The need for implementation of first trimester screening for preeclampsia and fetal growth restriction in low resource settings

Abstract

Background Preeclampsia [PE] and fetal growth restriction [FGR] is a major cause of perinatal morbidity in both developed and developing countries but the disease leaves a severe impact in developing countries, due to the late presentation of cases where prevention and treatment becomes impossible. Routine antenatal ultrasound and health checkups in periphery are usually done in first trimester for dating and viability scan, in midtrimester for anomaly scan and in third trimester for safe confinement. Underlying disorder of deep placentation which is unidentified can lead to increased maternal morbidity and fetal compromise between 26 to 34 weeks of gestation The complications present at an irreversible stage where there is no sufficient time even for referral to tertiary care center. Frequent antenatal visits as suggested by WHO would definitely bring down maternal mortality but this increased surveillance when offered to all might be a huge burden to health care providers in low resource settings. An acceptable screening test should help in triaging the high risk group in first trimester itself targeting about only one third of the population for prophylactic therapy and increased antenatal surveillance.The objective of this study is to evaluate the performance and feasibility of different screening protocols in low resource settings. Methodology Screening for PE and FGR was done at the 11–14 weeks aneuploidy scan as per FMF guidelines. Group I included 6289 women whose risk prediction was done with maternal characteristics [MC], mean arterial pressure [MAP] and Uterine artery Doppler [UAD]. Group II included 2067 women whose risk was predicted with MC, MAP, UAD and PAPP-A. Group III included 576 women whose risk prediction included all parameters with PLGF. Results Two thousand five hundred fifty-seven cases were screen positive in group I and 602 were screen positive in group II. In group III which included PLGF, 24 were positive for early onset PE and 36 for late onset PE. The number needed to treat [NNT] was 35.9, 29.1 and 10% in Group I, II and III respectively. The detection rate [DR] for PE and FGR was 60% in Group I and DR for FGR in Group II was 85%. In Group III, for early onset PE the DR was 98% and 68% for late onset PE. Conclusion Screening for PE with available resources in the periphery needs to be implemented to avoid its grave complications. Traditional screening for PE by NICE guidelines can be adopted but may have a detection rate of only 30–40%. Though screening by ACOG criteria may have good detection rates but more than two thirds of the population would become screen positive which nullifies this approach as a good screening methodology in low resource settings. Multiparametric approach for screening in first trimester serves as a better screening tool to enable higher detection rate of disease with least false positive rates. Uterine artery Doppler when combined with maternal characteristics and mean arterial pressure could achieve a detection rate of about 60% and would still target only one third of the population for increased antenatal surveillance. This requires training healthcare professionals in the periphery for this approach and this should be our prime focus in the current scenario. Inclusion of serum biochemistry would still bring down the target population to 10% and increase the DR and can be considered as an additional test in economically feasible population. In low resource settings a better screening approach to PE would be a combination of maternal history, biophysical or biochemical parameters whichever is feasible considering the economy and availability of resources.