Search

Preeclampsia is associated with an increased risk of long-term cardiometabolic disease; however, little is known regarding metabolic factors in the early postpartum years potentially contributing to these health disparities. This study aimed to compare body composition, serum biochemical parameters, energy balance and diet 6 months and 2 years after normotensive pregnancy versus preeclampsia. This is the longitudinal metabolic sub-study of the Postpartum Physiology, Psychology and Paediatric cohort study. Women were assessed 6 months and 2 years after normotensive pregnancy (n = 118) and preeclampsia (n = 47). Metabolic measures included anthropometry, body composition via bioelectrical impedance analysis, serum biochemical parameters, diet via a food recall diary, and 24-h energy expenditure using SenseWear Armbands. Two years postpartum, women after preeclampsia continued to have significantly higher weight (median 67.1 kg vs. 63.1 kg, p = .04) compared to normotensive pregnancies, in addition to higher LDL cholesterol levels (2.7 ± 0.8 mmol/L vs. 2.4 ± 0.6 mmol/L, p = .03). These women were also more likely to have an elevated HOMA-IR score ≥2.08 (44% vs. 19%, p = .01). For all women in our study, waist-to-hip ratio, percent fat mass and activity-associated energy expenditure improved overtime. However, HDL cholesterol levels deteriorated, and excess saturated fat and sodium intake persisted from 6 months postpartum. Therefore, two years after preeclampsia, women remain at greater metabolic risk than their normotensive counterparts, with greater weight, LDL cholesterol and markers of insulin resistance, potentially contributing to long-term cardiovascular morbidity and requiring early intervention., (© 2024 The Author(s). Clinical Obesity published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of World Obesity Federation.)

Background: Increased cardiovascular risk following preeclampsia is well established and there are signs of early cardiovascular aging 6 months postpartum. This study assessed whether blood pressure (BP) and other cardiovascular measures are abnormal 2 years postpartum in the same cohort to determine ongoing risk markers., Methods: Six months and 2 years postpartum, BP was measured using sphygmomanometry, 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring, and noninvasive central BP. Anthropometric measures, blood, and urine biochemistry were performed. Cross-sectional comparisons between preeclampsia and normotensive pregnancy (NP) groups and longitudinal comparisons within each group were made at 6 months and 2 years., Results: Two years postpartum, 129 NP, and 52 preeclampsia women were studied who also had 6 months measures. At both time points, preeclampsia group had significantly higher BP (office BP 2 years, 112±12/72±8 versus 104±9/67±7 mm Hg NP; [ P <0.001]; mean ambulatory BP monitoring 116±9/73±8 versus 106±8/67±6 mm Hg NP; [ P <0.001]). No significant BP changes noted 6 months to 2 years within either group. Office BP thresholds of 140 mm Hg systolic and 90 mm Hg diastolic classified 2% preeclampsia and 0% NP at 2 years. American Heart Association 2017 criteria (above normal, >120/80 mm Hg) classified 25% versus 8% ( P <0.002), as did our reference range threshold of 122/79 mm Hg. American Heart Association criteria classified 60% post-preeclampsia versus 16% after NP with above-normal ambulatory BP monitoring ( P <0.001). Other cardiovascular risk markers more common 2 years post-preeclampsia included higher body mass index (median 26.6 versus 23.1, P =0.003) and insulin resistance., Conclusions: After preeclampsia, women have significantly higher BP 6 months and 2 years postpartum, and have higher body mass index and insulin-resistance scores, increasing their future cardiovascular risk. Regular cardiovascular risk screening should be implemented for all who have experienced preeclampsia., Competing Interests: None.

