Predictors of recovery in peripartum cardiomyopathy. Int J Cardiol. 2009. 10. McNamara DM, Elkayam U, Alharethi R, et al. Clinical outcomes for peripartum cardiomyopathy in North America: results of the IPAC study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66(8):905-914. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2015.06.1309 11. Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor-Avi V, et al. Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;16(3):233-270. doi:10.1093/ehjci/jev014 12. Tuck MK, Chan DW, Chia D, et al. Standard operating procedures for serum and plasma collection. J Proteome Res. 2009;8(1):113-117. doi:10.1021/pr800545q 13. Rai AJ, Gelfand CA, Haywood BC, et al. Processing of serum and plasma samples for proteomic studies. Clin Proteomics. 2005;2(1- 2):17-23. 14. Turk V, Stoka V, Turk D. Human cathepsin D: structure, function and role in disease. Biol Chem. 2012;393(9):1091-1103. doi:10.1515/hsz-2012-0168