New categorization of chest pain: noncardiac is in, atypical is out!

Chest pain poses a diagnostic challenge in the emergency department and requires a thorough clinical assessment. The traditional distinction between "atypical" and "typical" chest pain carries the risk of not addressing nonischemic clinical pictures. The newly conceived subdivision into cardiac, possibly cardiac, and (probably) noncardiac causes of the presenting symptom complex addresses a much more interdisciplinary approach to a symptom-oriented diagnostic algorithm. The diagnostic structures of the chest pain units in Germany do not currently reflect this. An adaptation should therefore be considered.

External validation of the emergency department assessment of chest pain score accelerated diagnostic pathway (EDACS-ADP).

OBJECTIVE: We validated prior emergency department (ED) assessments of the chest pain score accelerated diagnostic pathway (EDACS-ADP) in Korean patients. This score is designed to discriminate patients at a low risk of a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) from those with a potentially more serious condition. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 1273 patients who had presented at our ED with chest pain or symptoms of a suspected coronary artery disease and who underwent coronary computed tomographic angiography from January 2017 to December 2018. These cases had been classified as low or high risk using the EDACS-ADP. The primary outcome was a MACE onset within 30 days of presentation. RESULTS: Of the total study patients, 448 (35.2%) were classified as low risk by the EDACS-ADP and 5 cases (1.1%) of MACE arose. Overall, 221 patients in the study population (17.3%) developed a MACE. The sensitivity, and negative predictive values of the EDACS-ADP were 97.7% (95% CI 94.8-99.3), and 98.9% (97.4-99.5), respectively. CONCLUSION: The sensitivity and negative predictive values for the EDACS-ADP were high in Korean patients presenting at the ED. However, the MACE rate among low-risk patients is higher than that considered acceptable by the majority of ED physicians for patients that are to be discharged without further evaluation. Further studies may be warranted for the successful application of the EDACS-ADP.

Prognosticating Clinical Prediction Scores Without Clinical Gestalt for Patients With Chest Pain in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of patients with chest pain is a regular challenge in the emergency department (ED). Recent guidelines recommended quantitative assessment of ischemic risk by means of risk scores. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to assess the performance of Thrombosis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI); Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE); history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin (HEART) scores; and the North America Chest Pain Rule (NACPR) without components of clinical gestalt in predicting 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE). METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study in adult patients who attended the ED with undifferentiated chest pain. Clinical prediction rules were applied and calculated. The clinical prediction rules were modified from the original ones, excluding components requiring judgment by clinical gestalt. The primary outcome was MACE. Performance of the tests were evaluated by receive operating characteristic curves and the area under curves (AUC). RESULTS: There were 1081 patients included in the study. Thirty-day MACE occurred in 164 (15.2%) patients. The AUC of the GRACE score was 0.756, which was inferior to the TIMI score (AUC 0.809) and the HEART score (AUC 0.845). A TIMI score ≥ 1 had a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 45.7%. A GRACE score ≥ 50 had a sensitivity of 99.4% and a specificity of 7.5%. A HEART score ≥ 1 had a sensitivity of 98.8% and a specificity of 11.7%. The NACPR had a sensitivity of 93.3% and a specificity of 51.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Without clinical gestalt, the modified HEART score had the best discriminative capacity in predicting 30-day MACE.

Community-acquired pneumonia in younger patients is an entity on its own.

