Você pesquisou por y - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
You searched for:"Soubhi Kahhale"
We found (3) results for your search.Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 1999;21(4):215-221
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72031999000400006
Purpose: to determine the effectiveness and the safety of treatment with heparin and low-dose aspirin in pregnant women with antiphospholipid syndrome, and to determine possible deteriorating factors for this syndrome. Methods: 17 patients with antiphospholipid syndrome were submitted to a rigorous antenatal care. Patients were treated with a fixed dose of heparin (10,000 IU/day) associated with low-dose aspirin (100 mg/day). We analyzed perinatal and maternal results, using chi² test and Fischer's exact test. Results: the overall live birth rate was 88.2% in treated pregnancies of these patients versus 13.3% of their previous nontreated pregnancies. The incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes was very significant: oligohydramnios (40%), fetal distress (33.3%), fetal growth retardation (33.3%), gestational diabetes (29.4%), preeclampsia(23.5%), and preterm delivery (60%). The presence of systemic lupus erythematosus was an indication of poor prognosis. No significant side effects were observed during the treatment. Conclusions: this treatment was effective to improve live birth rate, safe, but it was not able to avoid adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with antiphospholipid syndrome. Systemic lupus erythematosus was a deteriorating factor for this syndrome.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 1999;21(4):215-221
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72031999000400006
Purpose: to determine the effectiveness and the safety of treatment with heparin and low-dose aspirin in pregnant women with antiphospholipid syndrome, and to determine possible deteriorating factors for this syndrome. Methods: 17 patients with antiphospholipid syndrome were submitted to a rigorous antenatal care. Patients were treated with a fixed dose of heparin (10,000 IU/day) associated with low-dose aspirin (100 mg/day). We analyzed perinatal and maternal results, using chi² test and Fischer's exact test. Results: the overall live birth rate was 88.2% in treated pregnancies of these patients versus 13.3% of their previous nontreated pregnancies. The incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes was very significant: oligohydramnios (40%), fetal distress (33.3%), fetal growth retardation (33.3%), gestational diabetes (29.4%), preeclampsia(23.5%), and preterm delivery (60%). The presence of systemic lupus erythematosus was an indication of poor prognosis. No significant side effects were observed during the treatment. Conclusions: this treatment was effective to improve live birth rate, safe, but it was not able to avoid adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with antiphospholipid syndrome. Systemic lupus erythematosus was a deteriorating factor for this syndrome.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2000;22(5):265-274
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032000000500003
Purpose: this study, using verapamil, a slow calcium channel blocker, was a randomized, clinical, double blind and placebo controlled trial, whose objective was to observe if there was a uteroplacental and fetoplacental flow variation during its chronic oral use. Methods: 123 patients were accompanied: study group (n = 61), submitted to verapamil 240 mg/day and control group (n = 62), submitted to placebo. These patients were randomized into groups of four women and treatment or placebo was given for thirty days. A flow examination of the uterine arteries and umbilical artery through doppler-velocimetry was recorded. The values of resistance (RI) and pulsatility index (PI) and of the systole/diastole ratio (S/D) of the arteries were compared after the drug administration calculating means and standard deviations. Results: the verapamil group showed RI = 0.82 (0.28), PI = 1.06 (0.12) and S/D = 2.42 (0.51) in the uterine arteries. The placebo group showed RI = 0.75 (0.35), PI = 1.00 (0.18) and S/D = 2.30 (0.38). When we analyzed the umbilical artery, the verapamil group showed RI = 0.73 (0.12), PI = 1.04 (0.13) and S/D = 2.94 (0.32). The placebo group showed RI = 0.70 (0.14), PI = 1.03 (0.07) and S/D = 3.02 (0.78). The statistical analysis of the differences of the means by the F ratio showed that there was no difference between these two groups. Conclusion: this study indicates the use of verapamil for chronic hypertensive pregnants since it does not provoke damage to the uterine and fetal blood flow.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2000;22(5):265-274
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032000000500003
Purpose: this study, using verapamil, a slow calcium channel blocker, was a randomized, clinical, double blind and placebo controlled trial, whose objective was to observe if there was a uteroplacental and fetoplacental flow variation during its chronic oral use. Methods: 123 patients were accompanied: study group (n = 61), submitted to verapamil 240 mg/day and control group (n = 62), submitted to placebo. These patients were randomized into groups of four women and treatment or placebo was given for thirty days. A flow examination of the uterine arteries and umbilical artery through doppler-velocimetry was recorded. The values of resistance (RI) and pulsatility index (PI) and of the systole/diastole ratio (S/D) of the arteries were compared after the drug administration calculating means and standard deviations. Results: the verapamil group showed RI = 0.82 (0.28), PI = 1.06 (0.12) and S/D = 2.42 (0.51) in the uterine arteries. The placebo group showed RI = 0.75 (0.35), PI = 1.00 (0.18) and S/D = 2.30 (0.38). When we analyzed the umbilical artery, the verapamil group showed RI = 0.73 (0.12), PI = 1.04 (0.13) and S/D = 2.94 (0.32). The placebo group showed RI = 0.70 (0.14), PI = 1.03 (0.07) and S/D = 3.02 (0.78). The statistical analysis of the differences of the means by the F ratio showed that there was no difference between these two groups. Conclusion: this study indicates the use of verapamil for chronic hypertensive pregnants since it does not provoke damage to the uterine and fetal blood flow.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2004;26(8):672-672
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2004;26(8):672-672