Body of Evidence in Favor of Adopting 130/80 mm Hg as New Blood Pressure Cut-Off for All the Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy

Prevalence and associated factors of metabolic syndrome among pregnant Ethiopian women: a hospital-based cross-sectional study

Metabolic syndrome (MetS) poses a significant public health challenge globally, including in Ethiopia, with risks for both mothers and children. Unfortunately, there is limited data on MetS in pregnant Ethiopian women. This study aims to evaluate the prevalence and factors associated with MetS in this population. A cross-sectional study was conducted using a systematic random sampling technique. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews using a structured questionnaire adapted from the World Health Organization Steps Survey Tool for Non-communicable Diseases. About five ml of fasting peripheral blood samples were collected from each participant. The Beckman Coulter DXC 700 AU clinical chemistry analyzer was employed for lipid profile and glucose analysis. Subsequently, data were inputted into Epi Data and later exported to SPSS Version 20 for further analysis. Bivariable and multivariable binary logistic regression analyses were carried out, with a predefined level of statistical significance at p < 0.05. A total of 318 pregnant women were included in this study. The prevalence of MetS was 13.2% (95% CI: 9.7, 17.0) based on the American Heart Association/National Heart Lung and Blood Institute definition. The most prevalent components of MetS were elevated triglyceride levels, reduced high-density lipoprotein levels, and elevated blood pressure. Unhealthy sleep duration (AOR = 5.6, 95% CI (2.4, 13.1), p < 0.001), high daily salt intake (AOR = 4.2, 95% CI (1.8, 9.5), p = 0.001), and alcohol consumption [AOR = 4.2, 95% CI (1.6, 10.9), p = 0.003] were significantly associated with MetS. The study reported a high prevalence of MetS in pregnant Ethiopian women. Factors including alcohol, high salt intake, and sleep disturbances were associated with MetS. Policymakers might utilize this data to create targeted interventions and public health policies for MetS among pregnant women, focusing on nutrition, sleep, and alcohol consumption during pregnancy to safeguard maternal and fetal health.

Stage 1 Hypertension in Nulliparous Pregnant Patients and Risk of Unplanned Cesarean Delivery

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study is to determine whether stage 1 hypertension is a risk factor for cesarean at ≥39^0/7 weeks.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study of nulliparas delivering at ≥39^0/7weeks. Exposure was defined as stage 1 hypertension and compared with normotension. The primary outcome was unplanned cesarean. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 27.

RESULTS

Two hundred and fifty patients had stage 1 hypertension and 250 had normotension. Thirty-eight percent of the patients with stage 1 hypertension required cesarean as did 22% of controls (risk ratio [RR]=1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23-1.96, p <0.001). This remained significant after controlling for confounders in a logistic regression (odds ratio [OR]=1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-2.55, p <0.040). Upon secondary analysis, these results were statistically significant for gestational age ≥39^5/7 weeks (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=1.89, 95% CI: 1.05-3.39, p=0.033) but not from 39^0/7 to 39^4/7weeks (AOR=0.68, 95% CI: 0.31-1.50, p=0.34).

CONCLUSION

In nulliparas, stage 1 hypertension is an independent risk factor for unplanned cesarean.

KEY POINTS

· Stage 1 hypertension correlates with more cesareans.. · Unplanned cesarean for nonreassuring fetal status correlates with impaired placental function.. · Stages 1 and 2 hypertension carry similar risks..

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) as a predictive index for liver and coagulation dysfunction in preeclampsia patients

BACKGROUND

Pre-eclampsia (PE) is a pregnancy disorder that is related to an enhanced immune response. Immune cell characteristics such as neutrophil or monocyte to lymphocyte ratios (NLR, MLR) are known to be related to kidney and liver dysfunction in hypertensive patients. Here, we aimed to analyze the correlations between NLR, MLR and platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and liver, renal and coagulation functional parameters and the impacts of these immune cell profiles to the prognostic significance in PE patients.

METHODS

Pre-delivery hematological and biochemical parameters of 320 first-time pregnant women registered at the Obstetrics Department of Yanbian University Hospital from 2016 to 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were divided into normal pregnancy (normal, n = 161), mild PE (mPE, n = 28) and severe PE (sPE, n = 131) groups according to diagnostic criteria. Pearson correlation analysis were performed and area under the curve (AUC) were conducted for the diagnostic values of NLR, MLR and PLR. Results were validated with data from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Seoul National University Hospital (SNUH).