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is now most frequent in elderly patients. CAP in the younger patient has attracted much less attention. Therefore, we compared patients with CAP aged 18 to <65 yrs with those aged ≥ 65 yrs. Data from the prospective multicentre Competence Network for Community Acquired Pneumonia Study Group (CAPNETZ) database were analysed for potential differences in baseline characteristics, comorbidities, clinical presentation, microbial investigations, aetiologies, antimicrobial treatment and outcomes. Overall, 7,803 patients were studied. The proportion of younger patients (aged <65 yrs) was 52.3% (18 to <30 yrs 6.4%; <40 yrs 17.1%; <50 yrs 29.4%). Comorbidity was present in only half of the younger patients (46.6% versus 88.2%). Fever and chest pain were more common. Most younger patients presented with mild CAP (74.0% had a CRB-65 [corrected] score of 0 (confusion of new onset, [corrected] respiratory rate of ≥ 30 breaths · min(-1), blood pressure <90 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure ≤ 60 mmHg, age ≥ 65 yrs)). Overall, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Mycoplasma pneumoniae were the most frequent pathogens in the younger patients. Short-term mortality was very low (1.7% versus 8.2%) and even lower in patients without comorbidity (0.3% versus 2.4%). Long-term mortality was 3.2% versus 15.9%, also lower in patients without comorbidity (0.8% versus 6.1%). Most of the differences found clearly arise after the fifth or within the middle of the sixth decade. CAP in the younger patient is a clinically distinct entity.

Reconstruction of the decision-making process in assessing musculoskeletal chest pain: an exploratory study using recursive partitioning.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to identify the most important determinants from the patient history and clinical examination in diagnosing musculoskeletal chest pain (MSCP) in patients with acute noncardiac chest pain when supported by a structured protocol and to construct a decision tree for identification of MSCP in acute noncardiac chest pain. METHODS: Consecutive patients with noncardiac chest pain (n = 302) recruited from an emergency cardiology department were assessed. Using data from self-report questionnaires, interviews, and clinical assessment, patient characteristics were associated with the MSCP diagnosis, and the decision-making process of the clinician was reconstructed using recursive procedures in the tradition of constructing Classification and Regression Trees. RESULTS: Thirty-eight percent of patients had MSCP. There was no single determinant that predicted the condition completely. However, many items with high associations could be identified, mainly with high negative predictive value. The decision-making process was reconstructed giving rise to a 5-step, linear decision tree without branches. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians use a combination of indicators including systematic palpation of the spine and chest wall and items from the case history to diagnose MSCP. However, the high negative predictive values of the main determinants suggest that the MSCP diagnosis may be a diagnosis by exclusion.

Multivariate modeling to identify patterns in clinical data: the example of chest pain.

BACKGROUND: In chest pain, physicians are confronted with numerous interrelationships between symptoms and with evidence for or against classifying a patient into different diagnostic categories. The aim of our study was to find natural groups of patients on the basis of risk factors, history and clinical examination data which should then be validated with patients' final diagnoses. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional diagnostic study in 74 primary care practices to establish the validity of symptoms and findings for the diagnosis of coronary heart disease. A total of 1199 patients above age 35 presenting with chest pain were included in the study. General practitioners took a standardized history and performed a physical examination. They also recorded their preliminary diagnoses, investigations and management related to the patient's chest pain. We used multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) to examine associations on variable level, and multidimensional scaling (MDS), k-means and fuzzy cluster analyses to search for subgroups on patient level. We further used heatmaps to graphically illustrate the results. RESULTS: A multiple correspondence analysis supported our data collection strategy on variable level. Six factors emerged from this analysis: "chest wall syndrome", "vital threat", "stomach and bowel pain", "angina pectoris", "chest infection syndrome", and " self-limiting chest pain". MDS, k-means and fuzzy cluster analysis on patient level were not able to find distinct groups. The resulting cluster solutions were not interpretable and had insufficient statistical quality criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Chest pain is a heterogeneous clinical category with no coherent associations between signs and symptoms on patient level.

Ischemia-modified albumin in differential diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome without ST elevation and unstable angina pectoris.

