The challenge of adequately reporting preeclampsia for epidemiological surveillance: An example from a referral center in a middle-income country.

Adequately reporting of preeclampsia is a challenge. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnosis of preeclampsia based on clinical and laboratory findings and ICD-10 codes (International Classification of Diseases) at admission and discharge in a referral center, over a one-year period. Among 2,839 women admitted for childbirth, 208 presented confirmed preeclampsia, based on chart audits. Among these, 77.4% at admission presented ICD-10 codes assigned as hypertension, and 47.1% at discharge. In 14.4% of confirmed preeclampsia, ICD-10 codes for hypertension were not used. Adequate reporting of preeclampsia is key for clinical surveillance, counselling and guiding public health interventions.

Validation of the fullPIERS model for prediction of adverse outcomes in preeclampsia at a referral center.

OBJECTIVES: To validate the use of fullPIERS to predict maternal and perinatal adverse outcomes in a referral center. METHODS: Cross-sectional study including all pregnant women with preeclampsia (PE) at a referral center in southeast Brazil. The prevalence of PE and adverse outcomes were assessed. The fullPIERS score was tested on three composites of adverse outcomes: maternal adverse outcome; fetal adverse outcomes; and the combination of these two. Furthermore, the fullPIERS risk calculator, was considered to define the cutoff that better estimates adverse outcomes. RESULTS: 2839 women were screened in a one year period, with 208 (7.3%) cases of PE; most were preterm (56.7%); with severe features (74.5%). HELLP syndrome (6.7%), eclampsia (3.8%) and placental abruption (2.4%) were the most frequent complications. FullPIERS assessement had a median of 1.2% (0.45 - 2.3%) and the score had an excelent performance to predict adverse maternal outcome (AUC = 0.845, confidence interval 0.776 - 0.914, p-value < 0.01). For perinatal adverse outcomes (AUC = 0.699, confidence interval 0.581 - 0.816, p-value < 0.01) and the composite of maternal and perinatal adverse outcome (AUC = 0.804, confidence interval 0.736 - 0.872, p-vale < 0.01), fullPIERS score had a suboptimal performance. The cutoff value that best performed for the assessment of maternal adverse outcome was 2.15% (sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 83%). CONCLUSION: Preeclampsia was a significant complication during pregnancy. The fullPIERS model was an excellent tool to predict maternal adverse outcomes; with a cutoff value of 2.15% in the tested population.