4.6 Review

Systematic review and metaanalysis on nonclassic cardiovascular biomarkers after hypertensive pregnancy disorders

Journal

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.03.032

Keywords

cardiovascular risk; hypertensive pregnancy disorders; preeclampsia; pregnancy-induced hypertension

Funding

  1. Nuts Ohra Foundation, The Netherlands

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate which nonclassic cardiovascular biomarkers are associated with persistent endothelial dysfunction after pregnancy in women with a history of hypertensive pregnancy disorders compared with women with uncomplicated pregnancies. STUDY DESIGN: This was a systematic review and metaanalysis of observational studies. A search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Cinahl including articles from inception to Feb. 27, 2013. Included were cohort studies and case-control studies. Cases were women with a history of hypertension in pregnancy, control subjects were women with a history of uncomplicated pregnancies. Of the 3136 found, 21 studies on 16 nonclassic cardiovascular biomarkers are described in this review; 12 studies on 5 biomarkers were included in the metaanalysis. RESULTS: Women with a history of hypertensive pregnancy disorders had a higher homocysteine level compared with women with a history of uncomplicated pregnancies (5 studies; pooled mean difference, 0.77 ng/mL; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-1.26; P < .01). For the other nonclassic cardiovascular biomarkers including markers in areas of inflammation, thrombosis, and angiogenesis, we found no significant differences. CONCLUSION: This review and metaanalysis showed that women with a history of hypertensive pregnancy disorders have higher homocysteine levels compared with women with a history of uncomplicated pregnancies. These data suggest persistent endothelial alteration after pregnancies complicated by hypertensive disorders.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available