Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 299, Issue 6, pp 1587–1596 | Cite as

Comparison of two “a priori” risk assessment algorithms for preeclampsia in Italy: a prospective multicenter study

  • Daniela Di Martino
  • Bianca Masturzo
  • Sara Paracchini
  • Benedetta Bracco
  • Paolo Cavoretto
  • Federico Prefumo
  • Chiara Germano
  • Danila Morano
  • Flavia Girlando
  • Veronica Giorgione
  • Giulia Parpinel
  • Luisa Cariello
  • Federica Fusè
  • Massimo Candiani
  • Tullia Todros
  • Nicola Rizzo
  • Antonio FarinaEmail author
Maternal-Fetal Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the performance of the algorithms proposed by the Fetal Medicine Foundation in 2012 and BCNatal in 2013 in an Italian population.

Methods

A multicentric prospective study was carried out which included pregnancies at 11–13 weeks’ gestation from Jan 2014 through May 2017. Two previously published algorithms were used for the calculation of the “a priori” risk of preeclampsia (based on risk factors from medical history) in each individual.

Results

In a study population of 11,632 cases, 67 (0.6%) developed early preeclampsia and 211 (1.8%) developed late preeclampsia. The detection rates (95% CI) for early and late preeclampsia were 58.2% (45.5–70.2) vs. 41.8% (29.6–54.5) (p value < 0.05) and 44.1% (37.3–51.1) vs. 38% (31.3–44.8) (p value < 0.05) for the Fetal Medicine Foundation and BCNatal, respectively (at a 10% false positive rate). The associated risk was 1:226 and 1:198 (p value ns) for early PE, and 1:17 and 1:24 (p value ns) for late PE for the Fetal Medicine Foundation and BCNatal, respectively.

Conclusions

The Fetal Medicine Foundation screening for preeclampsia at 11–13 weeks’ gestation scored the highest detection rate for both early and late PE. At a fixed 10% false positive rate, the estimated “a priori” risks of both the Fetal Medicine Foundation and the BCNatal algorithms in an Italian population were quite similar, and both were reliable and consistent.

Keywords

Screening for preeclampsia A priori risk ROC curves Detection rate 

Notes

Author contributions

DDM protocol/project development, data collection, manuscript writing. BM protocol/project development, data collection. SP, BB, FG, VG, GP and LC data collection. PC protocol/project development, data collection, Manuscript writing. FP protocol/project development, data collection, manuscript writing, data analysis. CG data collection, manuscript writing. DM protocol/project development, manuscript writing. FF data collection, manuscript writing. MC, TT and NR manuscript writing. AF protocol/project development, data collection, manuscript writing, data analysis.

