Key result
A prediction model for postpartum readmission for hypertension and pre-eclampsia demonstrated adequate discrimination (c-statistic 0.80; 95% CI 0.80-0.80) and moderate calibration.
Why the study?
The study was designed to develop a model predicting postpartum readmission for hypertension and pre-eclampsia at delivery discharge and assess its external validation and transportability across clinical sites.
Observational (n=28,201)
Yes
A predictive model using six clinical variables can accurately predict postpartum readmission for hypertension and pre-eclampsia, though model updating across sites is needed for optimal performance.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support targeted postpartum monitoring; leaves open external validation and prospective outcome trials.
Objective To develop a model for predicting postpartum readmission for hypertension and pre‐eclampsia at delivery discharge and assess external validation or model transportability across clinical sites. Design Prediction model using data available in the electronic health record from two clinical sites. Setting Two tertiary care health systems from the Southern (2014–2015) and Northeastern USA (2017–2019). Population A total of 28 201 postpartum individuals: 10 100 in the South and 18 101 in the Northeast. Methods An internal‐external cross validation (IECV) approach was used to assess external validation or model transportability across the two sites. In IECV, data from each health system were first used to develop and internally validate a prediction model; each model was then externally validated using the other health system. Models were fit using penalised logistic regression, and accuracy was estimated using discrimination (concordance index), calibration curves and decision curves. Internal validation was performed using bootstrapping with bias‐corrected performance measures. Decision curve analysis was used to display potential cut points where the model provided net benefit for clinical decision‐making. Main outcome measures The outcome was postpartum readmission for either hypertension or pre‐eclampsia <6 weeks after delivery. Results The postpartum readmission rate for hypertension and pre‐eclampsia overall was 0.9% (0.3% and 1.2% by site, respectively). The final model included six variables: age, parity, maximum postpartum diastolic blood pressure, birthweight, pre‐eclampsia before discharge and delivery mode (and interaction between pre‐eclampsia × delivery mode). Discrimination was adequate at both health systems on internal validation (c‐statistic South: 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87–0.89; Northeast: 0.74; 95% CI 0.74–0.74). In IECV, discrimination was inconsistent across sites, with improved discrimination for the Northeastern model on the Southern cohort (c‐statistic 0.61 and 0.86, respectively), but calibration was not adequate. Next, model updating was performed using the combined dataset to develop a new model. This final model had adequate discrimination (c‐statistic: 0.80, 95% CI 0.80–0.80), moderate calibration (intercept −0.153, slope 0.960, Emax 0.042) and provided superior net benefit at clinical decision‐making thresholds between 1% and 7% for interventions preventing readmission. An online calculator is provided here . Conclusions Postpartum readmission for hypertension and pre‐eclampsia may be accurately predicted but further model validation is needed. Model updating using data from multiple sites will be needed before use across clinical settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Venkatesh et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Postpartum hypertension and pre-eclampsia (n=28,201). Prediction model was evaluated on Postpartum readmission for either hypertension or pre-eclampsia <6 weeks after delivery (c-statistic 0.80, 95% CI 0.80-0.80). A prediction model for postpartum readmission for hypertension and pre-eclampsia demonstrated adequate discrimination (c-statistic 0.80; 95% CI 0.80-0.80) and moderate calibration.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: