4.5 Article

Implementation of routine first-trimester combined screening for preeclampsia based on the Gaussian algorithm: A clinical effectiveness study

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS
Volume 159, Issue 3, Pages 803-809

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.14192

Keywords

early-onset; first trimester; preeclampsia; preeclampsia; screening; uterine artery Doppler

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Implementing routine first-trimester screening for preeclampsia in six Catalan maternities significantly reduces the incidence of preterm preeclampsia and maternal ICU admission.
Objective To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of the routine first-trimester screening for preeclampsia (PE) after being implemented in six Catalan maternities. Methods Participants in the reference group were recruited prospectively between October 2015 and September 2017. Participants in the study group were recruited retrospectively between November 2018 and May 2019, after implementing the screening program. PE risk was assessed between 11 + 0 and 13 + 6 weeks of gestation using the Gaussian algorithm combining maternal characteristics, mean arterial blood pressure, uterine artery pulsatility index, and maternal serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A. Women with a risk >= 1/137 were prescribed daily salicylic acid (150 mg) until 36 weeks of gestation. Results Preterm PE occurred in 30 of 2641 participants (1.14%) in the reference group, as compared with 18 of 2848 participants (0.63%) in the study group (OR: 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.99; P = 0.045). In the reference group, 37 participants (1.40%) were admitted to ICU, as compared with 23 participants (0.81%) in the study group (OR: 0.57; 95% CI, 0.34-0.96; P = 0.035). Conclusion The routine first-trimester PE screening can be implemented in a public healthcare setting, leading to a significant reduction in the incidence of preterm PE and of maternal ICU admission.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available