Funding

The authors received no specific funding for this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Duley L (2009) The global impact of preeclampsia and eclampsia. Semin Perinatol 33:130–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Iams JD, Goldenberg RL, Mercer BM, Moawad A, Thom E, Meis PJ, McNellis D, Caritis SN, Miodovnik M, Menard MK, Thurnau GR, Bottoms SE, Roberts JM (1998) The preterm prediction study: recurrence risk of spontaneous preterm birth; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development maternal-fetal medicine units network. Am J Obstet Gynecol 178:1035–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ghulmiyyah L, Sibai B (2012) Maternal mortality from preeclampsia/eclampsia. Semin Perinatol 36:56–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Knight M, Tuffnell D, Kenyon S, Shakespeare J, Gray R, Kurinczuk JJ (eds); on behalf of MBRRACE-UK (2015). Saving Lives, Improving Mothers’ Care—Surveillance of maternal deaths in the UK 2011–13 and lessons learned to inform maternity care from the UK and Ireland Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths and Morbidity 2009–13. National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit: University of Oxford, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lewis G (eds) (2007) The Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH). Saving mothers’ lives: reviewing maternal deaths to make motherhood safer-2003–2005. In: The seventh report on confidential enquiries into maternal deaths in the UK. London: CEMACHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bokslag A, Teunissen PW, Franssen C, van Kesteren F, Kamp O, Ganzevoort W, Paulus WJ, de Groot CJM (2017) Effect of early-onset preeclampsia on cardiovascular risk in the fifth decade of life. Am J Obstet Gynecol 216:523.e1–523.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    White WM, Mielke MM, Araoz PA, Lahr BD, Bailey KR, Jayachandran M, Miller VM, Garovic VD (2016) A history of preeclampsia is associated with a risk for coronary artery calcification 3 decades later. Am J Obstet Gynecol 214:519.e1–519.e8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kajantie E, Osmond C, Eriksson JG (2017) Gestational hypertension is associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes in adult offspring: the Helsinki birth cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 216:281.e1–281.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fields JA, Garovic VD, Mielke MM, Kantarci K, Jayachandran M, White WM, Butts AM, Graff-Radford J, Lahr BD, Bailey KR, Miller VM (2017) Preeclampsia and cognitive impairment later in life. Am J Obstet Gynecol 217:74.e1–74.e11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Al-Rubaie Z, Askie LM, Ray JG, Hudson HM, Lord SJ (2016) The performance of risk prediction models for preeclampsia using routinely collected maternal characteristics and comparison with models that include specialized tests and with clinical guideline decision rules: a systematic review. BJOG 123:1441–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wright D, Syngelaki A, Akolekar R, Poon LC, Nicolaides KH (2015) Competing risks model in screening for preeclampsia by maternal characteristics and medical history. Am J Obstet Gynecol 213:62.e1–62.e10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    O’Gorman N, Wright D, Poon LC, Rolnik DL, Syngelaki A, de Alvarado M, Carbone IF, Dutemeyer V, Fiolna M, Frick A, Karagiotis N, Mastrodima S, de Paco Matallana C, Papaioannou G, Pazos A, Plasencia W, Nicolaides KH (2017) Multicenter screening for preeclampsia by maternal factors and biomarkers at 11–13 weeks’ gestation: comparison with NICE guidelines and ACOG recommendations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 49:756–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rolnik DL, Wright D, Poon LC, O’Gorman N, Syngelaki A, de Paco Matallana C, Akolekar R, Cicero S, Janga D, Singh M, Molina FS, Persico N, Jani JC, Plasencia W, Papaioannou G, Tenenbaum-Gavish K, Meiri H, Gizurarson S, Maclagan K, Nicolaides KH (2017) Aspirin versus placebo in pregnancies at high risk for preterm preeclampsia. N Engl J Med 377:613–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Poon LC, Zymeri NA, Zamprakou A, Syngelaki A, Nicolaides KH (2012) Protocol for measurement of mean arterial pressure at 11–13 weeks’ gestation. Fetal Diagn Ther 31:42–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khalil A, Nicolaides KH (2013) How to record uterine artery Doppler in the first trimester. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 42:478–479Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oliveira N, Magder LS, Blitzer MG, Baschat AA (2014) First-trimester prediction of pre-eclampsia: external validity of algorithms in a prospectively enrolled cohort. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 4:279–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Farina A, Rapacchia G, Freni Sterrantino A, Pula G, Morano D, Rizzo N (2011) Prospective evaluation of ultrasound and biochemical-based multivariable models for the prediction of late pre-eclampsia. Prenat Diagn 31:1147–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISTAT: Il diabete in Italia. https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/202600Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tunstall-Pedoe H, Kuulasmaa K, Mähönen M, Tolonen H, Ruokokoski E, Amouyel P (1999) Contribution of trends in survival and coronary-event rates to changes in coronary heart disease mortality: 10-year results from 37 WHO MONICA project populations. Monitoring trends and determinants in cardiovascular disease. Lancet 353:1547–1557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wright D, Akolekar R, Syngelaki A, Poon LC, Nicolaides KH (2012) A competing risks model in early screening for preeclampsia. Fetal Diagn Ther 32:171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scazzocchio E, Figueras F, Crispi F, Meler E, Masoller N, Mula R, Gratacos E (2013) Performance of a first-trimester screening of preeclampsia in a routine care low-risk setting. Am J Obstet Gynecol 208:203.e1–203.e10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brown MA, Lindheimer MD, de Swiet M, Van Assche A, Moutquin JM (2001) The classification and diagnosis of the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: statement from the International Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy (ISSHP). Hypertens Pregnancy 20:IX–XIVCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wald NJ, Hackshaw AK, Huttly W, Kennard A (1996) Empirical validation of risk screening for Down’s syndrome. J Med Screen 3:185–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Francisco C, Wright D, Benkő Z, Syngelaki A, Nicolaides KH (2017) Competing-risks model in screening for preeclampsia in twin pregnancy according to maternal factors and biomarkers at 11–13 weeks’ gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 50:589–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    O’Gorman N, Wright D, Poon LC, Rolnik DL, Syngelaki A, Wright A, Akolekar R, Cicero S, Janga D, Jani J, Molina FS, de Paco Matallana C, Papantoniou N, Persico N, Plasencia W, Singh M, Nicolaides KH (2017) Accuracy of competing-risks model in screening for preeclampsia by maternal factors and biomarkers at 11–13 weeks’ gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 49:751–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniela Di Martino
    • 1
  • Bianca Masturzo
    • 2
  • Sara Paracchini
    • 2
  • Benedetta Bracco
    • 1
  • Paolo Cavoretto
    • 3
  • Federico Prefumo
    • 4
  • Chiara Germano
    • 2
  • Danila Morano
    • 5
  • Flavia Girlando
    • 2
  • Veronica Giorgione
    • 3
  • Giulia Parpinel
    • 2
  • Luisa Cariello
    • 6
  • Federica Fusè
    • 1
  • Massimo Candiani
    • 3
  • Tullia Todros
    • 2
  • Nicola Rizzo
    • 6
  • Antonio Farina
    • 6
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Woman, Mother and NeonateBuzzi Children’s Hospital, University of MilanMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of Surgical SciencesOIRM S. Anna Hospital University of TurinTurinItaly
  3. 3.Gynecology and Obstetrics DepartmentIRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Vita-Salute UniversityMilanItaly
  4. 4.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of BresciaBresciaItaly
  5. 5.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology S. Anna University HospitalConaItaly
  6. 6.Division of Obstetrics and Prenatal Medicine, Department of Medicine and Surgery (DIMEC) Sant’Orsola-Malpighi HospitalUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations