4.5 Article

Impaired vascular dilatation in women with a history of pre-eclampsia

Journal

JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
Volume 24, Issue 4, Pages 751-756

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.hjh.0000217859.27864.19

Keywords

atherosclerosis; pre-eclampsia; plethysmography; pregnancy; vasodilatation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective The mechanisms underlying increased cardiovascular risk among women with a history of pre-eclampsia remain unclear. Impaired endothelial function has been observed in both pre-eclampsia and atherosclerosis, and provides a plausible link between the two conditions. We studied endothelial function and arterial compliance in non-pregnant, previously pre-eclamptic women. Design A study of 30 women with a history of pre-eclampsia and 21 women with a previous normotensive, uncomplicated pregnancy was carried out. Methods Changes in brachial artery blood flow, induced by intra-arterial infusions of an endothelium-independent (sodium nitroprusside) and an endothelium-dependent (acetylcholine) vasodilator, were measured by venous occlusion plethysmography. Arterial stiffness was assessed by pulse-wave analysis. Results Vasodilatation was impaired in women with previous pre-eclampsia; at low and high concentrations of endothelium-independent (P = 0.004 and P = 0.057, respectively) and endothelium-dependent (P = 0.045 and P = 0.02) vasodilators, respectively. There was no difference in arterial stiffness between the groups (P = 0.45). In multiple regression analyses both endothelium-independent and endothelium-dependent vasodilatations were independently associated with a history of pre-eclampsia and parity. There was no correlation with blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), smoking or age. Conclusions The finding of impaired vascular dilatation several years after a pre-eclamptic pregnancy could contribute to the higher risk of cardiovascular disease in these women.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available