Earlier diagnosis of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy and adverse pregnancy outcomes
Earlier diagnosis of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy and adverse pregnancy outcomes

Earlier diagnosis of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy and adverse pregnancy outcomes

Pregnancy (Hoboken). 2025 Jul;1(4):e70073. doi: 10.1002/pmf2.70073. Epub 2025 Jul 16.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to determine whether pregnancies complicated by early diagnosis of cholestasis were associated with adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes.

METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of singleton, non-anomalous live gestations complicated by cholestasis from 2005-2019. We compared rates of adverse outcomes in pregnancies complicated by early (<32-week gestational age) versus late (≥ 32-week gestational age) diagnosis of cholestasis. Our primary outcome of interest was rates of spontaneous preterm birth. Secondary outcomes included rates of iatrogenic preterm birth, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, cesarean delivery for non-reassuring fetal heart tracing, and neonatal intensive care unit admission.

RESULTS: Of the 1247 pregnancies complicated by cholestasis, 241 (19.3%) had early diagnosis and 1006 (80.7%) had late diagnosis. After adjusting for confounders including peak total bile acid levels, earlier diagnosis of cholestasis remained associated with spontaneous preterm birth (OR 1.81; 95% CI 1.11-2.95), iatrogenic preterm birth, (OR 1.59; 95% CI 1.12-2.67), and NICU admission (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.04-1.95). A sub-analysis to compare outcomes with severe cholestasis (peak total bile acids ≥ 40 μmol/L) showed early diagnosis of severe cholestasis was also associated with spontaneous preterm labor (OR 2.41; 95% CI 1.34-4.34), iatrogenic preterm birth, (OR 1.67; 95% CI 1.05-2.67), and NICU admission (OR 1.66; 95% CI 1.06-2.61).

CONCLUSION: Findings suggests that earlier diagnosis of cholestasis is associated with adverse outcomes and that this is not entirely driven by peak total bile acid levels.

PMID:40959761 | PMC:PMC12435465 | DOI:10.1002/pmf2.70073