4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

End-tidal carbon monoxide measurements in women with pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
Volume 183, Issue 4, Pages 900-903

Publisher

MOSBY, INC
DOI: 10.1067/mob.2000.109047

Keywords

hypertension; preeclampsia; carbon monoxide; smoking

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the end-tidal carbon monoxide breath levels in pregnant women with and without pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia. STUDY DESIGN: We prospectively performed end-tidal carbon monoxide measurements corrected for ambient carbon monoxide in nonsmoking women during late gestation (>31 weeks). The study group included 22 women with pregnancy-induced hypertension or symptoms of preeclampsia and a control group of 20 normotensive pregnant women. RESULTS: The carbon monoxide measurements corrected for ambient carbon monoxide (mean +/- SD) were significantly lower(P < .01) in the hypertensive group than in the control group (1.17 0.35 vs 1.70 +/- 0.54 ppm). The study group had a significantly higher number of low (<1.2 ppm) end-tidal carbon monoxide measurements corrected for ambient carbon monoxide (13 [59.1%] vs 1 [5.0%]; P < .001). The end-tidal carbon monoxide measurements corrected for ambient carbon monoxide remained significantly lower in comparison with those found in the control group when the study group was divided into women with pregnancy-induced hypertension only (n = 11) and those with preeclampsia (n = 11) (1.19 +/- 0.37 ppm; P < .01;and 1.15 0.41 ppm; P < .01; respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that carbon monoxide formation may be significantly lower in women with pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia. These data suggest that carbon monoxide could have a contributory role in the apparent paradox of the seemingly protective effect of smoking to decrease the risk of preeclampsia.

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