BACKGROUND: Ischemia modified albumin (IMA) was registered by the United States Food and Drug Administration as a marker of myocardial ischemia. AIM: To assess the usefulness of IMA measurement for differentiating patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with no ST elevation and patients with unstable angina pectoris. METHODS: The study group consisted of 121 patients (mean age 63 +/- 12 years, 84 males), who were admitted to our department with retrosternal chest pain occurring at rest and lasting more than 20 minutes. The patients had laboratory tests performed including aspartate aminotransferase, izoenzyme of creatine kinase activity, troponin T, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), C-reactive protein, IMA concentration and creatinine clearance. Coronary angiography was also performed. All study patients were divided into 2 groups: group I with elevated troponin concentration (58 patients) and group II with troponin concentration below reference value (63 patients). RESULTS: The IMA concentration in the serum did not differ significantly between group I (troponin positive) and group II (troponin negative) (95.2 +/- 12.8 U/mL vs 94.0 +/- 17.9 U/mL, NS). The percentage of patients with elevated IMA values (cut off point of 85 U/mL) did not differ significantly between group I and group II patients (76.6% vs 76.2%, NS). In patients from group I an upward trend was noted, whereas in patients from group II a downward trend was associated with the duration of ischemic chest pain. In group I the correlation between the IMA concentration and the NT-proBNP concentration was positive (R = 0.2957; p < 0.0316). The parameters differentiating patients from group I and group II were: left ventricular ejection fraction, leukocytosis, serum glucose concentration and creatinine clearance. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The IMA concentration does not differentiate ACS patients without ST segment elevation myocardial infarction from patients with unstable angina. 2. The upward trend of IMA concentration was associated with the duration of chest pain in patients with ACS, whereas the opposite trend was found in patients with unstable angina pectoris.

Retrospective analysis of HEART Score results in cost saving.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Chest pain (CP) is one of the most frequent chief complaints of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). Diagnoses range from life-threatening acute coronary syndrome (ACS) to less concerning musculoskeletal injury. Patients are frequently admitted for comprehensive cardiac evaluation. However, it is estimated that <10% are diagnosed with ACS. Identifying low-risk patients who can be safely discharged from the ED results in lower cost burden and less patient days. The HEART Score is a recently validated tool for undifferentiated CP in the ED used to identify low-risk patients. The purpose of this project was to ascertain if the HEART Score could be utilized in the Veteran population for the evaluation of undifferentiated chest pain. LOCAL PROBLEM: There is no standard assessment tool used in the ED at the Veterans Administration Pittsburgh Healthcare System (VAPHS) to evaluate CP in low-risk patents. METHODS: As part of a quality improvement initiative, a retrospective analysis was performed on patients presenting to the ED with CP over a 6-month period. A total of 197 VAPHS patients were identified through the computerized medical record system. HEART Scores were calculated for each patient. Patients scored as low risk (score of 0-3) were further evaluated for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and cost saving. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 28% (56) of the patients presenting to the ED with CP were at low risk based on the HEART Score. There were no MACE. There were cost savings compared with usual care ($1,145 vs. $4,700). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The HEART Score can be safely used to identify low-risk patients and result in cost savings for Veteran population.

The importance of characteristics of angina symptoms for the prediction of coronary artery disease in a cohort of stable patients in the modern era.

OBJECTIVE: Angina is an important clinical symptom indicating underlying coronary artery disease (CAD). Its characteristics are important for the diagnosis and risk stratification of patients with CAD. Currently, we aimed to investigate the association of chest pain characteristics with the presence of obstructive CAD in a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing coronary angiography for suspected stable CAD. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing coronary angiography for suspected stable CAD (n = 686) in a single university hospital cardiology department were enrolled. Chest pain was classified as typical angina, atypical angina, nonangina chest pain, and lack of symptoms. The presence of significant angiographic CAD was diagnosed by standard coronary angiography. RESULTS: Typical angina symptoms were associated with a higher prevalence of CAD (odds ratio [OR], 3.47, p < 0.001), whereas atypical angina symptoms were associated with a lower prevalence of CAD (OR, 0.49, p = 0.003) than the nonangina symptoms/or asymptomatic status. In multivariate analysis, typical angina symptoms remained an independent predictor of CAD (OR, 2.54, p < 0.001), with a greater predictive accuracy than other clinical risk factors (area under the curve [AUC], 0.715, p < 0.001) and similar to the accuracy of the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (AUC, 0.712, p < 0.001). In a multivariate model, the combination of all studied factors further improved the predictive accuracy (AUC, 0.81, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In a contemporary cohort of patients referred for coronary angiography for stable CAD, the presence of typical angina symptoms was the most important independent predictor of obstructive CAD. The association of atypical angina symptoms with low CAD prevalence compared to nonangina chest pain or absence of significant symptoms probably reflects different management and referral strategies in these groups of patients.

