Hypertension

Defining hypertension in pregnancy is challenging because blood pressure levels in pregnancy are dynamic, having a circadian rhythm and also changing with advancing gestational age. The accepted definition is a sustained systolic (sBP) of ≥140 mmHg or a sustained diastolic blood pressure (dBP) ≥90 mmHg, by office (or in-hospital) measurement. Measurement of blood pressure in pregnancy should follow standardised methods, as outside pregnancy. Blood pressure measurement may occur in three types of settings, which will dictate in part, which measurement device(s) will be used. The settings are (1) health care facility; and two types of settings outside the facility: (2) ‘ambulatory’ blood pressure measurement (ABPM); and (3) home blood pressure measurement (HBPM). Furthermore, blood pressure can be measured using auscultatory (mercury or aneroid devices) or automated methods. Factors to consider when selecting a blood pressure measurement device include validation, disease specificity, observer error and the need for regular recalibration. The accuracy of a device is repeatedly compared to two calibrated mercury sphygmomanometers (the gold standard), by trained observers, over a range of blood pressures and for women with different hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; only a few devices have been validated among women with pre-eclampsia. This chapter discusses the advantages and/or disadvantages of the various settings and devices. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) bear a disproportionate burden of maternal morbidity and mortality from the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. While regular blood pressure monitoring can cost-effectively reduce this disparity, LMIC-health systems face unique challenges that reduce this capacity. Assessment of service gaps and programmatic responses to ensure access to blood pressure measurement are a priority, supported where appropriate by implementation research.Publisher PD

Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Management of the Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: Executive Summary

Objective: This executive summary presents in brief the current evidence assessed in the clinical practice guideline prepared by the Canadian Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy Working Group and published by Pregnancy Hypertension (. http://www.pregnancyhypertension.org/article/S2210-7789(14)00004-X/fulltext) to provide a reasonable approach to the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Evidence: Published literature was retrieved through searches of Medline, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library in March 2012 using appropriate controlled vocabulary (e.g., pregnancy, hypertension, pre-eclampsia, pregnancy toxemias) and key words (e.g., diagnosis, evaluation, classification, prediction, prevention, prognosis, treatment, postpartum follow-up). Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials, controlled clinical trials, and observational studies published in French or English between January 2006 and February 2012. Searches were updated on a regular basis and incorporated in the guideline to September 2013. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology-related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies. Values: The quality of evidence in the guideline summarized here was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventative Health Care (. Table 1)

Less-tight versus tight control of hypertension in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: The effects of less-tight versus tight control of hypertension on pregnancy complications are unclear. METHODS: We performed an open, international, multicenter trial involving women at 14 weeks 0 days to 33 weeks 6 days of gestation who had nonproteinuric preexisting or gestational hypertension, office diastolic blood pressure of 90 to 105 mm Hg (or 85 to 105 mm Hg if the woman was taking antihypertensive medications), and a live fetus. Women were randomly assigned to less-tight control (target diastolic blood pressure, 100 mm Hg) or tight control (target diastolic blood pressure, 85 mm Hg). The composite primary outcome was pregnancy loss or high-level neonatal care for more than 48 hours during the first 28 postnatal days. The secondary outcome was serious maternal complications occurring up to 6 weeks post partum or until hospital discharge, whichever was later. RESULTS: Included in the analysis were 987 women; 74.6% had preexisting hypertension. The primary-outcome rates were similar among 493 women assigned to less-tight control and 488 women assigned to tight control (31.4% and 30.7%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.35), as were the rates of serious maternal complications (3.7% and 2.0%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 1.74; 95% CI, 0.79 to 3.84), despite a mean diastolic blood pressure that was higher in the less-tight-control group by 4.6 mm Hg (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.4). Severe hypertension (≥160/110 mm Hg) developed in 40.6% of the women in the less-tight-control group and 27.5% of the women in the tight-control group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant between-group differences in the risk of pregnancy loss, high-level neonatal care, or overall maternal complications, although less-tight control was associated with a significantly higher frequency of severe maternal hypertension. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; CHIPS Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN71416914; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01192412.)

Influence of gestational age at initiation of antihypertensive therapy: Secondary analysis of CHIPS trial data (control of hypertension in pregnancy study).

For hypertensive women in CHIPS (Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy Study), we assessed whether the maternal benefits of tight control could be achieved, while minimizing any potentially negative effect on fetal growth, by delaying initiation of antihypertensive therapy until later in pregnancy. For the 981 women with nonsevere, chronic or gestational hypertension randomized to less-tight (target diastolic blood pressure, 100 mm Hg), or tight (target, 85 mm Hg) control, we used mixed-effects logistic regression to examine whether the effect of less-tight (versus tight) control on major outcomes was dependent on gestational age at randomization, adjusting for baseline factors as in the primary analysis and including an interaction term between gestational age at randomization and treatment allocation. Gestational age was considered categorically (quartiles) and continuously (linear or quadratic form), and the optimal functional form selected to provide the best fit to the data based on the Akaike information criterion. Randomization before (but not after) 24 weeks to less-tight (versus tight) control was associated with fewer babies with birth weight 48 hours (Pinteraction=0.354). For the mother, less-tight (versus tight) control was associated with more severe hypertension at all gestational ages but particularly so before 28 weeks (Pinteraction=0.076). In women with nonsevere, chronic, or gestational hypertension, there seems to be no gestational age at which less-tight (versus tight) control is the preferred management strategy to optimize maternal or perinatal outcomes

Women's views and postpartum follow-up in the CHIPS Trial (Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy Study).

