A core outcome set for pre-eclampsia research: an international consensus development study

OBJECTIVE

To develop a core outcome set for pre-eclampsia.

DESIGN

Consensus development study.

SETTING

International.

POPULATION

Two hundred and eight-one healthcare professionals, 41 researchers and 110 patients, representing 56 countries, participated.

METHODS

Modified Delphi method and Modified Nominal Group Technique.

RESULTS

A long-list of 116 potential core outcomes was developed by combining the outcomes reported in 79 pre-eclampsia trials with those derived from thematic analysis of 30 in-depth interviews of women with lived experience of pre-eclampsia. Forty-seven consensus outcomes were identified from the Delphi process following which 14 maternal and eight offspring core outcomes were agreed at the consensus development meeting. Maternal core outcomes: death, eclampsia, stroke, cortical blindness, retinal detachment, pulmonary oedema, acute kidney injury, liver haematoma or rupture, abruption, postpartum haemorrhage, raised liver enzymes, low platelets, admission to intensive care required, and intubation and ventilation. Offspring core outcomes: stillbirth, gestational age at delivery, birthweight, small-for-gestational-age, neonatal mortality, seizures, admission to neonatal unit required and respiratory support.

CONCLUSIONS

The core outcome set for pre-eclampsia should underpin future randomised trials and systematic reviews. Such implementation should ensure that future research holds the necessary reach and relevance to inform clinical practice, enhance women's care and improve the outcomes of pregnant women and their babies.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

281 healthcare professionals, 41 researchers and 110 women have developed #preeclampsia core outcomes @HOPEoutcomes @jamesmnduffy. [Correction added on 29 June 2020, after first online publication: the order has been corrected.].

Major obstetric haemorrhage of 2000 ml or greater: a clinical audit

Haemorrhage remains a leading cause of maternal death. We conducted an audit to identify strategies to improve the management at our local NHS Trust. A data collection form was based on our local guideline. A coded database search was conducted for all deliveries where the estimated blood loss was ≥2000 ml (from June 1 2015 to December 31 2015), returning 68 search results (13.7/1000 births). Fifty-six records were included. Poor compliance (<75%) was seen in some key areas including the major obstetric haemorrhage (MOH) call activation (52%), the presence of an anaesthetic consultant (63%) and tranexamic acid administration (46%). Thirty out of 56 cases (54%) were acutely transfused. Women, who were not transfused acutely, appeared to be more likely to need a secondary transfusion if no MOH call had been activated (9/27 (33%) versus 3/29 (10%), p = .052). A key area for improvement was the activation of MOH calls. Following this audit, we adjusted our guideline to make it more clinically useful and staff training sessions were held, including simulation training. Impact statement What is already known on this subject? A postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is an obstetric emergency. A structured approach is important to optimise the care of the mothers during this dangerous time, and has been shown to reduce the transfusion requirements. However, clinical practice may not adhere to the guideline recommendations. What the results of this study add? With the objective evidence of increased rates of PPH ≥2000 ml at our institution, our work identifying the flaws in management was a critical component of the work to improve the outcomes. This study gives impetus to find innovative ways to improve adherence to guidelines, and inspired an update of our local guideline to improve the applicability and utility. This project suggests a new marker for the adequacy of an acute management (a requirement for secondary blood transfusion without having received an acute transfusion), and raises questions about what constitutes optimum PPH management. What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? The primary and secondary transfusion data raised new questions to investigate in the future: does the involvement of consultants and the escalation of care via the instigation of major haemorrhage protocols improve decision-making and patient outcomes? Does the necessity for a secondary transfusion indicate a suboptimal acute care?