4.6 Review

The evolution of the diagnostic criteria of preeclampsia-eclampsia

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
Volume 226, Issue 2, Pages S835-S843

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.11.1371

Keywords

criteria; diagnosis; history; hypertensive disorders; management; preeclampsia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

With the improved understanding of preeclampsia's pathophysiology, its diagnostic criteria have evolved. This review critically evaluates the evidence that has influenced the development of the criteria, focusing on how they have changed over time and discussing key debates and potential future directions. The importance of considering factors such as age and weight in blood pressure thresholds, the effectiveness of existing blood pressure and proteinuria thresholds, and the potential benefits of using flow-charts and decision trees are among the topics examined.
As the understanding of the pathophysiology of preeclampsia has improved, its diagnostic criteria have evolved. The classical triad of hypertension, edema, and proteinuria has become hypertension and organ dysfunction-renal, hepatic, neurologic, hematological, or uteroplacental. However, the most recent definitions have largely been based off consensus and expert opinion, not primary research. In this review, we explore how the criteria have evolved, particularly through the second half of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century and offer a critical appraisal of the evidence that has led the criteria to where they stand today. Some key themes are the following: the debate between having a simple and convenient blood pressure cutoff vs a blood pressure cutoff that accounts for influencing factors such as age and weight; whether a uniform blood pressure threshold, a rise in blood pressure, or a combination is most discriminatory; whether existing evidence supports blood pressure and proteinuria thresholds in diagnosing preeclampsia; and whether using flow-charts and decision trees might be more appropriate than a single set of criteria. We also discuss the future of a preeclampsia diagnosis. We challenge the move toward a broad (vs restrictive) diagnosis, arguing instead for criteria that directly relate to the prognosis of preeclampsia and the response to treatments.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available