RESULTS

Kidney functional indexes were adversative in mPE and sPE and liver and coagulation indexes were worse in sPE compared to normal groups. Among immune cells, lymphocytes were increased in mPE and sPE patients, resulted in reduced NLR, MLR and PLR in PE groups, more significant difference were shown in sPE. NLR and PLR were associated with CREA and/or BUN negatively and positive associations were observed with total protein (TP) and albumin (ALB) in sPE. Only NLR showed positive associations with coagulation indexes (PT and APTT) in sPE. AUC analysis for NLR, MLR and PLR were 0.700, 0.656, 0.643, respectively, and NLR < 3.7 predicted hypertension (95% CI in all participants: 0.647-0.749, p < 0.001). Blood pressure, liver, kidney and coagulation indexes were worse at cut off value (NLR < 3.7), and this was validated with the data from SNUH.

CONCLUSION

NLR could be used as an independent predictor of liver and coagulation dysfunction in PE patients. Our results may provide non-invasive and efficient way of the risk assessment among PE patients.

Preeclampsia: state of art and future perspectives. A special focus on possible preventions

Preeclampsia (PE) is characterised by the new onset of hypertension after the 20th week of pregnancy, with or without proteinuria or hypertension that leads to end-organ dysfunction. Since the only definitive treatment is delivery, PE still represents one of the leading causes of preterm birth and perinatal mobility and mortality. Therefore, any strategies that aim to reduce adverse outcomes are based on early primary prevention, prenatal surveillance and prophylactic interventions. In the last decade, intense research has been focussed on the study of predictive models in order to identify women at higher risk accurately. To date, the most effective screening model is based on the combination of anamnestic, demographic, biophysical and maternal biochemical factors. In this review, we provide a detailed discussion about the current and future perspectives in the field of PE. We will examine pathogenesis, risk factors and clinical features. Moreover, recent developments in screening and prevention strategies, novel therapies and healthcare management strategies will be discussed.

The evolution of the diagnostic criteria of preeclampsia-eclampsia

As the understanding of the pathophysiology of preeclampsia has improved, its diagnostic criteria have evolved. The classical triad of hypertension, edema, and proteinuria has become hypertension and organ dysfunction-renal, hepatic, neurologic, hematological, or uteroplacental. However, the most recent definitions have largely been based off consensus and expert opinion, not primary research. In this review, we explore how the criteria have evolved, particularly through the second half of the 20^th and the beginning of the 21st century and offer a critical appraisal of the evidence that has led the criteria to where they stand today. Some key themes are the following: the debate between having a simple and convenient blood pressure cutoff vs a blood pressure cutoff that accounts for influencing factors such as age and weight; whether a uniform blood pressure threshold, a rise in blood pressure, or a combination is most discriminatory; whether existing evidence supports blood pressure and proteinuria thresholds in diagnosing preeclampsia; and whether using flow-charts and decision trees might be more appropriate than a single set of criteria. We also discuss the future of a preeclampsia diagnosis. We challenge the move toward a broad (vs restrictive) diagnosis, arguing instead for criteria that directly relate to the prognosis of preeclampsia and the response to treatments.

Blood pressure thresholds in pregnancy for identifying maternal and infant risk: a secondary analysis of Community-Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) trial data

Background

Blood pressure measurement is a marker of antenatal care quality. In well resourced settings, lower blood pressure cutoffs for hypertension are associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. We aimed to study the associations between blood pressure thresholds and adverse outcomes and the diagnostic test properties of these blood pressure cutoffs in low-resource settings.

Methods

We did a secondary analysis of data from 22 intervention clusters in the Community-Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) cluster randomised trials (NCT01911494) in India (n=6), Mozambique (n=6), and Pakistan (n=10). We included pregnant women aged 15–49 years (12–49 years in Mozambique), identified in their community by trained community health workers, who had data on blood pressure measurements and outcomes. The trial was unmasked. Maximum blood pressure was categorised as: normal blood pressure (systolic blood pressure [sBP] <120 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure [dBP] <80 mm Hg), elevated blood pressure (sBP 120–129 mm Hg and dBP <80 mm Hg), stage 1 hypertension (sBP 130–139 mm Hg or dBP 80–89 mm Hg, or both), non-severe stage 2 hypertension (sBP 140–159 mm Hg or dBP 90–109 mm Hg, or both), or severe stage 2 hypertension (sBP ≥160 mm Hg or dBP ≥110 mm Hg, or both). We classified women according to the maximum blood pressure category reached across all visits for the primary analyses. The primary outcome was a maternal, fetal, or neonatal mortality or morbidity composite. We estimated dose-response relationships between blood pressure category and adverse outcomes, as well as diagnostic test properties.

