Objective. To investigate association between maternofoetal complications and the amount of proteinuria measured by spot urine protein creatinine ratio in patients with preeclampsia. Methods. 200 consecutive patients with preeclampsia were recruited in the study. The complications like first episode of severe hypertension, renal insufficiency, raised level of aspartate transaminase, signs of neurological involvement, thrombocytopenia, eclampsia, and need to shift in intensive care units were studied. The maternal outcome was studied in terms of type of labour, outcome of pregnancy, mode of delivery, indication of cesarean section, and maternal mortality. The foetal complications and outcome parameters were birth weight, Apgar score at the time of birth and at five minutes, need of high dependency unit care, and perinatal mortality. Result. The frequency of various maternal and foetal complications was between 14–53% and 22–92%, respectively. Maternal mortality was 3%, whereas perinatal mortality was 23%. Statistically significant association was found between the frequencies of various complications in mother and newborn and spot UPCR. Conclusion. The rate of various maternofoetal complications in preeclampsia is higher in developing countries than in developed world. Maternofoetal complications and outcome correlate with maternal spot UPCR. 1. Introduction Preeclampsia is a major health problem in maternal health with the prevalence ranging from 1.8% to 16.7% in developing countries [1]. This multisystem disorder affects millions of women worldwide and is recognized as an important direct cause of maternal and foetal morbidity and mortality [2]. The course, prognosis, and outcome of this disease are quite heterogeneous and there exists great difference in the morbidity and outcome in the patients of developing and developed world. While there is lack of data from developing countries, studies from the developed world have reported complications in less than 10% [3–5]. Recently, great interest has been shown by investigators all around the world to find out predictors/markers that can predict the maternofoetal outcome in patients with preeclampsia [6–8]. A couple of studies have also been done to find out association between the amount of proteinuria and maternofoetal outcome in patients with preeclampsia but the results have been variable [9–11]. At our centre, we have found relatively high prevalence of maternofoetal complications in patients with preeclampsia. This study was carried out in patients with preeclampsia to estimate the prevalence of
References
[1]
O. K. Osungbade and O. K. Ige, “Public heath perspectives of preeclampsia in developing countries: implication for health system strenghtening,” Journal of Pregnancy, vol. 2011, Article ID 481095, 6 pages, 2011.
[2]
R. A. Odegard, L. J. Vatten, S. T. Nilsen, K. A. Salvesen, and R. Austgulen, “Risk factors and clinical manifestations of pre-eclampsia,” British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 107, no. 11, pp. 1410–1416, 2000.
[3]
S. Bhattacharya and D. M. Campbell, “The incidence of severe complications of preeclampsia,” Hypertension in Pregnancy, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 181–190, 2005.
[4]
P. von Dadelszen, B. Payne, J. Li et al., “Prediction of adverse maternal outcomes in pre-eclampsia: development and validation of the fullPIERS model,” The Lancet, vol. 377, no. 9761, pp. 219–227, 2011.
[5]
G. Yücesoy, S. Ozkan, H. Bodur et al., “Maternal and perinatal outcome in pregnancies complicated with hypertensive disorder of pregnancy: a seven year experience of a tertiary care center,” Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, vol. 273, no. 1, pp. 43–49, 2005.
[6]
S. Caritis, B. Sibai, J. Hauth et al., “Predictors of pre-eclampsia in women at high risk. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Network of Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units,” The American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol. 179, no. 4, pp. 946–951, 1998.
[7]
S. Thangaratinam, K. M. K. Ismail, S. Sharp, A. Coomarasamy, and K. S. Khan, “Accuracy of serum uric acid in predicting complications of pre-eclampsia: a systematic review,” An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 113, no. 4, pp. 369–378, 2006.
[8]
J. Sibiude, J. Guibourdenche, M. D. Dionne et al., “Placental growth factor for the prediction of adverse outcomes in patients with suspected preeclampsia or intrauterine growth restriction,” PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 11, Article ID e50208, 2012.
[9]
P. Chan, M. Brown, J. M. Simpson, and G. Davis, “Proteinuria in pre-eclampsia: how much matters?” An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 112, no. 3, pp. 280–285, 2005.
[10]
M. A. Brown and M. L. Buddle, “The importance of nonproteinuric hypertension in pregnancy,” Hypertension in Pregnancy, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 57–65, 1995.
[11]
R. K. Morris, R. D. Riley, M. Doug, J. J. Deeks, and M. D. Kilby, “Diagnostic accuracy of spot urinary protein and albumin to creatinine ratios for detection of significant proteinuria or adverse pregnancy outcome in patients with suspected pre-eclampsia: systematic review and meta-analysis,” The British Medical Journal, vol. 345, Article ID e4342, 2012.
[12]
T. Tzur and E. Sheiner, “Is there an association between platelet count during the first trimester and preeclampsia or other obstetric complications later in pregnancy?” Hypertens Pregnancy, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 74–82, 2013.
[13]
M. A. Brown and M. L. Buddle, “Hypertension in pregnancy: maternal and fetal outcomes according to laboratory and clinical features,” Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 165, no. 7, pp. 360–365, 1996.
[14]
K. Bramham, C. E. Poli-de-Figueiredo, P. T. Seed et al., “Association of proteinuria threshold in pre-eclampsia with maternal and perinatal outcomes: a nested case control cohort of high risk women,” PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 10, Article ID e76083.
[15]
C. E. Thornton, A. Makris, R. F. Ogle, J. M. Tooher, and A. Hennessy, “Role of proteinuria in defining pre-eclampsia: clinical outcomes for women and babies,” Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 466–470, 2010.
[16]
S. Thangaratinam, A. Coomarasamy, F. O'Mahony et al., “Estimation of proteinuria as a predictor of complications of pre-eclampsia: a systematic review,” BMC Medicine, vol. 7, article 10, 2009.
[17]
D. M. Carty, J. Siwy, J. E. Brennand et al., “Urinary proteomics for prediction of preeclampsia,” Hypertension, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 561–569, 2011.
[18]
I. A. Buhimschi, G. Zhao, E. F. Funai et al., “Proteomic profiling of urine identifies specific fragments of SERPINA1 and albumin as biomarkers of preeclampsia,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 199, no. 5, pp. 551.e1–551.e16, 2008.
[19]
R. Gangaram, M. Naicker, and J. Moodley, “Accuracy of the spot urinary microalbumin:creatinine ratio and visual dipsticks in hypertensive pregnant women,” European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, vol. 144, no. 2, pp. 146–148, 2009.
[20]
C. M. Liu, P. J. Cheng, and S. D. Chang, “Maternal complications and perinatal outcomes associated with gestational hypertension and severe preeclampsia in Taiwanese women,” Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, vol. 107, no. 2, pp. 129–138, 2008.
[21]
B. Srp, P. Velebil, and J. Kvasni？ka, “Lethal complications of preeclampsia and eclampsia,” Ceska Gynekologie, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 365–371, 2002.