The Medical Priority Dispatch System's ability to predict cardiac arrest outcomes and high acuity pre-hospital alerts in chest pain patients presenting to 9-9-9.

OBJECTIVE: To establish emergency medical dispatcher (EMD) predictability of cardiac arrest (CA) and high acuity (blue in - BI) outcomes in chest pain patients by using the Medical Priority Dispatch System's (MPDS) priority levels, and its more specific clinical determinant codes. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive study was done on a one year's worth of aggregate 999 call data comprising number of patients, calls, incidences, and outcomes (as determined by paramedics) obtained from the London Ambulance Service (LAS). We used Fisher's exact test to establish and quantify associations (through odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values) between MPDS priority levels and patient outcomes, stratifying by various pairing of MPDS priority level determinant codes. RESULTS: 11.4% of the total calls were classified under the chest pain protocol (MPDS protocol 10). Of all the CA cases (n=3377), 3.1% (n=106) were classified under the chest pain protocol. MPDS priority levels were significantly associated with CA patient outcome (p=0.030) and BI patient outcome (p<0.001). Only the advanced life support response-levels CHARLIE/DELTA pairing was significantly associated with CA outcome (p=0.010) with CA outcome nearly twice more likely in the combined DELTA-priority level codes. ALPHA/CHARLIE and ALPHA/DELTA-level pairings were significantly associated with BI outcome (p<0.001 each), with increased odds of BI outcome in the CHARLIE and DELTA-priority levels. Clinically, the DELTA-level 4 code demonstrated reduced odds of CA and BI outcome when paired with CHARLIE-level patients, than the other DELTA-level patients. CONCLUSIONS: Significant associations existed between patient outcomes, as measured in this study, and the MPDS (UKE version) Protocol 10 (Chest Pain) priority levels and specific determinant codes. The (UKE version) DELTA-level 4 determinant code does not belong in the DELTA-priority level, and should be moved to the CHARLE-level, or eliminated altogether--to bring this protocol version in line with other international versions of the MPDS.

A study to derive a clinical decision rule for triage of emergency department patients with chest pain: design and methodology.

BACKGROUND: Chest pain is the second most common chief complaint in North American emergency departments. Data from the U.S. suggest that 2.1% of patients with acute myocardial infarction and 2.3% of patients with unstable angina are misdiagnosed, with slightly higher rates reported in a recent Canadian study (4.6% and 6.4%, respectively). Information obtained from the history, 12-lead ECG, and a single set of cardiac enzymes is unable to identify patients who are safe for early discharge with sufficient sensitivity. The 2007 ACC/AHA guidelines for UA/NSTEMI do not identify patients at low risk for adverse cardiac events who can be safely discharged without provocative testing. As a result large numbers of low risk patients are triaged to chest pain observation units and undergo provocative testing, at significant cost to the healthcare system. Clinical decision rules use clinical findings (history, physical exam, test results) to suggest a diagnostic or therapeutic course of action. Currently no methodologically robust clinical decision rule identifies patients safe for early discharge. METHODS/DESIGN: The goal of this study is to derive a clinical decision rule which will allow emergency physicians to accurately identify patients with chest pain who are safe for early discharge. The study will utilize a prospective cohort design. Standardized clinical variables will be collected on all patients at least 25 years of age complaining of chest pain prior to provocative testing. Variables strongly associated with the composite outcome acute myocardial infarction, revascularization, or death will be further analyzed with multivariable analysis to derive the clinical rule. Specific aims are to: i) apply standardized clinical assessments to patients with chest pain, incorporating results of early cardiac testing; ii) determine the inter-observer reliability of the clinical information; iii) determine the statistical association between the clinical findings and the composite outcome; and iv) use multivariable analysis to derive a highly sensitive clinical decision rule to guide triage decisions. DISCUSSION: The study will derive a highly sensitive clinical decision rule to identify low risk patients safe for early discharge. This will improve patient care, lower healthcare costs, and enhance flow in our busy and overcrowded emergency departments.