Background: Mental health is an integral part of overall health. Mental health disorders following childbirth are common and poor maternal mental health has consequences for both the mother and her infant. Preeclampsia is also relatively common in pregnancy but there is little known about the intersection between these two important conditions. Gaining a better understanding of the psychological consequences following preeclampsia is important, especially the link with depression, anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder. If women who experience preeclampsia are recognised as being at increased risk of poor mental health, targeted screening in the postpartum period should be implemented., Aims: To describe the prevalence and symptom severity of depression, anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder at six months postpartum in women, who had a diagnosis of preeclampsia, compared to those who had normal blood pressure in pregnancy., Methods: The mental health component of the prospective cohort study, the Postpartum, Physiology, Psychology and Paediatric follow-up study (P4 Study) was used. Women diagnosed with preeclampsia (n = 90) and those who were normotensive during pregnancy (n = 302) completed the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, General Anxiety Disorder Scale, and the Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale or Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Sclae-5 at six months postpartum., Results: At six months postpartum, depressive scores were similar in both groups but a higher proportion of women from the preeclampsia group scored above the threshold for depression (2% v 7% p = 0.04). There were no differences between the groups in the prevalence or severity of anxiety or PTSD. However, more women in the preeclampsia group reported their birth experience as a traumatic event (1% vs 7%, p = 0.01). On correlation testing and modelling, booking Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale score, any mental health history, experiencing birth as traumatic and the General Anxiety Disorder Scale score were independent predictors of postpartum Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale scores., Conclusion: The postpartum clinical care of women with preeclampsia often focusses on the immediate physical health issues, but these women may also benefit from mental health screening. Targeted screening of preeclamptic women in the postpartum period may lead to more timely referral and initiation of treatment., Trial Registration: Retrospectively registered on 18/11/2013 with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. Registration Number: ACTRN12613001260718 ., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Preeclampsia is a major pregnancy complication associated with long-term maternal cardiometabolic disease. Research generally is focused on metabolic and pathophysiological changes during pregnancy; however, there is much less focus on the early postpartum period in subjects who suffered preeclampsia. The aim of this study was to (1) characterize energy intake and expenditure 6 months following normotensive and preeclamptic pregnancies and (2) examine associations between energy balance, body composition, insulin resistance measures (HOMA-IR), and clinical characteristics., Design: A cross-sectional study 6 months following normotensive (n = 75) and preeclamptic (n = 22) pregnancies was performed. Metabolic measurements included anthropometrics measures, body composition via bioelectrical impedance analysis, 24-h energy expenditure via SenseWear Armbands, energy intake via a 3-day food diary, and serum metabolic parameters., Results: Six months following preeclampsia, women had a significantly higher weight (77.3 ± 20.9 kg vs 64.5 ± 11.4 kg, P = 0.01), fat mass percentage (FM%; 40.7 ± 7.4% vs 34.9 ± 8.1%, P = 0.004), and insulin resistance (HOMA-IR 2.2 ± 1.5 vs 1.0 ± 0.7, P = 0.003), as well as reduced HDL levels (1.5 ± 0.4 mmol/L vs 1.8 ± 0.4 mmol/L, P = 0.01) compared to normotensive women. Women post-preeclampsia had lower activity-related energy expenditure (P = 0.02) but a decreased total energy intake (P = 0.02), leading to a more negative energy balance compared to their normotensive counterparts (-1942 kJ/24 h vs -480 kJ/24 h, P = 0.02)., Conclusion: Increases in insulin resistance and FM%, reduced high-density lipoprotein, and more sedentary lifestyles characterize the postpartum period following preeclamptic compared with normotensive pregnancies. Early post-preeclampsia interventions, such as lifestyle behavior change, should be implemented and assessed to determine whether they reduce long-term cardiometabolic risk in women who experienced preeclampsia during pregnancy., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society.)

Women who have had hypertension in pregnancy, both pre-eclampsia and gestational hypertension, have a two- to three-fold increased risk of cardiovascular disease later in life. It is unclear whether this is an unmasking of latent risk, the result of damage to the vascular tree during pregnancy, or both. Irrespective of the underlying pathophysiology, these women are uniquely identified sufficiently early in their lives for lifestyle interventions, if adopted, to improve their long-term health. Currently, follow-up of these women is inadequate and implementation of a coordinated follow-up program, and further research into how best to provide it, is urgently needed., (© 2021 The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Background There is increased risk of hypertension, early cardiovascular disease, and premature mortality in women who have had preeclampsia. This study was undertaken to determine the upper limit of normal blood pressure (BP) 6 months postpartum and the frequency of women with prior preeclampsia who had BP above these limits, as part of the P4 (Post-Partum Physiology, Psychology and Pediatric) follow-up study. Methods and Results BP was measured by sphygmomanometer, 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring, and non-invasive central BP at 6 months postpartum in 302 women who had normotensive pregnancy and 90 who had preeclampsia. The upper limit of normal BP (mean+2 SD) for women with normotensive pregnancy was 122/79 mm Hg for routine BP, 115/81 mm Hg for central BP, and 121/78 mm Hg for 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. Traditional normal values detected only 3% of women who had preeclampsia as having high BP 6 months postpartum whereas these new values detected between 13% and 19%. Women with preeclampsia had greater body mass index (27.8 versus 25.0, P <0.001) and left ventricular wall thickness but similar augmentation index. They also had lower high-density lipoprotein (59±15 versus 65±16 mg/dL, P =0.002), higher triglycerides (77±51 versus 61±35 mg/dL, P =0.005), and higher homeostatic model assessment score (2.1±1.8 versus 1.3±1.9, P <0.001). Conclusions Clinicians wishing to detect high BP in these women should be aware of the lower than usual upper limit of normal for this young cohort and where possible should use 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring to detect these changes. This may define a subgroup of women who had preeclampsia for whom targeted BP lowering therapy would be successful. Registration URL: https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=365295&isReview=true; Unique identifier: ACTRN12613001260718.

