4.2 Article

Hellp syndrome and composite major maternal morbidity: importance of Mississippi classification system

Journal

JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE
Volume 26, Issue 12, Pages 1201-1206

Publisher

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.3109/14767058.2013.773308

Keywords

Dexamethasone; edema; maternal morbidity; Mississippi protocol; severe preeclampsia

Funding

  1. Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of MS Medical Center

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: We explored the prevalence of Composite Major Maternal Morbidity (CMMM) for patients with severe preeclampsia (SPRE) and each class or category of HELLP syndrome. Methods: In a retrospective cohort study from 2000 to 2010, we reviewed maternal charts of patients categorized with complete or partial HELLP syndrome. From 2005 to 2007, the maternal charts for every patient with a diagnosis of SPRE without HELLP syndrome were also evaluated for comparison. The CMMM for each patient group included cardiopulmonary; hematologic/coagulation, central nervous system/visual, hepatic or renal complications. During the study interval patients with class 1 and class 2 HELLP syndrome received Mississippi Protocol management. Results: Four hundred and ninety-five mothers had a form of HELLP syndrome in years 2000-2010; 688 mothers experienced a non-HELLP severe form of preeclampsia during 2005-2007. The prevalence of CMMM for each patient group was: class 1 = 44%; class 2 = 13%; class 3 = 24%; partial HELLP = 20% and SPRE = 18%. CMMM for class 1 HELLP syndrome is significantly higher than all other groups (p<0.001). Conclusions: Patients who develop class 1 HELLP syndrome have significantly higher CMMM. Avoiding this most advanced stage of HELLP syndrome and minimizing the development of new MMM becomes a measure of medical management effectiveness and a tool to assess overall quality of care.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available