Primary Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Pregnancy Outcome in a Portuguese Population

Introduction:Women with antiphospholipid syndrome(APS) may suffer from recurrent miscarriage, fetal death, fetal growth restriction (FGR), pre-eclampsia, placental abruption, premature delivery and thrombosis. Treatment with aspirin and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) combined with close maternal-fetal surveillance can change these outcomes. Objective: To assess maternal and perinatal outcome in a cohort of Portuguese women with primary APS. Patients and Methods: A retrospective analysis of 51 women with primary APS followed in our institution (January 1994 to December 2007). Forty one(80.4%) had past pregnancy morbidity and 35.3%(n=18) suffered previous thrombotic events. In their past they had a total of 116 pregnancies of which only 13.79 % resulted in live births. Forty four patients had positive anticardiolipin antibodies and 33 lupus anticoagulant. All women received treatment with low dose aspirin and LMWH. Results: There were a total of 67 gestations (66 single and one multiple). The live birth rate was 85.1%(57/67) with 10 pregnancy failures: seven in the first and second trimesters, one late fetal death and two medical terminations of pregnancy (one APS related). Mean (± SD) birth weight was 2837 ± 812 g and mean gestational age 37 ± 3.3 weeks. There were nine cases of FGR and 13 hypertensive complications(4 HELLP syndromes). 54.4% of the patients delivered by caesarean section. Conclusions: In our cohort, early treatment with aspirin and LMWH combined with close maternal-fetal surveillance was associated with a very high chance of a live newborn.

American Society of Anesthesiologists Score: Still Useful After 60 Years? Results of the EuSOS Study

OBJECTIVE: The European Surgical Outcomes Study described mortality following in-patient surgery. Several factors were identified that were able to predict poor outcomes in a multivariate analysis. These included age, procedure urgency, severity and type and the American Association of Anaesthesia score. This study describes in greater detail the relationship between the American Association of Anaesthesia score and postoperative mortality. METHODS: Patients in this 7-day cohort study were enrolled in April 2011. Consecutive patients aged 16 years and older undergoing inpatient non-cardiac surgery with a recorded American Association of Anaesthesia score in 498 hospitals across 28 European nations were included and followed up for a maximum of 60 days. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Decision tree analysis with the CHAID (SPSS) system was used to delineate nodes associated with mortality. RESULTS: The study enrolled 46,539 patients. Due to missing values, 873 patients were excluded, resulting in the analysis of 45,666 patients. Increasing American Association of Anaesthesia scores were associated with increased admission rates to intensive care and higher mortality rates. Despite a progressive relationship with mortality, discrimination was poor, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.658 (95% CI 0.642 - 0.6775). Using regression trees (CHAID), we identified four discrete American Association of Anaesthesia nodes associated with mortality, with American Association of Anaesthesia 1 and American Association of Anaesthesia 2 compressed into the same node. CONCLUSION: The American Association of Anaesthesia score can be used to determine higher risk groups of surgical patients, but clinicians cannot use the score to discriminate between grades 1 and 2. Overall, the discriminatory power of the model was less than acceptable for widespread use.