A nomogram and risk stratification to predict subsequent pregnancy loss in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss

Could the risk of subsequent pregnancy loss be predicted based on the risk factors of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) patients?

A nomogram, constructed from independent risk factors identified through multivariate logistic regression, serves as a reliable tool for predicting the likelihood of subsequent pregnancy loss in RPL patients.

Approximately 1-3% of fertile couples experience RPL, with over half lacking a clear etiological factor. Assessing the subsequent pregnancy loss rate in RPL patients and identifying high-risk groups for early intervention is essential for pregnancy counseling. Previous prediction models have mainly focused on unexplained RPL, incorporating baseline characteristics such as age and the number of previous pregnancy losses, with limited inclusion of laboratory and ultrasound indicators.

The retrospective study involved 3387 RPL patients who initially sought treatment at the Reproductive Immunology Clinic of Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2022. Of these, 1153 RPL patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis.

RPL was defined as two or more pregnancy losses (including biochemical pregnancy loss) with the same partner before 28 weeks of gestation. Data encompassing basic demographics, laboratory indicators (autoantibodies, peripheral immunity coagulation, and endocrine factors), uterine and endometrial ultrasound results, and subsequent pregnancy outcomes were collected from enrolled patients through initial questionnaires, post-pregnancy visits fortnightly, medical data retrieval, and telephone follow-up for lost patients. R software was utilized for data cleaning, dividing the data into a training cohort (n = 808) and a validation cohort (n = 345) in a 7:3 ratio according to pregnancy success and pregnancy loss. Independent predictors were identified through multivariate logistic regression. A nomogram was developed, evaluated by 10-fold cross-validation, and compared with the model incorporating solely age and the number of previous pregnancy losses. The constructed nomogram was evaluated using the AUC, calibration curve, decision curve analysis (DCA), and clinical impact curve analysis (CICA). Patients were then categorized into low- and high-risk subgroups.

We included age, number of previous pregnancy losses, lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin IgM, anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin complex IgM, anti-double-stranded DNA antibody, arachidonic acid-induced platelet aggregation, thrombin time and the sum of bilateral uterine artery systolic/diastolic ratios in the nomogram. The AUCs of the nomogram were 0.808 (95% CI: 0.770-0.846) in the training cohort and 0.731 (95% CI: 0.660-0.802) in the validation cohort, respectively. The 10-fold cross-validated AUC ranged from 0.714 to 0.925, with a mean AUC of 0.795 (95% CI: 0.750-0.839). The AUC of the nomogram was superior compared to the model incorporating solely age and the number of previous pregnancy losses. Calibration curves, DCAs, and CICAs showed good concordance and clinical applicability. Significant differences in pregnancy loss rates were observed between the low- and high-risk groups (P < 0.001).

This study was retrospective and focused on patients from a single reproductive immunology clinic, lacking external validation data. The potential impact of embryonic chromosomal abnormalities on pregnancy loss could not be excluded, and the administration of medication to all cases impacted the investigation of risk factors for pregnancy loss and the model's predictive efficacy.

This study signifies a pioneering effort in developing and validating a risk prediction nomogram for subsequent pregnancy loss in RPL patients to effectively stratify their risk. We have integrated the nomogram into an online web tool for clinical applications.

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82071725). All authors have no competing interests to declare.

N/A.