Findings

Between Nov 1, 2014, and Feb 28, 2017, 21 069 women (6067 in India, 4163 in Mozambique, and 10 839 in Pakistan) contributed 103 679 blood pressure measurements across the three CLIP trials. Only women with non-severe or severe stage 2 hypertension, as discrete diagnostic categories, experienced more adverse outcomes than women with normal blood pressure (risk ratios 1·29–5·88). Using blood pressure categories as diagnostic thresholds (women with blood pressure within the category or any higher category vs those with blood pressure in any lower category), dose-response relationships were observed between increasing thresholds and adverse outcomes, but likelihood ratios were informative only for severe stage 2 hypertension and maternal CNS events (likelihood ratio 6·36 [95% CI 3·65–11·07]) and perinatal death (5·07 [3·64–7·07]), particularly stillbirth (8·53 [5·63–12·92]).

Interpretation

In low-resource settings, neither elevated blood pressure nor stage 1 hypertension were associated with maternal, fetal, or neonatal mortality or morbidity adverse composite outcomes. Only the threshold for severe stage 2 hypertension met diagnostic test performance standards. Current diagnostic thresholds for hypertension in pregnancy should be retained.

Funding

University of British Columbia, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Stage 1 hypertension defined by the 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines and neonatal outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In 2017, the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines redefined the threshold of high blood pressure (BP) for non-pregnant adults. Several studies aimed to determine whether lowering these thresholds should be considered for pregnancies to prevent poor neonatal outcomes, but the results were inconclusive.

METHODS

We perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association between BP groups defined by the 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines and pregnancy outcomes. Relevant literature was searched in PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, and Web of Science up to 18 May 2021.

RESULTS

Sixteen eligible studies from twelve articles with a total of 303,131 pregnancies were identified, encompassing 233,084, 20,859, 39,379 individuals with normal BP, elevated BP, and stage 1 hypertension, respectively. When compared with normal BP, the combined odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of elevated BP for adverse pregnancy outcomes was not significant; whereas, that of stage 1 hypertension were 1.25 (1.13-1.39), 1.16 (1.03-1.31), 1.50 (1.28-1.77) and 1.12 (1.00-1.25) for preterm delivery, small for gestational age, low birth weight, and early-term delivery, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicated that stage 1 hypertension increased the risk of poor neonatal outcomes, highlighting the importance of recognition of stage 1 hypertension as a risk indicator for poor pregnancy outcomes.

Pregnancy Outcomes Associated With a Single Elevated Blood Pressure Before 20 Weeks of Gestation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate maternal and fetal outcomes among women with a single elevated blood pressure before 20 weeks of gestation.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women who delivered at Kaiser Permanente Southern California hospitals between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2019. Participants were divided into two groups: normotensive (all systolic blood pressures lower than 130 mm Hg and diastolic pressures lower than 80 mm Hg) compared with single elevated blood pressure (single systolic pressure 130 mm Hg or higher, diastolic pressure 80 mm Hg or higher, or both). Women with chronic hypertension were excluded. Maternal comorbidities and maternal and neonatal outcomes were extracted from electronic health records using International Classification of Diseases codes. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) derived from logistic regression were used to describe the magnitude of association.

RESULTS

Of 303,689 women who delivered during the study period, 23% had a single elevated blood pressure. Rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy differed between the two groups (10.6% for single elevated blood pressure, 4.5% for normotensive group; aOR 2.06, 95% CI 2.00-2.13), as did iatrogenic preterm delivery (3.7% vs 2.7%, respectively; aOR 1.27, 95% CI 1.21-1.33).

DISCUSSION

Women with a single elevated blood pressure before 20 weeks of gestation are at increased risk for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and iatrogenic preterm delivery.

