Jennifer Menzies

Prediction of adverse maternal outcomes in pre-eclampsia: development and validation of the fullPIERS model

BACKGROUND Pre-eclampsia is a leading cause of maternal deaths. These deaths mainly result from eclampsia, uncontrolled hypertension, or systemic inflammation. We developed and validated the fullPIERS model with the aim of identifying the risk of fatal or life-threatening complications in women with pre-eclampsia within 48 h of hospital admission for the disorder. METHODS We developed and internally validated the fullPIERS model in a prospective, multicentre study in women who were admitted to tertiary obstetric centres with pre-eclampsia or who developed pre-eclampsia after admission. The outcome of interest was maternal mortality or other serious complications of pre-eclampsia. Routinely reported and informative variables were included in a stepwise backward elimination regression model to predict the adverse maternal outcome. We assessed performance using the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC). Standard bootstrapping techniques were used to assess potential overfitting. FINDINGS 261 of 2023 women with pre-eclampsia had adverse outcomes at any time after hospital admission (106 [5%] within 48 h of admission). Predictors of adverse maternal outcome included gestational age, chest pain or dyspnoea, oxygen saturation, platelet count, and creatinine and aspartate transaminase concentrations. The fullPIERS model predicted adverse maternal outcomes within 48 h of study eligibility (AUC ROC 0·88, 95% CI 0·84-0·92). There was no significant overfitting. fullPIERS performed well (AUC ROC >0·7) up to 7 days after eligibility. INTERPRETATION The fullPIERS model identifies women at increased risk of adverse outcomes up to 7 days before complications arise and can thereby modify direct patient care (eg, timing of delivery, place of care), improve the design of clinical trials, and inform biomedical investigations related to pre-eclampsia. FUNDING Canadian Institutes of Health Research; UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development, and Research Training in Human Reproduction; Preeclampsia Foundation; International Federation of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research; and Child and Family Research Institute.

Less-Tight versus Tight Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy

BACKGROUND The effects of less-tight versus tight control of hypertension on pregnancy complications are unclear. METHODS We performed an open, international, multicenter trial involving women at 14 weeks 0 days to 33 weeks 6 days of gestation who had nonproteinuric preexisting or gestational hypertension, office diastolic blood pressure of 90 to 105 mm Hg (or 85 to 105 mm Hg if the woman was taking antihypertensive medications), and a live fetus. Women were randomly assigned to less-tight control (target diastolic blood pressure, 100 mm Hg) or tight control (target diastolic blood pressure, 85 mm Hg). The composite primary outcome was pregnancy loss or high-level neonatal care for more than 48 hours during the first 28 postnatal days. The secondary outcome was serious maternal complications occurring up to 6 weeks post partum or until hospital discharge, whichever was later. RESULTS Included in the analysis were 987 women; 74.6% had preexisting hypertension. The primary-outcome rates were similar among 493 women assigned to less-tight control and 488 women assigned to tight control (31.4% and 30.7%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.35), as were the rates of serious maternal complications (3.7% and 2.0%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 1.74; 95% CI, 0.79 to 3.84), despite a mean diastolic blood pressure that was higher in the less-tight-control group by 4.6 mm Hg (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.4). Severe hypertension (≥160/110 mm Hg) developed in 40.6% of the women in the less-tight-control group and 27.5% of the women in the tight-control group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS We found no significant between-group differences in the risk of pregnancy loss, high-level neonatal care, or overall maternal complications, although less-tight control was associated with a significantly higher frequency of severe maternal hypertension. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; CHIPS Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN71416914; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01192412.).

Current CHS and NHBPEP Criteria for Severe Preeclampsia Do Not Uniformly Predict Adverse Maternal or Perinatal Outcomes

Objective: To determine the association between adverse maternal/perinatal outcomes and Canadian and U.S. preeclampsia severity criteria. Methods: Using PIERS data (Preeclampsia Integrated Estimate of RiSk), an international continuous quality improvement project for women hospitalized with preeclampsia, we examined the association between preeclampsia severity criteria and adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes (univariable analysis, Fishers exact test). Not evaluated were variables performed in <80% of pregnancies (e.g., 24-hour proteinuria). Results: Few of the evaluated variables were associated with adverse maternal (chest pain/dyspnea, thrombocytopenia, ‘elevated liver enzymes’, HELLP syndrome, and creatinine >110 μM) or perinatal outcomes (dBP >110 mm Hg and suspected abruption) (at p < 0.01). Conclusions: In the PIERS cohort, most factors used in the Canadian or American classifications of severe preeclampsia do not predict adverse maternal and/or perinatal outcomes. Future classification systems should take this into account.

