It’s time to adopt a cost-effective approach
Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, and particularly pre-eclampsia, remain major causes of maternal and perinatal mortality,1,2 accounting for 15% of maternal deaths and 4% of perinatal deaths. Therefore, a key aim of modern antenatal care is the timely detection and management of pre-eclampsia.1,2 A traditional belief is that this is best achieved by regular, and increasingly frequent, antenatal visits, allowing for both blood pressure measurement and dipstick urinalysis to detect new-onset proteinuria. This strategy underpins the schedule of antenatal care that is still most commonly followed in Australia; namely, monthly visits until 28 weeks of pregnancy, fortnightly visits until 36 weeks and weekly visits thereafter.3 However, it has been apparent for some time that the frequency of visits could be safely reduced without adversely affecting outcomes,4 a notion now confirmed by randomised controlled trials both in the developed and developing world.5 Similarly, it has long been recognised that dipstick urinalysis performs poorly in the detection of proteinuria,1 requiring confirmation by either a formal 24-hour urine collection or a spot urine protein/creatinine ratio.2 However, the accuracy of a dipstick reading is significantly improved if it is read with an automated device rather than visually,6 offering the possibility that routine automated testing for proteinuria may have a place in the detection of pre-eclampsia.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1 Centre for Women's Health Research, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC.
- 2 Royal Women's Hospital, Carlton, VIC.
- 1. Villar J, Bergsjo P. Scientific basis for the content of routine antenatal care. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997; 76: 1-14.
- 2. Brown MA, Hague WM, Higgins J, et al. The detection, investigation and management of hypertension in pregnancy: full consensus statement. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2000; 40: 139-155.
- 3. Hunt JM, Lumley J. Are recommendations about routine antenatal care in Australia consistent and evidence-based? Med J Aust 2002; 176: 255-259. <MJA full text>
- 4. Hall MH, Chng PK, MacGillivray I. Is routine antenatal care worth while? Lancet 1980; 2: 78-80.
- 5. Carroli G, Villar J, Piaggio G, et al. WHO systematic review of randomised controlled trials of routine antenatal care. Lancet 2001; 357: 1565-1570.
- 6. Saudan PJ, Brown MA, Farrell TJ, Shaw L. Improved methods of assessing proteinuria in hypertensive pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 104: 1159-1164.
- 7. Murray N, Homer CSE, Davis GK, et al. The clinical utility of routine urinalysis in pregnancy: a prospective study. Med J Aust 2002; 177: 477-480. <eMJA full text>
- 8. Three Centres Consensus Guidelines on Antenatal Care Project, Mercy Hospital for Women, Southern Health and Women and Children's Health 2001. Available at: http://www.health.vic.gov.au/maternitycare/ (accessed September 2002).
- 9. Gilbert RE, Augood C, Gupta R, et al. Screening for Down's syndrome: effects, safety, and cost effectiveness of first and second trimester strategies. BMJ 2001; 323: 423-425.
- 10. Miller PJ, Law M, Torzillo PJ, Kaldor J. Incidence of sexually transmitted infections and their risk factors in an Aboriginal community in Australia: a population based cohort study. Sex Transm Infect 2001; 77: 21-25.
- 11. Oats JJN. Routine antenatal screening: a need to evaluate Australian practice. Med J Aust 2000; 172: 311-312. <MJA full text>