Reliability of the CARE rule and the HEART score to rule out an acute coronary syndrome in non-traumatic chest pain patients.

In patients consulting in the Emergency Department for chest pain, a HEART score ≤ 3 has been shown to rule out an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with a low risk of major adverse cardiac event (MACE) occurrence. A negative CARE rule (≤ 1) that stands for the first four elements of the HEART score may have similar rule-out reliability without troponin assay requirement. We aim to prospectively assess the performance of the CARE rule and of the HEART score to predict MACE in a chest pain population. Prospective two-center non-interventional study. Patients admitted to the ED for non-traumatic chest pain were included, and followed-up at 6 weeks. The main study endpoint was the 6-week rate of MACE (myocardial infarction, coronary angioplasty, coronary bypass, and sudden unexplained death). 641 patients were included, of whom 9.5% presented a MACE at 6 weeks. The CARE rule was negative for 31.2% of patients, and none presented a MACE during follow-up [0, 95% confidence interval: (0.0-1.9)]. The HEART score was ≤ 3 for 63.0% of patients, and none presented a MACE during follow-up [0% (0.0-0.9)]. With an incidence below 2% in the negative group, the CARE rule seemed able to safely rule out a MACE without any biological test for one-third of patients with chest pain and the HEART score for another third with a single troponin assay.

An external validation of the HEART pathway among Emergency Department patients with chest pain.

The impact of an outpatient disposition strategy for patients with HEART score 0-3 (HEART pathway) on HEART score prognostic accuracy is unclear. Our objective is to perform an external validation the HEART score in the setting of recent implementation of the HEART pathway. We conducted an external validation study of the HEART pathway among patients presenting to our ED with chest pain 6 weeks after institutional implementation of a HEART pathway outpatient disposition pathway. We reviewed the charts of 625 consecutive patients with chest pain. Data abstracted included all elements of the HEART score to include history, electrocardiogram (ECG) read, patient age, patient risk factors, and troponin levels. We also reviewed each patient's record for evidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) to include mortality, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization over 6 weeks following their initial ED visit. We double-abstracted 10% of the charts for quality assurance purposes. Of 625 charts, 449 patients met all criteria for study inclusion. Of these, 25 subjects (5.56%) experience 6-week MACE. No subject with a score of 3 or less has a MACE at 6 weeks (100% sensitivity, 38.7% specificity). The area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) is 0.898 (95% confidence interval 0.847-0.950). Kappa coefficients for inter-rater reliability range from 0.62 for the history component of the HEART score to 1.0 for troponin. A low HEART score (0-3) maintains excellent sensitivity for predicting 6-week MACE in the setting of an outpatient disposition pathway for these patients.

Could BNP screening of acute chest pain cases lead to safe earlier discharge of patients with non-cardiac causes? A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of chest pain relies on clinical assessment and markers of cell necrosis such as Troponin T (TnT). B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) is also raised in myocardial ischaemia and therefore may be useful in deciding if acute chest pain is of cardiac origin or not. AIM: To investigate the role of BNP in the assessment of unselected patients presenting with acute chest pain. METHODS: A prospective observational study of 100 patients presenting with chest pain to the Acute Medical Admissions Unit was carried out. All patients had BNP and TnT levels measured. The primary outcome was categorization of chest pain as cardiac or non-cardiac. This was determined by the discharge diagnosis. BNP cutoffs were derived from a receiver operated characteristic (ROC) curve. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive accuracy (PPA) and negative predictive accuracy (NPA) were all calculated for BNP, TnT and for the composite of BNP and TnT. RESULTS: Mean BNP in patients with cardiac chest pain was significantly greater than mean BNP for patients with non-cardiac chest pain (P