Objective: To determine whether outcomes differed for women with pre-eclampsia according to the presence of proteinuria and whether non-proteinuric pre-eclampsia is similar to gestational hypertension., Design: From 1987 to 2005, at three hospitals in Sydney, Australia, women referred to the obstetric medicine team were recruited. Outcomes for three groups were compared: proteinuric pre-eclampsia, non-proteinuric pre-eclampsia and gestational hypertension., Results: Women with proteinuric pre-eclampsia were more likely to have severe hypertension (39 versus 30%, P = 0.003), deliver preterm infants (39 versus 30%, P = 0.007) and had a higher perinatal mortality rate (25.2 versus 5.7 per 1000, P = 0.02) than those with non-proteinuric pre-eclampsia, who were more likely to have thrombocytopenia and liver disease. Women with non-proteinuric pre-eclampsia were more likely to have multiple pregnancies (3.9 versus 9.9%, P < 0.001), experience severe hypertension (8.9 versus 29.7%, P < 0.001), and deliver preterm infants (11.3 versus 30.2%, P < 0.001) who were small for gestational age (12.7 versus 20.9%, P < 0.001) than those with gestational hypertension., Conclusion: This study highlights differences between non-proteinuric pre-eclampsia and gestational hypertension. The subclassification of 'non-proteinuric pre-eclampsia' should be added to existing classification systems to alert clinicians to potential risks.

Objective: To identify parameters that may assist clinicians in predicting which women will develop preeclampsia (PE) after initially presenting with gestational hypertension (GH)., Methods: 118 women were recruited to the study with GH or PE. They were divided into three groups based on their diagnosis at delivery- (1) GH, (2) PE from the time of presentation, (3) those with an initial diagnosis of GH who progressed to PE. Women underwent 24 hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and had serum estrogen, progesterone, beta-HCG, leptin and adiponectin measured as possible predictors of transformation of GH to PE., Results: Women who presented with GH, and progressed to PE, presented four weeks earlier (33 vs 37 weeks, p < 0.001) than those who did not progress. Women with PE, either as their initial diagnosis or after progression from GH, were delivered earlier (p < 0.001) and had more small for gestational age (SGA) babies than women with GH at delivery (p < 0.05). Those who developed PE after presenting with GH generally had higher blood pressures than those who remained as GH, significant for awake and 24 hour systolic blood pressures (p < 0.05). beta-HCG, estrogen, progesterone or leptin values were similar across the groups. Adiponectin was higher in women with established PE at presentation compared to women with GH (p = 0.02) but adiponectin failed to discriminate those women with an initial diagnosis of GH who progressed to PE., Conclusion: 24 hr ABPM may provide a non-invasive method of identifying this 'at risk' GH population, particularly in the case of early presentation.

