PIERS proteinuria: relationship with adverse maternal and perinatal outcome.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the ability of three different proteinuria assessment methods (urinary dipstick, spot urine protein:creatinine ratio [Pr/Cr], and 24-hour urine collection) to predict adverse pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: We performed a prospective multicentre cohort study, PIERS (Preeclampsia Integrated Estimate of RiSk), in seven academic tertiary maternity centres practising expectant management of preeclampsia remote from term in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. Eligible women were those admitted with preeclampsia who had at least one antenatal proteinuria assessment by urinary dipstick, spot urine Pr/Cr ratio, and/or 24-hour urine collection. Proteinuria assessment was done either visually at the bedside (by dipstick) or by hospital clinical laboratories for spot urine Pr/Cr and 24-hour urine collection. We calculated receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (95% CI) for each proteinuria method and each of the combined adverse maternal outcomes (within 48 hours) or adverse perinatal outcomes (at any time). Models with AUC ≥ 0.70 were considered of interest. Analyses were run for all women who had each type of proteinuria assessment and for a cohort of women ("ALL measures") who had all three proteinuria assessments. RESULTS: More women were proteinuric by urinary dipstick (≥ 2+, 61.4%) than by spot urine Pr/Cr (≥ 30 g/mol, 50.4%) or 24-hour urine collection (≥ 0.3g/d, 34.7%). Each proteinuria measure evaluated had some discriminative power, and dipstick proteinuria (categorical) performed as well as other methods. No single method was predictive of adverse perinatal outcome. CONCLUSION: The measured amount of proteinuria should not be used in isolation for decision-making in women with preeclampsia. Dipstick proteinuria performs as well as other methods of assessing proteinuria for prediction of adverse events.

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.

Predicting adverse outcomes in women with severe pre-eclampsia.

The reason pre-eclampsia matters so much to maternity care providers is that adverse maternal and perinatal events cluster around the diagnosis of proteinuric gestational hypertension. While that is true, most pre-eclampsia is mild and evanescent, resolving rapidly postpartum. Therefore, every effort must be made to identify those women at greatest personal risk, and those bearing fetuses at greatest risk, so that they can be offered closer surveillance and lower thresholds for the use of effective interventions, such as delivery and the use of MgSO(4). Conversely, as delivery remote from term can increase perinatal risks and as liberal MgSO(4) use is associated with maternal morbidity, it may be as important to identify those women who have "mild" disease and bear little personal and/or fetal actuarial risk. For women with "mild" disease at presentation, expectant management remote from term or nonuse of MgSO(4) would be appropriate. Through the PIERS (Pre-eclampsia Integrated Estimate of RiSk) model research program, we have determined that most criteria for "severe" disease perform poorly when operationalized to predict adverse maternal and/or perinatal outcomes. However, with standardized assessment and surveillance of women with suspected and confirmed pre-eclampsia it is possible to lower maternal risks both within individual institutions and across regions. In addition, the PIERS group developed, and is currently validating, 2 outcome prediction models (full-PIERS and mini-PIERS) that we hope will provide an evidence base for the definition of "severe" disease and guide clinical decision-making, especially remote from term when potential perinatal gains are so great.