Perinatal outcomes in women with elevated blood pressure and stage 1 hypertension

BACKGROUND

Hypertension was redefined in 2017 with lower diagnostic thresholds; elevated blood pressure is defined as systolic blood pressure of 120 to 129 mm Hg with diastolic blood pressure of <80 mm Hg and stage 1 hypertension as systolic blood pressure of 130 to 139 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure of 80 to 89 mm Hg. These guidelines did not include pregnant women. There is limited information on stage 1 hypertension and pregnancy outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine whether elevated blood pressure and stage 1 hypertension as newly defined by the 2017 American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association guidelines are associated with an increased risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and other adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

In this retrospective cohort study, 18,801 women with singletons from 2013 to 2019 were categorized as normotensive, prehypertensive (elevated blood pressure), stage 1 hypertensive, or chronic hypertensive. Women with ≥2 systolic blood pressures of 120 to 129 mm Hg before 20 weeks' gestation were classified into the elevated blood pressure group. Women with ≥2 systolic blood pressures of 130 to 139 mm Hg or ≥2 diastolic blood pressures of 80 to 89 mm Hg before 20 weeks' gestation were assigned to the stage 1 hypertension group. Women were classified as chronic hypertensives if they had any of the following: ≥2 systolic blood pressure of ≥140 mm Hg or ≥2 diastolic blood pressure of ≥90 mm Hg before 20 weeks' gestation, a history of chronic hypertension, or antihypertensive medication use before 20 weeks' gestation. Women with pregestational diabetes, lupus, or <2 blood pressures before 20 weeks' gestation were excluded. The association of stage 1 hypertension with the risk of developing hypertensive disorders of pregnancy was estimated using multivariate logistic regression controlling for maternal sociodemographic characteristics, gestational weight gain by prepregnancy body mass index, parity, and aspirin use. Secondary outcomes included subgroups of hypertensive disorders (gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, eclampsia, and hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelet count syndrome), gestational diabetes, placental abruption, intrauterine growth restriction, preterm birth, neonatal intensive care unit admission, stillbirth and neonatal death, and maternal intensive care unit admission. All outcomes were adjusted for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Of the 18,801 women, 13,478 (71.7%) were normotensive, 2659 (14.1%) had elevated blood pressure, 1384 (7.4%) were stage 1 hypertensive, and 1280 (6.8%) were chronic hypertensive. A dose-response relationship was observed: the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy increased from 4.2% in normotensive women to 6.7% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-1.79) in women with elevated blood pressure, to 10.9% (adjusted odds ratio, 2.54; 95% confidence interval, 2.09-3.08) in women with stage 1 hypertension, and 28.4% (adjusted odds ratio, 7.14; 95% confidence interval, 6.06-8.40) in women with chronic hypertension. Compared with normotensive women, women with stage 1 hypertension had an increased risk of neonatal intensive care unit admissions (15.8% vs 13.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.42), preterm birth at <37 weeks' gestation (7.2% vs 5.2%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.81), and gestational diabetes (14.8% vs 6.8%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.68; 95% confidence interval, 2.27-3.17).

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that elevated blood pressure and stage 1 hypertension, using the 2017 American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association guideline definition, are associated with increased maternal and neonatal risk. This group of women warrants further investigation to determine whether pregnancy management can be altered to reduce maternal and neonatal morbidity.

Evaluation of Implementation and Unit Impact of a Hypertensive Disorder of Pregnancy Guideline: A Model-Based Approach

BACKGROUND

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are a leading cause of maternal mortality and morbidity. To address this, a large Midwestern hospital initiated a practice guideline. Practice guidelines should improve outcomes, but implementation of these remains challenging. At the time of initiation of the guideline, no implementation or evaluation plan was conceived.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the implementation and unit impact of a guideline for the management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in a large academic health system in the Midwest.

METHODS

Six objectives, guided by the constructs of the Ottawa Model of Research Utilization, were operationalized to evaluate the implementation and unit impact of the guideline.

RESULTS

The guideline implemented was consistent with national recommendations. Intervention education was inconsistent across provider types. A survey of staff revealed insight into a unit in the midst of practice change. A chart review revealed below-target management of patients with severe range blood pressures. Not following the guideline was associated with hospital readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Guideline implementation can be efficiently and holistically evaluated with a model-based framework, even in projects that were not initiated with such an approach.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nurses provide expertise in model-based approaches that result in comprehensive evaluations of quality improvement processes.