Cargando…

Effectiveness and safety of 1 vs 4 h blood pressure profile with clinical and laboratory assessment for the exclusion of gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia: a retrospective study in a university affiliated maternity hospital

OBJECTIVE: We asked whether 60 compared with 240 min observation is sufficiently informative and safe for pregnancy day assessment (PDAC) of suspected pre-eclampsia (PE). DESIGN: A retrospective study of 209 pregnant women (475 PDAC assessments, 6 months) with routinely collected blood pressure (BP)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McCarthy, Elizabeth Anne, Carins, Thomas A, Hannigan, Yolanda, Bardien, Nadia, Shub, Alexis, Walker, Susan P
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4654395/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26582404
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009492
_version_ 1782402050913468416
author McCarthy, Elizabeth Anne
Carins, Thomas A
Hannigan, Yolanda
Bardien, Nadia
Shub, Alexis
Walker, Susan P
author_facet McCarthy, Elizabeth Anne
Carins, Thomas A
Hannigan, Yolanda
Bardien, Nadia
Shub, Alexis
Walker, Susan P
author_sort McCarthy, Elizabeth Anne
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: We asked whether 60 compared with 240 min observation is sufficiently informative and safe for pregnancy day assessment (PDAC) of suspected pre-eclampsia (PE). DESIGN: A retrospective study of 209 pregnant women (475 PDAC assessments, 6 months) with routinely collected blood pressure (BP), symptom and laboratory information. We proposed a 60 min screening algorithm comprising: absence of symptoms, normal laboratory parameters and ≤1high-BP reading (systolic blood pressure, SBP 140 mm Hg or higher or diastolic blood pressure, DBP 90 mm Hg or higher). We also evaluated two less inclusive screening algorithms. We determined short-term outcomes (within 4 h): severe hypertension, proteinuric hypertension and pregnancy-induced hypertension, as well as long-term outcome: PE-related diagnoses up to the early puerperium. We assessed performance of alternate screening algorithms performance using 2×2 tables. RESULTS: 1 in 3 women met all screen negative criteria at 1 h. Their risk of hypertension requiring treatment in the next 3 h was 1.8% and of failing to diagnose proteinuric hypertensive PE at 4 h was 5.1%. If BP triggers were 5 mm Hg lower, 1 in 6 women would be screen-negative of whom 1.1% subsequently develops treatment-requiring hypertension and 4.5% demonstrate short-term proteinuric hypertension. We present sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive likelihood ratios for alternate screening algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: We endorse further research into the safest screening test where women are considered for discharge after 60 min. Safety, patient and staff satisfaction should be assessed prospectively. Any screening test should be used in conjunction with good clinical care to minimise maternal and perinatal hazards of PE.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4654395
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46543952015-12-02 Effectiveness and safety of 1 vs 4 h blood pressure profile with clinical and laboratory assessment for the exclusion of gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia: a retrospective study in a university affiliated maternity hospital McCarthy, Elizabeth Anne Carins, Thomas A Hannigan, Yolanda Bardien, Nadia Shub, Alexis Walker, Susan P BMJ Open Obstetrics and Gynaecology OBJECTIVE: We asked whether 60 compared with 240 min observation is sufficiently informative and safe for pregnancy day assessment (PDAC) of suspected pre-eclampsia (PE). DESIGN: A retrospective study of 209 pregnant women (475 PDAC assessments, 6 months) with routinely collected blood pressure (BP), symptom and laboratory information. We proposed a 60 min screening algorithm comprising: absence of symptoms, normal laboratory parameters and ≤1high-BP reading (systolic blood pressure, SBP 140 mm Hg or higher or diastolic blood pressure, DBP 90 mm Hg or higher). We also evaluated two less inclusive screening algorithms. We determined short-term outcomes (within 4 h): severe hypertension, proteinuric hypertension and pregnancy-induced hypertension, as well as long-term outcome: PE-related diagnoses up to the early puerperium. We assessed performance of alternate screening algorithms performance using 2×2 tables. RESULTS: 1 in 3 women