OBJECTIVE: To compare women's views about blood pressure (BP) control in CHIPS (Control of Hypertension In Pregnancy Study) (NCT01192412). DESIGN: Quantitative and qualitative analysis of questionnaire responses. SETTING: International randomised trial (94 sites, 15 countries). POPULATION/SAMPLE: 911 (92.9%) women randomised to 'tight' (target diastolic blood pressure, 85mmHg) or 'less tight' (target diastolic blood pressure, 100mmHg) who completed questionnaires. METHODS: A questionnaire was administered at ∼6-12 weeks postpartum regarding post-discharge morbidity and views about trial participation. Questionnaires were administered by the site co-ordinator, and contact was made by phone, home or clinic visit; rarely, data was collected from medical records. Quantitative analyses were Chi-square or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, mixed effects multinomial logistic regression to adjust for confounders, and p<0.001 for statistical significance. NVivo software was used for thematic analysis of women's views. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Satisfaction, measured as willingness to have the same treatment in another pregnancy or recommend that treatment to a friend. RESULTS: Among the 533 women in 'tight' (N=265) vs. 'less tight' (N=268) control who provided comments for qualitative analysis, women in 'tight' (vs. 'less tight') control made fewer positive comments about the amount of medication taken (5 vs. 28 women, respectively) and intensity of BP monitoring (7 vs. 17, respectively). However, this did not translate into less willingness to either have the same treatment in another pregnancy (434, 95.8% vs. 423, 92.4%, respectively; p=0.14) or recommend that treatment to a friend (435, 96.0% and 428, 93.4%, respectively; p=0.17). Importantly, although satisfaction remained high among women with an adverse outcome, those in 'tight' control who suffered an adverse outcome (vs. those who did not) were not consistently less satisfied, whereas this was not the case among women in 'less tight' control among whom satisfaction was consistently lower for the CHIPS primary outcome (p<0.001), severe hypertension (p≤0.01), and pre-eclampsia (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Women in 'tight' (vs. 'less tight') control were equally satisfied with their care, and more so in the face of adverse perinatal or maternal outcomes

Brief psychosocial education, not core stabilization, reduced incidence of low back pain: results from the Prevention of Low Back Pain in the Military (POLM) cluster randomized trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Effective strategies for the primary prevention of low back pain (LBP) remain elusive with few large-scale clinical trials investigating exercise and education approaches. The purpose of this trial was to determine whether core stabilization alone or in combination with psychosocial education prevented incidence of low back pain in comparison to traditional lumbar exercise.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The Prevention of Low Back Pain in the Military study was a cluster randomized clinical study with four intervention arms and a two-year follow-up. Participants were recruited from a military training setting from 2007 to 2008. Soldiers in 20 consecutive companies were considered for eligibility (n = 7,616). Of those, 1,741 were ineligible and 1,550 were eligible but refused participation. For the 4,325 Soldiers enrolled with no previous history of LBP average age was 22.0 years (SD = 4.2) and there were 3,082 males (71.3%). Companies were randomly assigned to receive traditional lumbar exercise, traditional lumbar exercise with psychosocial education, core stabilization exercise, or core stabilization with psychosocial education, The psychosocial education session occurred during one session and the exercise programs were done daily for 5 minutes over 12 weeks. The primary outcome for this trial was incidence of low back pain resulting in the seeking of health care.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were no adverse events reported. Evaluable patient analysis (4,147/4,325 provided data) indicated no differences in low back incidence resulting in the seeking of health care between those receiving the traditional exercise and core stabilization exercise programs. However, brief psychosocial education prevented low back pain episodes regardless of the assigned exercise approach, resulting in a 3.3% (95% CI: 1.1 to 5.5%) decrease over two years (numbers needed to treat (NNT) = 30.3, 95% CI = 18.2 to 90.9).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Core stabilization has been advocated as preventative, but offered no such benefit when compared to traditional lumbar exercise in this trial. Instead, a brief psychosocial education program that reduced fear and threat of low back pain decreased incidence of low back pain resulting in the seeking of health care. Since this trial was conducted in a military setting, future studies are necessary to determine if these findings can be translated into civilian populations.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p><a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00373009">NCT00373009</a> at ClinicalTrials.gov - <url>http://clinicaltrials.gov/</url></p

Inadequate prenatal care and its association with adverse pregnancy outcomes: A comparison of indices

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The objectives of this study were to determine rates of prenatal care utilization in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada from 1991 to 2000; to compare two indices of prenatal care utilization in identifying the proportion of the population receiving inadequate prenatal care; to determine the association between inadequate prenatal care and adverse pregnancy outcomes (preterm birth, low birth weight [LBW], and small-for-gestational age [SGA]), using each of the indices; and, to assess whether or not, and to what extent, gestational age modifies this association.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a population-based study of women having a hospital-based singleton live birth from 1991 to 2000 (N = 80,989). Data sources consisted of a linked mother-baby database and a physician claims file maintained by Manitoba Health. Rates of inadequate prenatal care were calculated using two indices, the R-GINDEX and the APNCU. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the association between inadequate prenatal care and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Stratified analysis was then used to determine whether the association between inadequate prenatal care and LBW or SGA differed by gestational age.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Rates of inadequate/no prenatal care ranged from 8.3% using APNCU to 8.9% using R-GINDEX. The association between inadequate prenatal care and preterm birth and LBW varied depending on the index used, with adjusted odds ratios (AOR) ranging from 1.0 to 1.3. In contrast, both indices revealed the same strength of association of inadequate prenatal care with SGA (AOR 1.4). Both indices demonstrated heterogeneity (non-uniformity) across gestational age strata, indicating the presence of effect modification by gestational age.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Selection of a prenatal care utilization index requires careful consideration of its methodological underpinnings and limitations. The two indices compared in this study revealed different patterns of utilization of prenatal care, and should not be used interchangeably. Use of these indices to study the association between utilization of prenatal care and pregnancy outcomes affected by the duration of pregnancy should be approached cautiously.</p