The evolution of the diagnostic criteria of preeclampsia-eclampsia
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 re...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2022-02, Vol.226 (2), p.S835-S843 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | S843 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | S835 |
container_title | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology |
container_volume | 226 |
creator | Tanner, Michael S. Davey, Mary-Ann Mol, Ben W. Rolnik, Daniel L. |
description | 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.11.1371 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2630921006</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0002937821026314</els_id><sourcerecordid>2630921006</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-14d5861b898e35e28f44f301ebbb22513182c957f01d01432b18d75057d922a53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQhoMo7rr6CwTp0UtrJmmb9OBBF79gwct6Dmk6XbN0m5q0gv_ell33KAzM1zszzEPINdAEKOR320Rv3SZhlEECo3EBJ2QOtBBxLnN5SuaUUhYXXMgZuQhhO6WsYOdkxjMQgjGYk8f1J0b47Zqht66NXB31Y6GyetO60FsTGW979FZPrc4jmkbvumB1fIwuyVmtm4BXB78gH89P6-VrvHp_eVs-rGKTCtrHkFaZzKGUhUSeIZN1mtacApZlyVgGHCQzRSZqChWFlLMSZCUymomqYExnfEFu93s7774GDL3a2WCwaXSLbgiK5ZwWDCjNRynfS413IXisVeftTvsfBVRN8NRWTfDUBE_BaCO8cermcGAod1gdZ_5ojYL7vQDHN78tehWMxdZgZT2aXlXO_nvgF4Qyfsk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2630921006</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The evolution of the diagnostic criteria of preeclampsia-eclampsia</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Tanner, Michael S. ; Davey, Mary-Ann ; Mol, Ben W. ; Rolnik, Daniel L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Tanner, Michael S. ; Davey, Mary-Ann ; Mol, Ben W. ; Rolnik, Daniel L.</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9378</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6868</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.11.1371</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35177221</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>criteria ; diagnosis ; Eclampsia - diagnosis ; Female ; history ; History, 17th Century ; History, 18th Century ; History, 19th Century ; History, 20th Century ; History, Ancient ; Humans ; hypertensive disorders ; management ; Obstetrics - trends ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Pre-Eclampsia - diagnosis ; preeclampsia ; Pregnancy</subject><ispartof>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2022-02, Vol.226 (2), p.S835-S843</ispartof><rights>2021 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-14d5861b898e35e28f44f301ebbb22513182c957f01d01432b18d75057d922a53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-14d5861b898e35e28f44f301ebbb22513182c957f01d01432b18d75057d922a53</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5318-9765 ; 0000-0001-8337-550X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2021.11.1371$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35177221$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tanner, Michael S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davey, Mary-Ann</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mol, Ben W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rolnik, Daniel L.</creatorcontrib><title>The evolution of the diagnostic criteria of preeclampsia-eclampsia</title><title>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</title><addtitle>Am J Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>criteria</subject><subject>diagnosis</subject><subject>Eclampsia - diagnosis</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>history</subject><subject>History, 17th Century</subject><subject>History, 18th Century</subject><subject>History, 19th Century</subject><subject>History, 20th Century</subject><subject>History, Ancient</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>hypertensive disorders</subject><subject>management</subject><subject>Obstetrics - trends</subject><subject>Practice Guidelines as Topic</subject><subject>Pre-Eclampsia - diagnosis</subject><subject>preeclampsia</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><issn>0002-9378</issn><issn>1097-6868</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQhoMo7rr6CwTp0UtrJmmb9OBBF79gwct6Dmk6XbN0m5q0gv_ell33KAzM1zszzEPINdAEKOR320Rv3SZhlEECo3EBJ2QOtBBxLnN5SuaUUhYXXMgZuQhhO6WsYOdkxjMQgjGYk8f1J0b47Zqht66NXB31Y6GyetO60FsTGW979FZPrc4jmkbvumB1fIwuyVmtm4BXB78gH89P6-VrvHp_eVs-rGKTCtrHkFaZzKGUhUSeIZN1mtacApZlyVgGHCQzRSZqChWFlLMSZCUymomqYExnfEFu93s7774GDL3a2WCwaXSLbgiK5ZwWDCjNRynfS413IXisVeftTvsfBVRN8NRWTfDUBE_BaCO8cermcGAod1gdZ_5ojYL7vQDHN78tehWMxdZgZT2aXlXO_nvgF4Qyfsk</recordid><startdate>202202</startdate><enddate>202202</enddate><creator>Tanner, Michael S.</creator><creator>Davey, Mary-Ann</creator><creator>Mol, Ben W.</creator><creator>Rolnik, Daniel L.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5318-9765</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8337-550X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202202</creationdate><title>The evolution of the diagnostic criteria of preeclampsia-eclampsia</title><author>Tanner, Michael S. ; Davey, Mary-Ann ; Mol, Ben W. ; Rolnik, Daniel L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-14d5861b898e35e28f44f301ebbb22513182c957f01d01432b18d75057d922a53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>criteria</topic><topic>diagnosis</topic><topic>Eclampsia - diagnosis</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>history</topic><topic>History, 17th Century</topic><topic>History, 18th Century</topic><topic>History, 19th Century</topic><topic>History, 20th Century</topic><topic>History, Ancient</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>hypertensive disorders</topic><topic>management</topic><topic>Obstetrics - trends</topic><topic>Practice Guidelines as Topic</topic><topic>Pre-Eclampsia - diagnosis</topic><topic>preeclampsia</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tanner, Michael S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davey, Mary-Ann</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mol, Ben W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rolnik, Daniel L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tanner, Michael S.</au><au>Davey, Mary-Ann</au><au>Mol, Ben W.</au><au>Rolnik, Daniel L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The evolution of the diagnostic criteria of preeclampsia-eclampsia</atitle><jtitle>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><date>2022-02</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>226</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>S835</spage><epage>S843</epage><pages>S835-S843</pages><issn>0002-9378</issn><eissn>1097-6868</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>35177221</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ajog.2021.11.1371</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5318-9765</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8337-550X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0002-9378 |
ispartof | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2022-02, Vol.226 (2), p.S835-S843 |
issn | 0002-9378 1097-6868 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2630921006 |
source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
subjects | criteria diagnosis Eclampsia - diagnosis Female history History, 17th Century History, 18th Century History, 19th Century History, 20th Century History, Ancient Humans hypertensive disorders management Obstetrics - trends Practice Guidelines as Topic Pre-Eclampsia - diagnosis preeclampsia Pregnancy |
title | The evolution of the diagnostic criteria of preeclampsia-eclampsia |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T12%3A39%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20evolution%20of%20the%20diagnostic%20criteria%20of%20preeclampsia-eclampsia&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20obstetrics%20and%20gynecology&rft.au=Tanner,%20Michael%20S.&rft.date=2022-02&rft.volume=226&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=S835&rft.epage=S843&rft.pages=S835-S843&rft.issn=0002-9378&rft.eissn=1097-6868&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ajog.2021.11.1371&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2630921006%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2630921006&rft_id=info:pmid/35177221&rft_els_id=S0002937821026314&rfr_iscdi=true |