International Journal of Infertility & Fetal Medicine

Register      Login

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2024 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Prediction of Adverse Maternal and Fetal Outcome in Preeclampsia Using a Risk Prediction Model Prospective Cohort Study

Vinita Singh, Rajshree Sahu, Vijayalakshmi Shanbhag, Esha Das, Rashmi Solanke, Farhat J Khan

Keywords : Full-preeclampsia integrated estimate of risk, Maternal Complications, Mini-preeclampsia integrated estimate of risk, Preeclampsia

Citation Information : Singh V, Sahu R, Shanbhag V, Das E, Solanke R, Khan FJ. Prediction of Adverse Maternal and Fetal Outcome in Preeclampsia Using a Risk Prediction Model Prospective Cohort Study. Int J Infertil Fetal Med 2024; 15 (2):71-76.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10016-1338

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 28-10-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Introduction: Preeclampsia (PE) is a syndrome unique to pregnancy that ranks second globally in terms of maternal mortality (14% in India and 29.54% globally). PE complicates 2–8% of pregnancies, while 10% of women experience hypertensive problems during pregnancy [hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (HDP)]. For women to have better maternal and perinatal outcomes, we must swiftly identify HDPs. The prognosis of these patients is contingent upon prompt identification, prompt referral to the tertiary care facility, patient accessibility to the facility, and careful management. Materials and methods: Enrolled in the study were patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and gave their consent for the current investigation. To get the risk of unfavorable outcomes for both mother and fetus, we employed the complete preeclampsia integrated estimate of risk score (PIERS) calculator. All patients were intensively monitored and managed accordingly with antihypertensive and steroids for fetal lung maturation in patients needing preterm delivery. Results and discussion: All patients requiring premature birth were closely observed and treated with antihypertensive medications and steroids to promote fetal lung maturation. About 33.33% of the patients in our study with hypertensive diseases of pregnancy experienced adverse maternal outcomes. The full-PIERS prediction model applied to the study population demonstrated a statistically significant p-value of <0.05 in the prediction of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. The area under the curve (AUC) [receiver operating characteristic (ROC)] for the PIER score at various cutoffs is C = 0.903, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.855–0.951 and a standard error (SE) of 0.024. The optimal cutoff points are 2.85 for maternal outcomes and 0.95 for fetal outcomes, respectively, in order to maximize (sensitivity + specificity). Conclusion: Our results may help with decision-making when it comes to scheduling the patient's delivery, maintaining conservative treatment, administering blood products, or moving the patient to an intensive care unit. PIER score is a highly reliable indicator (p < 0.001) for predicting the health of the mother and fetus.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Say L, Chou D, Gemmill A, et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health 2014 2:e323–e333. DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70227-X
  2. Konar H, Chakraborty AB. Maternal mortality: A FOGSI study (Based on institutional data). J Obstet Gynaecol India 2013;63(2):88–95. DOI: 10.1007/s13224-012-0258-1
  3. World Health Organization. The World health report: 2005: make every mother and child count. Geneva: WHO; 2005.
  4. Duley L. Maternal mortality associated with Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. Br J ObstetGynaecol 1992;99(7):547–553. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1992.tb13818.x
  5. MacKay AP, Berg CJ, Atrash HK. Pregnancy-related mortality from preeclampsia and eclampsia. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97(4):533–538. DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(00)01223-0
  6. ACOG Committee on Obstetric Practice. ACOG practice bulletin. Diagnosis and management of preeclampsia and eclampsia. Number 33, January. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2002;77(1):67–75. PMID: 12094777.
  7. Magee LA, Ornstein MP, von Dadelszen P. Fortnightly review: management of hypertension in pregnancy. BMJ 1999;318(7194):1332–1336. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.318.7194.1332
  8. Odendaal HJ, Pattinson RC, Bam R, et al. Aggressive or expectant management for patients with severe preeclampsia between 28-34 weeks’ gestation: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 1990;76(6):1070–1075. PMID: 2234715.
  9. Sibai BM, Mercer BM, Schiff E, et al. Aggressive versus expectant management of severe preeclampsia at 28 to 32 weeks’ gestation: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;171(3):818–822. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9378(94)90104-x
  10. Olah KS, Redman CW, Gee H. Management of severe, early pre-eclampsia: is conservative management justified? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1993;51(3):175–180. DOI: 10.1016/0028-2243(93)90032-8
  11. von Dadelszen P, Payne B, Li J, et al. Prediction of adverse maternal outcomes in pre-eclampsia: development and validation of the fullPIERS model. Lancet 2011;377(9761):219–227. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61351-7
  12. Payne B, Hodgson S, Hutcheon J, et al. Performance of the fullPIERS model in predicting adverse maternal outcomes in pre-eclampsia using patient data from the PIERS (Pre-eclampsia Integrated Estimate of Risk) cohort, collected on admission. BJOG 2013;120(1):113–118. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03496.x
  13. Ukah UV, Payne B, Hutcheon JA, et al. Assessment of the fullPIERS risk prediction model in women with early-onset preeclampsia. Hypertension 2018;71(4):659–665. DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.117.10318
  14. Steegers EA, von Dadelszen P, Duvekot JJ, et al. Pre-eclampsia. Lancet 2010;376(9741):631–644. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60279-6
  15. Hutcheon JA, Lisonkova S, Joseph KS. Epidemiology of pre-eclampsia and the other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2011;25(4):391–403. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2011.01.006
  16. Payne BA, Hutcheon JA, Ansermino JM, et al. A risk prediction model for the assessment and triage of women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in low-resourced settings: the miniPIERS (Pre-eclampsia Integrated Estimate of RiSk) multi-country prospective cohort study. PLoS Med 2014;11(1):e1001589. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001589
  17. van der Meij E, Herklots T, Yussuf S, et al. Retrospective validation study of miniPIERS prediction model in Zanzibar. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2021;153(2):300–306. DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.13493
  18. Thangaratinam S, Allotey J, Marlin N, et al. Prediction of complications in early-onset pre-eclampsia (PREP): development and external multinational validation of prognostic models. BMC Med 2017;15(1):68. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-017-0827-3
  19. Agrawal S, Maitra N. Prediction of adverse maternal outcomes in preeclampsia using a risk prediction mode. J Obstet Gynaecol India 2016;66(Suppl 1):S104–S111. DOI: 10.1007/s13224-015-0779-5
  20. Srivastava S, Parihar BC, Jain N. PIERS calculator- predicting adverse maternal outcome in preeclampsia. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2017;6(4):1200–1205. DOI: 10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20170889
  21. Hawkins T, Roberts JM, Mangos GJ, et al. Plasma uric acid remains a marker of poor outcome in hypertensive pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study. BJOG 2012;119(4):484–492. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03232.x
  22. Kozic JR, Benton SJ, Hutcheon JA, et al. Abnormal liver function tests as predictors of adverse maternal outcomes in women with preeclampsia. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2011;33(10):995–1004. DOI: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)35048-4
  23. Yen TW, Payne B, Qu Z, et al. Using clinical symptoms to predict adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes in women with preeclampsia: data from the PIERS (Pre-eclampsia Integrated Estimate of RiSk) study. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2011;33(8):803–809. DOI: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34983-0
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.