The impact of B-type natriuretic peptide in addition to troponin I, creatine kinase-MB, and myoglobin on the risk stratification of emergency department chest pain patients with potential acute coronary syndrome.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The emergency department (ED) evaluation of chest pain patients with potential acute coronary syndrome is limited by the initial sensitivity of cell injury markers. BNP is increased during myocardial ischemia and is associated with adverse outcomes. We determine whether the addition of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) to troponin I, creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB), and myoglobin increases the sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) for acute myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, and 30-day adverse events among chest pain patients with potential acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: A convenience sample of patients aged 30 years or older and presenting to an urban academic ED with nontraumatic chest pain, thus prompting an ECG, was enrolled, and consent was obtained. Blood samples were drawn at 0 and 90 minutes. Thirty-day follow-up was performed for all enrolled patients. Main outcomes were acute myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, and 30-day events (death, acute myocardial infarction, or revascularization). BNP cutoffs were derived from receiver operator characteristics curves. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and NPV with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with and without BNP. Differences in sensitivity and specificity with the addition of BNP were calculated with 95% CIs, and McNemar's test was performed to compare sensitivities and specificities. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-six patients were enrolled and analyzed. The cohort was 54.7+/-13.9 years old, 47.7% men, and 63.5% black. The outcomes were acute myocardial infarction, 39 (9.2%), acute coronary syndrome, 101 (23.7%), and 30-day adverse cardiovascular events 52 (12.2%). BNP cutoffs derived were 51, 31, and 31 pg/mL for acute myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, and 30-day events, respectively. The addition of BNP showed increased sensitivity at the cost of decreased specificity for all 3 outcomes, as follows: (1) acute myocardial infarction: sensitivity: 87.2% (95% CI 72.6% to 95.7%) to 97.4% (95% CI 86.5% to 100%), difference 10.3% (95% CI-0.2% to 24.6%), P=.125; specificity: 62.3% (95% CI 57.2% to 67.1%) to 47.8% (95% CI 42.7% to 52.9%), difference 14.5% (95% CI 11.1% to %18.4), P<.0001; (2) acute coronary syndrome: sensitivity: 75.2% (95% CI 65.7% to 83.3%) to 88.1% (95% CI 80.2% to 93.7%), difference 12.9% (95% CI 7.0% to 21.0%), P=.0002; specificity: 68.0% (95% CI 62.6% to 73.0%) to 48.6% (95% CI 43.1% to 54.2%), difference 19.4% (95% CI 15.2% to 24.1%), P<.0001; (3) 30-day events: sensitivity: 71.2% (95% CI 56.9% to 82.9%) to 88.5% (95% CI 76.6% to 95.7%), difference 17.3% (95% CI 7.7% to 30.3%), P=.004; specificity: 61.8% (95% CI 56.6% to 66.7%) to 43.9% (95% CI 38.8% to 49.0%), difference 17.9% (95% CI 14.2% to 22.2%), P<.0001. There were trends toward increased NPV and decreased PPV for all outcomes, and the addition of BNP achieved a NPV of 99.5% (95% CI 97.0% to 100%) compared with 98.0% (95% CI 95.3% to 99.3%) for acute myocardial infarction. CONCLUSION: The addition of BNP as a dichotomous test to troponin I, CK-MB, and myoglobin produces increased sensitivity at a cost of decreased specificity for acute myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, and 30-day adverse events. Because of this tradeoff, BNP cannot be recommended for use among all ED chest pain patients. However, the improved sensitivity may make this test useful in selected cohorts when the decreased specificity is less important.

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, Fisher's 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 microM) 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.