Instituting Surveillance Guidelines and Adverse Outcomes in Preeclampsia

OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of combined adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes in women with preeclampsia before and after introducing standardized assessment and surveillance. METHODS: This study was a preintervention (retrospective) compared with a postintervention (prospective) cohort comparison in a single-tertiary, perinatal unit that included women admitted to hospital with preeclampsia. We interrogated an existing retrospective 24-month database and then introduced the guidelines, assessing the incidence of the combined adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes for 41 months (September 2003 through February 2007). Tests of organ (dys)function were performed at least as often as on the day of admission, admission day +1, every Monday and Thursday, day of delivery, and delivery day +1. All data were checked for errors. The combined maternal outcome was maternal death or one or more of hepatic failure, hematoma, or rupture, Glasgow coma score of less than 13, stroke, at least two seizures, cortical blindness, need for positive inotrope support, myocardial infarction, infusion of any third antihypertensive, renal dialysis, renal transplantation, at least 50% FIO2 for greater than 1 hour, intubation, or transfusion of at least 10 units of blood products. The combined perinatal outcome was perinatal or infant mortality, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, necrotizing enterocolitis, grade III/IV intraventricular hemorrhage, cystic periventricular leukomalacia, or stage 3–5 retinopathy of prematurity. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-five and 405 women were in the preintervention and postintervention cohorts, respectively. The incidence of adverse maternal outcome fell (5.1% to 0.7%; Fisher P<.001; odds ratio 0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.04–0.49). Perinatal outcomes did not change. CONCLUSION: Standardized surveillance of women with preeclampsia was associated with reduced maternal risk. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II

Do labetalol and methyldopa have different effects on pregnancy outcome? Analysis of data from the Control of Hypertension In Pregnancy Study (CHIPS) trial

To compare pregnancy outcomes, accounting for allocated group, between methyldopa‐treated and labetalol‐treated women in the CHIPS Trial (ISRCTN 71416914) of ‘less tight’ versus ‘tight’ control of pregnancy hypertension.

The CHIPS Randomized Controlled Trial (Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy Study): Is Severe Hypertension Just an Elevated Blood Pressure?

To determine whether clinical outcomes differed by occurrence of severe hypertension in the international CHIPS trial (Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy Study), adjusting for the interventions of “less tight” (target diastolic blood pressure [dBP] 100 mm Hg) versus “tight” control (target dBP 85 mm Hg). In this post-hoc analysis of CHIPS data from 987 women with nonsevere nonproteinuric preexisting or gestational hypertension, mixed effects logistic regression was used to compare the following outcomes according to occurrence of severe hypertension, adjusting for allocated group and the influence of baseline factors: CHIPS primary (perinatal loss or high-level neonatal care for >48 hours) and secondary outcomes (serious maternal complications), birth weight <10th percentile, preeclampsia, delivery at <34 or <37 weeks, platelets <100×109/L, elevated liver enzymes with symptoms, maternal length of stay ≥10 days, and maternal readmission before 6 weeks postpartum. Three hundred and thirty-four (34.1%) women in CHIPS developed severe hypertension that was associated with all outcomes examined except for maternal readmission (P=0.20): CHIPS primary outcome, birth weight <10th percentile, preeclampsia, preterm delivery, elevated liver enzymes (all P<0.001), platelets <100×109/L (P=0.006), and prolonged hospital stay (P=0.03). The association between severe hypertension and serious maternal complications was seen only in less tight control (P=0.02). Adjustment for preeclampsia (464, 47.3%) did not negate the relationship between severe hypertension and the CHIPS primary outcome (P<0.001), birth weight <10th percentile (P=0.005), delivery at <37 (P<0.001) or <34 weeks (P<0.001), or elevated liver enzymes with symptoms (P=0.02). Severe hypertension is a risk marker for adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes, independent of BP control or preeclampsia co-occurrence. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://pre-empt.cfri.ca/. Unique identifier: ISRCTN 71416914. URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT01192412.

Can adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes be predicted when blood pressure becomes elevated? Secondary analyses from the CHIPS (Control of Hypertension In Pregnancy Study) randomized controlled trial

For women with chronic or gestational hypertension in CHIPS (Control of Hypertension In Pregnancy Study, NCT01192412), we aimed to examine whether clinical predictors collected at randomization could predict adverse outcomes.

The Cost Implications of Less Tight Versus Tight Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy (CHIPS Trial)

The CHIPS randomized controlled trial (Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy Study) found no difference in the primary perinatal or secondary maternal outcomes between planned “less tight” (target diastolic 100 mm Hg) and “tight” (target diastolic 85 mm Hg) blood pressure management strategies among women with chronic or gestational hypertension. This study examined which of these management strategies is more or less costly from a third-party payer perspective. A total of 981 women with singleton pregnancies and nonsevere, nonproteinuric chronic or gestational hypertension were randomized at 14 to 33 weeks to less tight or tight control. Resources used were collected from 94 centers in 15 countries and costed as if the trial took place in each of 3 Canadian provinces as a cost-sensitivity analysis. Eleven hospital ward and 24 health service costs were obtained from a similar trial and provincial government health insurance schedules of medical benefits. The mean total cost per woman–infant dyad was higher in less tight versus tight control, but the difference in mean total cost (DM) was not statistically significant in any province: Ontario (

5.6 The Control of Hypertension In Pregnancy Study (CHIPS) randomised controlled trial

30 191.62 versus

The CHIPS Randomized Controlled Trial (Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy Study)Novelty and Significance: Is Severe Hypertension Just an Elevated Blood Pressure?

24 469.06; DM