The Implementation of Preeclampsia Screening and Prevention (IMPRESS) Study.

BACKGROUND: Preeclampsia affects between 2% and 5% of pregnancies and is one of the leading causes of perinatal morbidity and mortality worldwide. Despite strong evidence that the combination of systematic preeclampsia screening based on the Fetal Medicine Foundation preeclampsia risk calculation algorithm with treatment of high-risk patients with low-dose aspirin reduces the incidence of preterm preeclampsia more than currently used risk-factor-based screening, real-world implementation studies have not yet been done in Canada. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the operational feasibility of implementing first-trimester screening and prevention of preterm preeclampsia (<37 weeks) alongside a publicly funded first-trimester combined screening program for aneuploidies. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective implementation study. Consecutive pregnant patients referred for first-trimester combined screening (11-13+6 weeks) were offered screening for preeclampsia based on the Fetal Medicine Foundation algorithm concomitantly with their aneuploidy screen. Consenting participants were screened using maternal risk factors, mean arterial pressure, uterine artery Doppler pulsatility index, pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A, and placental growth factor. Risk for preterm preeclampsia (<37 weeks) was calculated using the Fetal Medicine Foundation algorithm, and individuals with a risk score ≥1 per 100 were recommended to use aspirin (162 mg once daily at bedtime, <16-36 weeks). Implementation metrics assessed included: acceptability, operational impact, proportion of aspirin initiation, quality and safety measures, and screen performance. RESULTS: Between December 1, 2020 and April 23, 2021, 1124 patients consented to preeclampsia screening (98.3% uptake), and 92 (8.2%) screened positive. Appointments for patients receiving first-trimester combined screening aneuploidy and preeclampsia screening averaged 6 minutes longer than first-trimester combined screening alone, and adding uterine artery Doppler pulsatility index averaged 2 minutes. Of the 92 patients who screened as high-risk for preeclampsia, 72 (78.3%) were successfully contacted before 16 weeks' gestation. Of these, 62 (86.1%) initiated aspirin, and 10 (13.9%) did not. Performance audit identified a consistent negative bias with mean arterial pressure measurements (median multiple of the median <1 in 10%); other variables were satisfactory. There were 7 cases of preterm preeclampsia (0.69%): 5 and 2 in the high- and low-risk groups, respectively. Screening detected 5 of 7 (71.4 %) preterm preeclampsia cases, with improved performance after adjustment for aspirin treatment effect. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the operational feasibility of implementing an evidence-based preeclampsia screening and prevention program in a publicly funded Canadian setting. This will facilitate implementation into clinical service and the scaling up of this program at a regional and provincial level.

Repeated failure of epidural analgesia: an association with epidural fat?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To report the case of a patient who experienced repeated failed epidural analgesia associated with an unusual amount of fat in the epidural space (epidural lipomatosis). CASE REPORT: A 44-year-old female presented for an elective small bowel resection. An L(1-2) epidural catheter was placed for postoperative analgesia. The patient gave no indication of having pain at the time of emergence from general anesthesia or in the first 2 hours in the recovery room. Assessment of the level of hypoesthesia to ice while the patient was comfortable in the recovery room suggested a functional epidural catheter (cephalad level of T(10)). Two hours after admission to the recovery room the patient began to complain of increasing pain. Another 6 mL 0.25% bupivacaine was administered via the catheter. The patient's pain decreased, but remained substantial, and there was minimal evidence of sensory block above the T(10) level. Subsequently, a T(10) epidural catheter was placed. Testing confirmed proper placement of the catheter in the epidural space at the T(10) level. A test dose of 5 mL 0.25% bupivacaine resulted in prompt and complete relief of the patient's pain. However, the level of hypoesthesia to ice did not exceed the T(10) level. Approximately 1 hour later the patient complained of increasing discomfort again. There was no evidence of any sensory block, and there was no response to a bolus of 8 mL 1% lidocaine. A thorough examination of the patient did not suggest any cause for the pain other than a malfunctioning epidural catheter. A third epidural catheter was placed at the T(8-9) level. This catheter was again confirmed to be in the epidural space with a test dose of 10 mL 0.5% bupivacaine. The level of hypoesthesia to ice was restricted to a narrow bilateral band from T(7)-T(9). Analgesia failed 2 hours later. The epidural catheter was removed and the patient's pain was subsequently managed with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) morphine. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan revealed extensive epidural fat dorsal to the spinal cord from C(5)-C(7) and from T(3)-T(9). An imaging diagnosis of asymptomatic epidural lipomatosis was established. CONCLUSION: We have described a case of repeated failure of epidural analgesia in a patient with epidural lipomatosis.