met all screen negative criteria at 1 h. Their risk of hypertension requiring treatment in the next 3 h was 1.8% and of failing to diagnose proteinuric hypertensive PE at 4 h was 5.1%. If BP triggers were 5 mm Hg lower, 1 in 6 women would be screen-negative of whom 1.1% subsequently develops treatment-requiring hypertension and 4.5% demonstrate short-term proteinuric hypertension. We present sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive likelihood ratios for alternate screening algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: We endorse further research into the safest screening test where women are considered for discharge after 60 min. Safety, patient and staff satisfaction should be assessed prospectively. Any screening test should be used in conjunction with good clinical care to minimise maternal and perinatal hazards of PE. BMJ Publishing Group 2015-11-18 /pmc/articles/PMC4654395/ /pubmed/26582404 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009492 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Obstetrics and Gynaecology
McCarthy, Elizabeth Anne
Carins, Thomas A
Hannigan, Yolanda
Bardien, Nadia
Shub, Alexis
Walker, Susan P
Effectiveness and safety of 1 vs 4 h blood pressure profile with clinical and laboratory assessment for the exclusion of gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia: a retrospective study in a university affiliated maternity hospital
title Effectiveness and safety of 1 vs 4 h blood pressure profile with clinical and laboratory assessment for the exclusion of gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia: a retrospective study in a university affiliated maternity hospital
title_full Effectiveness and safety of 1 vs 4 h blood pressure profile with clinical and laboratory assessment for the exclusion of gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia: a retrospective study in a university affiliated maternity hospital
title_fullStr Effectiveness and safety of 1 vs 4 h blood pressure profile with clinical and laboratory assessment for the exclusion of gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia: a retrospective study in a university affiliated maternity hospital
title_full_unstemmed Effectiveness and safety of 1 vs 4 h blood pressure profile with clinical and laboratory assessment for the exclusion of gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia: a retrospective study in a university affiliated maternity hospital
title_short Effectiveness and safety of 1 vs 4 h blood pressure profile with clinical and laboratory assessment for the exclusion of gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia: a retrospective study in a university affiliated maternity hospital
title_sort effectiveness and safety of 1 vs 4 h blood pressure profile with clinical and laboratory assessment for the exclusion of gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia: a retrospective study in a university affiliated maternity hospital
topic Obstetrics and Gynaecology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4654395/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26582404
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009492
work_keys_str_mv AT mccarthyelizabethanne effectivenessandsafetyof1vs4hbloodpressureprofilewithclinicalandlaboratoryassessmentfortheexclusionofgestationalhypertensionandpreeclampsiaaretrospectivestudyinauniversityaffiliatedmaternityhospital
AT carinsthomasa effectivenessandsafetyof1vs4hbloodpressureprofilewithclinicalandlaboratoryassessmentfortheexclusionofgestationalhypertensionandpreeclampsiaaretrospectivestudyinauniversityaffiliatedmaternityhospital
AT hanniganyolanda effectivenessandsafetyof1vs4hbloodpressureprofilewithclinicalandlaboratoryassessmentfortheexclusionofgestationalhypertensionandpreeclampsiaaretrospectivestudyinauniversityaffiliatedmaternityhospital
AT bardiennadia effectivenessandsafetyof1vs4hbloodpressureprofilewithclinicalandlaboratoryassessmentfortheexclusionofgestationalhypertensionandpreeclampsiaaretrospectivestudyinauniversityaffiliatedmaternityhospital
AT shubalexis effectivenessandsafetyof1vs4hbloodpressureprofilewithclinicalandlaboratoryassessmentfortheexclusionofgestationalhypertensionandpreeclampsiaaretrospectivestudyinauniversityaffiliatedmaternityhospital
AT walkersusanp effectivenessandsafetyof1vs4hbloodpressureprofilewithclinicalandlaboratoryassessmentfortheexclusionofgestationalhypertensionandpreeclampsiaaretrospectivestudyinauniversityaffiliatedmaternityhospital