Background: A reliable screening tool that could contribute to the identification of women with an increased risk of postpartum hemorrhage would be of great clinical significance.Objectives: The... Show moreBackground: A reliable screening tool that could contribute to the identification of women with an increased risk of postpartum hemorrhage would be of great clinical significance.Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the added predictive value of a bleeding assessment tool for postpartum hemorrhage exceeding 1000mL.Patients/Methods: Prospective two-center cohort study among 1147 pregnant women visiting the outpatient clinic or the maternity ward who completed a bleeding assessment tool prior to birth. The condensed MCMDM-1VWD bleeding assessment tool was adjusted to a questionnaire that could be used as a self-assessment bleeding tool. A score of 4 was considered to be abnormal.Results: In the 1147 pregnant women in our cohort, bleeding scores ranged from -3 to 13, with a median of 1 (IQR -1 to 3); 197 (17%) women developed postpartum hemorrhage. Among women with a history of postpartum hemorrhage 29% developed postpartum hemorrhage. Among 147 women with an abnormal bleeding score (4), 27 (18%) developed postpartum hemorrhage, whereas the remaining 170 cases of postpartum hemorrhage had a normal bleeding score. Despite the high incidence of postpartum hemorrhage, the ability of the bleeding score to predict postpartum hemorrhage was poor: area under receiver operating curve 0.53 (95% CI 0.49-0.58) for postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) 1000mL.Conclusions: A history of significant postpartum hemorrhage was associated with an increased risk of subsequent postpartum hemorrhage. However, screening with a bleeding assessment tool did not help to discriminate women who will develop postpartum hemorrhage from women who will not. Show less
Objectives Compare the predictive performance of Framingham Risk Score (FRS), Pooled Cohort Equations (PCEs) and Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) model between women with and without a... Show moreObjectives Compare the predictive performance of Framingham Risk Score (FRS), Pooled Cohort Equations (PCEs) and Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) model between women with and without a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (hHDP) and determine the effects of recalibration and refitting on predictive performance. Methods We included 29 751 women, 6302 with hHDP and 17 369 without. We assessed whether models accurately predicted observed 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk (calibration) and whether they accurately distinguished between women developing CVD during follow-up and not (discrimination), separately for women with and without hHDP. We also recalibrated (updating intercept and slope) and refitted (recalculating coefficients) the models. Results Original FRS and PCEs overpredicted 10-year CVD risks, with expected:observed (E:O) ratios ranging from 1.51 (for FRS in women with hHDP) to 2.29 (for PCEs in women without hHDP), while E:O ratios were close to 1 for SCORE. Overprediction attenuated slightly after recalibration for FRS and PCEs in both hHDP groups. Discrimination was reasonable for all models, with C-statistics ranging from 0.70-0.81 (women with hHDP) and 0.72-0.74 (women without hHDP). C-statistics improved slightly after refitting 0.71-0.83 (with hHDP) and 0.73-0.80 (without hHDP). The E:O ratio of the original PCE model was statistically significantly better in women with hHDP compared with women without hHDP. Conclusions SCORE performed best in terms of both calibration and discrimination, while FRS and PCEs overpredicted risk in women with and without hHDP, but improved after recalibrating and refitting the models. No separate model for women with hHDP seems necessary, despite their higher baseline risk. Show less
Russo, F.M.; Mian, P.; Krekels, E.H.; Calsteren, K. van; Tibboel, D.; Deprest, J.; Allegaert, K. 2019
