Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 298, Issue 3, pp 567–577 | Cite as

sFlt-1/PlGF ratio for the prediction of the time of delivery

  • Oliver GraupnerEmail author
  • Silvia M. Lobmaier
  • Javier U. Ortiz
  • Anne Karge
  • Bettina Kuschel
Maternal-Fetal Medicine



The soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 (sFlt-1)/placental growth factor (PlGF) ratio has been shown to be a useful parameter for the diagnosis and prediction of preeclampsia (PE). An increased sFlt-1/PlGF ratio can be closely linked to the need to deliver. The aim of the study was to examine the mean time until delivery (MTUD) in pregnant women with a strongly increased sFlt-1/PlGF ratio.


From 2010 to 2018, the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was determined in 995 singleton pregnancies with diagnosis or suspicion of PE/HELLP syndrome and/or intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). MTUD of patients with a value above 655 in < 34 weeks of gestation (group 1: n = 13) and above 201 in ≥ 34 weeks of gestation (group 2: n = 15) was calculated. Patients with a value > 85 but < 655 in < 34 weeks of gestation (group 3: n = 70) and a value > 110 but < 201 (group 4: n = 44) in ≥ 34 weeks of gestation acted as controls.


28 pregnant women with severely elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio and 114 controls were included. In group 1, MTUD was longer compared to group 2 without reaching statistical significance (96.7 h ± 132.2 vs. 47.7 h ± 44, p = 0.222). In pregnancies < 34 weeks of gestation (early onset), MTUD was significantly longer in group 3 compared to group 1 (361 h ± 317.3 vs. 96.7 h ± 132.2, p < 0.001). In pregnancies ≥ 34 weeks of gestation (late onset), MTUD was significantly longer in group 4 compared to group 2 (123.6 h ± 139.2 vs. 47.7 h ± 44, p = 0.002).


The sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is suitable for decision-making regarding close monitoring of high-risk patients and need for lung maturation. However, for planning of delivery itself further prospective interventional studies are required to define its role as outcome predictor.


Preeclampsia Antiangiogenic factors Placental growth factor Soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase Intrauterine growth restriction 


Author contributions

OG: project development, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript writing. SML: data analysis and manuscript editing. JUO: manuscript editing. AK: data collection and manuscript editing. BK: project development, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript editing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Levine RJ, Maynard SE, Qian C, Lim KH, England LJ, Yu KF et al (2004) Circulating angiogenic factors and the risk of preeclampsia. N Engl J Med 350(7):672–683CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rana S, Powe CE, Salahuddin S, Verlohren S, Perschel FH, Levine RJ, Lim KH, Wenger JB, Thadhani R, Karumanchi SA (2012) Angiogenic factors and the risk of adverse outcomes in women with suspected preeclampsia. Circulation 125:911–919CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Verlohren S, Herraiz I, Lapaire O, Schlembach D, Moertl M, Zeisler H, Calda P, Holzgreve W, Galindo A, Engels T, Denk B, Stepan H. The sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in different types of hypertensive pregnancy disorders and its prognostic potential in preeclamptic patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206:58.e1–8Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gomez-Arriaga PI, Herraiz I, Lopez-Jimenez EA, Escribano D, Denk B, Galindo A (2014) Uterine artery Doppler and sFlt-1/PlGF ratio: prognostic value in early-onset preeclampsia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 43:525–532CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schoofs K, Grittner U, Engels T, Pape J, Denk B, Henrich W, Verlohren S (2014) The importance of repeated measurements of the sFlt1/PLGF ratio for the prediction of preeclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction. J Perinat Med 42(1):61–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lobmaier SM, Figueras F, Mercade I, Perello M, Peguero A, Crovetto F, Ortiz JU, Crispi F, Gratacós E (2014) Angiogenic factors vs Doppler surveillance in the prediction of adverse outcome among late-pregnancy small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 43(5):533–540CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ACOG Committee on Obstetric Practice (2002) ACOG practice bulletin. Diagnosis and management of preeclampsia and eclampsia. Number 33, January 2002. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 77(1):67–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Task Force on Hypertension in Pregnancy (2013) Hypertension in pregnancy. Report of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Task Force on Hypertension in Pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 122(5):1122–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    015/018—S1-Leitlinie: Diagnostik und Therapie hypertensiver Schwangerschaftserkrankungen aktueller Stand: 12/2013.
  10. 10.
    Tranquilli AL, Brown MA, Zeeman GG, Dekker G, Sibai BM (2013) The definition of severe and earlyonset preeclampsia. Statements from the International Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy (ISSHP). Pregnancy Hypertens 3(3):44–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weinstein L (1982) Syndrome of hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelet count: a severe consequence of hypertension in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 142:159–167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gordijn SJ, Beune IM, Thilaganathan B, Papageorghiou A, Baschat AA, Baker PN, Silver RM, Wynia K, Ganzevoort W (2016) Consensus definition of fetal growth restriction: a Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 48:333–339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stepan H, Herraiz I, Schlembach D, Verlohren S, Brennecke S, Chantraine F, Klein E, Lapaire O, Llurba E, Ramoni A, Vatish M, Wertaschnigg D, Galindo A (2015) Implementation of the sFlt1/PlGF ratio for prediction and diagnosis of preeclampsia in singleton pregnancy: implications for clinical practice. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 45:241–246CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lees CC, Marlow N, van Wassenaer-Leemhuis A, Arabin B, Bilardo CM, Brezinka C, Calvert S, Derks JB, Diemert A, Duvekot JJ, Ferrazzi E, Frusca T, Ganzevoort W, Hecher K, Martinelli P, Ostermayer E, Papageorghiou AT, Schlembach D, Schneider KT, Thilaganathan B, Todros T, Valcamonico A, Visser GH, Wolf H, TRUFFLE study group (2015) 2 year neurodevelopmental and intermediate perinatal outcomes in infants with very preterm fetal growth restriction (TRUFFLE): a randomised trial. Lancet. 385(9983):2162–2172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klein E, Schlembach D, Ramoni A, Langer E, Bahlmann F, Grill S, Schaffenrath H, van der Does R, Messinger D, Verhagen-Kamerbeek WD, Reim M, Hund M, Stepan H (2016) Influence of the sFlt-1/PlGF Ratio on Clinical Decision-Making in Women with Suspected Preeclampsia. PLoS One 11(5):e0156013CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barton JR, Sibai BM (2017) Biomarkers for prediction, risk stratification, and ruling out preeclampsia: what are the appropriate goals and objectives? Am J Perinatol 34(4):415–418PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Klinikum rechts der IsarTechnical University of MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations