4.1 Article

Cerebral white matter lesions after pre-eclampsia

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.preghy.2017.02.001

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Women who have had pre-eclampsia in their previous pregnancies demonstrate a greater prevalence of cerebral white matter lesions several years after the pregnancy than women who have been normotensive during their pregnancy. Both the pathophysiology and the timing of development of these lesions are uncertain. White matter lesions, in the general population, are associated with an increased risk of stroke, dementia and death. Aims and objectives: The objective of the study was to determine the prevalence of cerebral white matter lesions amongst women with severe pre-eclampsia at delivery, 6 months and 1 year postpartum and to establish the possible pathophysiology and risks factors. Methods: This was a longitudinal study performed at Steve Biko Academic Hospital, a tertiary referral hospital in Pretoria South Africa. Ninety-four women with severe pre-eclampsia were identified and recruited during the delivery admission. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain was performed post - delivery and at 6 months and 1 year postpartum. Results: Cerebral white matter lesions were demonstrated in 61.7% of women at delivery, 56.4% at 6 months and 47.9% at 1 year. Majority of the lesions were found in the frontal lobes of the brain. The presence of lesions at 1 year post-delivery was associated with the number of drugs needed to control blood pressure during pregnancy (OR 5.1, 95% CI 2.3-11.3, p < 0.001). The prevalence of WMLs at 1 year was double in women with chronic hypertension at 1 year compared to those women who were normotensive (65.1% vs 32.3%). Conclusion: Women who require 2 or more drugs to control blood pressure during pregnancy have an increased risk of developing cerebral white matter lesions after delivery. (C) 2017 International Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据