Random urinary protein-to-creatinine ratio for prediction of significant proteinuria in women with preeclampsia

Abstract

In hospitalized preeclamptic patients, the random urinary protein-to-creatinine ratio at a cutoff of > or = 0.25 revealed a highly accurate prediction of significant proteinuria and could be a more practical alternative for assessment of proteinuria.

Random urine protein to creatinine ratio as a diagnostic method of significant proteinuria in pre‐eclampsia

“…Several studies have suggested an acceptable correlation between single-voided p:c ratio and 24-h urine protein in pregnant patients. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Nevertheless, the results reported may be limited by examining patients with a different underling disease in one study 11 and not having a large enough sample in another one. 10 Some studies were conducted on hospitalised pregnant patients with suspected pre-eclampsia, whose results may not be applicable for outpatient pregnant women.…”

“…10 Some studies were conducted on hospitalised pregnant patients with suspected pre-eclampsia, whose results may not be applicable for outpatient pregnant women. 5,6,13 To date only a few studies have measured the sensitivity and the specificity of the test in women suspected of having pre-eclampsia and comparing them with a non-suspect group or all pregnant women.…”

Assessment of Protein:Creatinine Ratio versus 24-Hour Urine Protein in the Diagnosis of Preeclampsia

“…Thus, authors such as Yamasmit et al [22] and Jaschevatzky et al [23] have demonstrated a high correlation between 24-hour proteinuria and PCR. Recently, Sethuram et al [27] demonstrated that PCR has a 90% (r 2 = 0.82) correlation with 24-hour proteinuria, with an LH receptor increase of 10.3 when using cutoff values of 0.3 g/mmol (30 mg/mmol) to detect proteinuria values in PE ranges.…”

“…Upon studying PCR behavior in the pregnant population, there is greater consensus on the fact that creatinine and protein excretion in urine are reasonably constant throughout the day, when glomerular filtration remains stable, as is the case in PE [22,23,36]. Despite this, there is contrasting evidence regarding the efficacy of such a test to diagnose PE.…”

“…Moreover, an additional advantage is the fact that only a single urine sample is required; thus the method is more cost-efficient and provides speedy results [18,19]. However, in the pregnant population, PCR has shown dissimilar performances, and to date consensus regarding its real usefulness and cutoff values in the differential diagnosis of PHD has not yet been achieved [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29]. …”