Cazarez-Ávalos IA, García-Benavente D, Toledo-Lorenzo JG, Valle-Leal CN, López-Valenzuela DM

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 1-7
PDF size: 209.69 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine the diagnostic performance of the FullPIERS model as a predictor of perinatal complications in patients with preeclampsia from a public hospital in Northwest Mexico.
Materials and Methods: Retrospective study, for the evaluation of a proper diagnosis, performed in patients with diagnosis of preeclampsia attended at a secondlevel public hospital between October 2018 and February 2019. Inclusion criteria: sufficient data to introduce them into the FullPIERS calculator (saturation of oxygen, platelet retreat, creatinine, aspartate, transaminases and the existence of dysnea). Exclusion criteria: patients with previous diagnosis of acute, pulmonary or renal liver diseases. It is compared to the percentage of the ingrowth risk of each patient versus the number of patients with complications. Calculated: sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the model.
Results: If 100 patients were studied with preeclampsia: 11 with positive results according to the Full PIERS calculator (over 5% risk), and 7 out of 11 were true. For the Full PIERS model, it was obtained: 58.3% sensitivity and 95.5% specificity, 59% positive predictive value, and 95% negative predictive value for the prediction of complications of preeclampsia, with a curve area of 0.799.
Conclusion: The FullPIERS calculator is a useful tool for predicting complications to cut and can indicate the appropriate treatment for each patient.

REFERENCES

1. Khan KS, et al. WHO analysis of causes of maternal death: a systemic review. Lancet 2006; 367:1066-74. http:// www.africanwomenshealthfoundation.com/attachments/ WHO%20KSK%20maternal%20mortality.pdf

2. Say L, et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systemic analysis. Lancet 2014; 2: 323-33. https://doi. org/10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70227-X

3. Prevención, diagnóstico y tratamiento de la preeclampsia en segundo y tercer nivel de atención. Evidencias y Recomendaciones. Guía de Práctica Clínica. México. IMSS; 2017. http://www.imss.gob.mx/sites/all/statics/ guiasclinicas/020GER.pdf

4. Akkermans J, et al. Predicting complications in preeclampsia: external validation of the fullPIERS model using the PETRA trial dataset. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014; 179: 58-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ejogrb.2014.05.021

5. Von Dadelszen P, et al. Prediction of adverse maternal outcomes in pre-eclampsia: development and validation of the fullPIERS model. Lancet 2011; 377 (9761): 219-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61351-7

6. Payne B, 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):113-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471- 0528.2012.03496.x

7. Srivastava S, et al. PIERS calculator- predicting adverse maternal outcome in preeclampsia. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2017; 6 (4):1200-205. http://dx.doi. org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20170889

8. Kuklina EV, et al. Hypertensive disorders and severe obstetric morbidity in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113 (6): 1299-306. https://doi.org/10.1097/ AOG.0b013e3181a45b25

9. Muñoz E, et al. Aplicación de la escala de factores de riesgo para complicaciones de preeclampsia. Rev Chil Obstet Ginecol 2017; 82(4):438-446. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/ s0717-75262017000400438

10. Ukah UV, et al. External validation of the fullPIERS model for predicting adverse maternal outcomes in pregnancy hypertension in low- and middle-income countries. Hypertension 2017; 69(4):705-11. https://doi.org/10.1161/ HYPERTENSIONAHA.116.08706

11. Almeida ST, et al. Validation of fullPIERS model for prediction of adverse outcomes among women with severe pre-eclampsia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2017; 138 (2):142-47. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12197