4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Prepregnancy body mass index, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and long-term maternal mortality

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.04.043

关键词

body mass index; hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; maternal mortality

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA080197, 2R01CA-080197] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCRR NIH HHS [K23 RR015536-05, K23 RR015536, RR15536-05] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Recent studies have shown increased maternal mortality rates after hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP), but the reasons for this increase remain unclear. This study examines the relationship between elevated prepregnancy body mass index (BMI), HDP, and postpregnancy mortality. Study design: Data came from a 1975-1976 subset (n = 13,722 women) of a population-based cohort. Multiple logistic regression was used to examine the risk of HDP by BMI; age-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine survival rates. Results: Overweight (BMI, 25-29.9 kg/m(2)) and obesity (BMI, >= 30 kg/m(2)) were associated with increased HDP (odds ratio [OR], 2.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.40-3.31 and OR, 5.51; 95% CI, 4.15-7.31]) and decreased survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.83 and HR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.61-3.68), compared with normal weight BMI, 18.5-24.9 kg/m(2)). HDP was significantly associated with increased mortality rates for women who survived >15 years (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.42-2.67]; HR adjusted for BMI, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.19-2.79]). A greater increase in risk of death after HDP was seen in the overweight women (HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.07-3.20) and obese women (HR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.28-6.58), compared with normal weight women (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.74-2.14). Conclusion: Elevated prepregnancy BMI is associated with increased risk of HDP, which are in turn is associated with increased long-term maternal mortality rates. This association between HDP and mortality rates increases with elevated prepregnancy BMI.

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

4.6
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