Objective: To determine prospectively in hypertensive pregnant women 1) the accuracy of dipstick testing for proteinuria using automated urinalysis, 2) factors that might affect such accuracy, and 3) the potential impact of automated dipstick testing on the accuracy of diagnosis of preeclampsia according to acceptance of proteinuria at either 1 + or 2 + level., Design: Prospective study., Setting: Antenatal day assessment unit and antenatal ward of St George Hospital, a teaching hospital in Sydney, Australia., Population: 170 hypertensive pregnant women attending as outpatients or inpatients., Methods: 503 midstream urine samples were collected prospectively on separate occasions from 170 women. Full urinalysis was recorded using the Bayer Clinitek 50 automated urinalysis device and Multistix 10SG urinalysis strips (Bayer Diagnostics, Victoria, Australia). Each MSU was analysed for spot protein/creatinine ratio and also for culture and sensitivity if symptoms of a urinary tract infection were present or dipstick included positive nitrites. Urinalysis protein results were compared with spot urinary protein/creatinine ratio (previously shown to correlate with 24-hr urine protein excretion) to determine the accuracy of urinalysis. True proteinuria was defined as a ratio >/= 30 mg protein/mmol creatinine., Results: False positive dipstick tests ranged from 7% at 3 + level to 71% at 1 + proteinuria level while false negative rates were 7% for "nil" and 14% for "trace" proteinuria, 9% overall. Accepting the dipstick proteinuria result at face value led to an incorrect diagnosis of preeclampsia or gestational hypertension in 85 (50%) women. Dipstick proteinuria was significantly more likely to be correct (true positive/true negative) if diastolic blood pressure was elevated > 90 mmHg (p = 0.032) and in the absence of ketonuria (p = 0.001). Accepting a diagnosis of preeclampsia on the basis of de novo hypertension and dipstick testing alone was accurate less often (70%) when > 1 + was used as a discriminant value than at the 82% of presentations when > 2 + was used (p = 0.001)., Conclusion: Accepting "nil" or "trace" proteinuria as a true negative dipstick results fails to identify approximately 1 in 11 hypertensive pregnant women with true proteinuria, a false negative rate that may be acceptable provided these women are subject to ongoing vigilant clinical review. Even with automated urinalysis the false positive rate for dipstick levels >/= 1 + is very high, particularly in the presence of ketonuria and relying on this alone to diagnose preeclampsia leads to significant errors in diagnosis. Accepting >/= 2 + dipstick proteinuria improves overall diagnostic accuracy for preeclampsia at the expense of a higher false negative rate. This study emphasizes the need to confirm dipstick proteinuria with a further test such as a spot urine protein/creatinine ratio in all hypertensive pregnant women, particularly in research studies.

Objectives: (i) To document variation in management of hypertension in pregnancy; (ii) to determine whether this variation falls within current management guidelines; and (iii) to make recommendations for developing future guidelines., Design: Questionnaire-based survey., Setting: Australia and New Zealand., Population: All specialist obstetricians., Methods: Questionnaires were sent to 1198 obstetricians in Australia and New Zealand. Those returned by respondents currently in obstetric practice were analysed. Information was obtained on their current clinical practices relating to the diagnosis and management of hypertension in pregnancy., Results: Of 1198 obstetricians surveyed, 973 (81%) replied. Of these, 686 (71%) were responsible for obstetric care. Considerable variation in practice was found, particularly in relation to the measurement of blood pressure, the determination of hypertension and significant proteinuria, and the decision to institute antihypertensive drug treatment. The recommendations of the Australasian 1993 Consensus Statement appeared to have had little influence on practice. There has been a striking increase in the use of magnesium sulphate for the prevention of convulsions in preeclampsia., Conclusions: There is significant variation in management of hypertensive pregnancies that differs from current guidelines. It is not known whether this diversity adversely affects clinical outcomes. Until further outcome evidence is available, consensus statements may be better confined to basic aspects of management for which there is high level evidence.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the predictive ability of parameters of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring for the development of preeclampsia or gestational hypertension in women who are already considered at risk for these disorders., Study Design: One hundred twenty-two pregnant women who were considered high risk for the development of preeclampsia underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring between 18 and 30 weeks gestation, while their condition was normotensive according to routine mercury sphygmomanometry. One hundred sixty-four healthy primigravid women who were considered at usual risk for preeclampsia underwent the same tests as a parallel study. Routine blood pressure, awake and sleep average blood pressure, and 24-hour mean average blood pressure were entered into multiple logistic regression as predictors of either preeclampsia or gestational hypertension; significant variables were then tested by a series of receiver operator curves., Results: Eight percent of usual risk and 45% of high risk women experienced the development of preeclampsia or gestational hypertension. In both groups, the average routine mercury blood pressure and awake, sleeping, and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring-derived blood pressure were significantly higher in women who later experienced the development of preeclampsia or gestational hypertension. In usual risk women, 24-hour systolic blood pressure of >or=115 mm Hg and sleeping systolic blood pressure of >or=106 mm Hg were predictive of later preeclampsia or gestational hypertension, but sensitivities were low (77% and 54%, respectively). In high risk women, sleeping diastolic blood pressure of >or=62 mm Hg and sleeping mean arterial pressure of >or=79 mm Hg were predictive of preeclampsia or gestational hypertension, but again sensitivities were low (70% and 65%, respectively)., Conclusion: Awake and sleeping blood pressure are higher in midpregnancy in women who later experience the development of preeclampsia or gestational hypertension. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring provides a noninvasive method of selecting some of these women, but this test has a sensitivity no better than that of other predictive tests, even in women at high risk for preeclampsia.