Preconception Cardiovascular Risk Factor Differences Between Gestational Hypertension and Preeclampsia
- Other version(s) of this article
You are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions:
Abstract
Preconception predictors of gestational hypertension and preeclampsia may identify opportunities for early detection and improve our understanding of the pathogenesis and life course epidemiology of these conditions. Female participants in community-based Cohort Norway health surveys, 1994 to 2003, were prospectively followed through 2012 via record linkages to Medical Birth Registry of Norway. Analyses included 13 217 singleton pregnancies (average of 1.59 births to 8321 women) without preexisting hypertension. Outcomes were gestational hypertension without proteinuria (n=237) and preeclampsia (n=429). Mean age (SD) at baseline was 27.9 years (4.5), and median follow-up was 4.8 years (interquartile range 2.6–7.8). Gestational hypertension and preeclampsia shared several baseline risk factors: family history of diabetes mellitus, pregravid diabetes mellitus, a high total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio (>5), overweight and obesity, and elevated blood pressure status. For preeclampsia, a family history of myocardial infarction before 60 years of age and elevated triglyceride levels (≥1.7 mmol/L) also predicted risk while physical activity was protective. Preterm preeclampsia was predicted by past-year binge drinking (≥5 drinks on one occasion) with an adjusted odds ratio of 3.7 (95% confidence interval 1.3–10.8) and by past-year physical activity of ≥3 hours per week with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.5 (95% confidence interval 0.3–0.8). The results suggest similarities and important differences between gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, and preterm preeclampsia. Modifiable risk factors could be targeted for improving pregnancy outcomes and the short- and long-term sequelae for mothers and offspring.
Introduction
Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are prevalent complications and include preexisting chronic hypertension, gestational hypertension and preeclampsia, and preeclampsia superimposed on chronic hypertension.1 Among these conditions, preeclampsia associates with the most significant immediate risks to offspring and mother,1,2 increases women’s long-term risk of end-stage renal disease,3 and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.4–8 Preeclampsia is conceptualized into 2 primary stages: the first being altered placental perfusion as a result of abnormal early trophoblast growth and differentiation, poor placentation, or other pathologies and the second involving maternal responses to placental factors excreted because of a dysfunctional placenta.9–17 Further, the pathophysiology of preterm and late-onset preeclampsia may differ with poor placentation being more important for preterm than term preeclampsia.18
Preexisting cardiovascular risk factors may identify women at risk for de novo hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, where pregnancy acts as a metabolic and vascular stress test for women with underlying acquired or genetic predispositions.19 Gestational hypertension and preeclampsia and term and preterm preeclampsia may have important etiologic differences, but no study to date has compared the preconception risk factor differences between these outcomes. We, therefore, evaluated the extent of differences and similarities in the pregravid cardiovascular risk factors associated with gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, and preterm preeclampsia using a prospective study design linking regional health surveys with subsequent pregnancies identified in the Norwegian Medical Birth Registry.
We are aware of only 2 earlier studies, of substantially smaller sample sizes, that evaluated preconception risk factors for their ability to predict preeclampsia.20,21 As these studies had discrepant findings, perhaps owing to the smaller sample sizes, the current analyses provide a more robust evaluation of preconception risk factors. Also, the current study provides novel preconception risk factor information regarding physical activity and binge drinking and is unique in the literature for its evaluation of preconception differences and similarities in risk factors for gestational hypertension and preeclampsia.
Methods
Participants in Cohort Norway (CONOR) health surveys (1994–2003) were linked, using a national identification number, to the Medical Birth Registry of Norway for births subsequent to CONOR participation (through to December 31, 2012). The Materials and Methods in the online-only Data Supplement provides additional details and the study design figure. The reproductive-aged women from CONOR health surveys22 came from 3 regions (24.2% from Oslo, 49.9% from Nord-Trøndelag, and 21.3% from Troms). An earlier study evaluated pregravid risk factors in 3494 women in Nord-Trøndelag: a subset of the current analyses.21 The majority of CONOR participants were ethnic Norwegians, but only 61.9% of women of reproductive age in Oslo surveys were born in Norway, given an immigrant survey component, in contrast to 97.5% in Nord-Trøndelag and 95.0% in Troms.
Record linkages identified 17 320 births with a mother that participated in CONOR before delivery (Figure S1 in the online-only Data Supplement). Exclusions included preexisting hypertension, nonviable births, mother pregnant during or delivered <1 year before CONOR participation, and multiple birth pregnancies, resulting in 13 217 singleton births for analyses (representing 8321 women; 1.59 births/woman).
CONOR Assessments
Assessments included height and weight, past-year leisure-time light and vigorous physical activity,23 alcohol consumption frequency and binge drinking,24 blood pressure, nonfasting lipids,22 and a family history of diabetes mellitus, stroke, or myocardial infarction before 60 years of age in first-degree relatives. Analyses used the average of the last 2 of 3 systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings taken by an automatic device (DINAMAP, Criticon, Tampa, FL). Binge drinking was defined as ≥5 drinks/d at least once in the past year. Those who reported drinking alcohol but who did not answer the binge drinking question were assigned to a nonresponse category. Binge drinking frequency was also evaluated (none, 1–5, and ≥6 binges in past year). Binge drinking was not assessed in Nord-Trøndelag; otherwise, missing data were low (<0.1%) for the majority of parameters, with the exception of physical activity (7%) and smoking (5%).
Definition of Outcomes
Gestational hypertension was defined as hypertension diagnosis after 20 weeks of gestation (systolic BP ≥140 mm Hg or a diastolic BP ≥90 mm Hg, or both). Preeclampsia diagnosis required the additional presence of proteinuria (≥0.3 g in 24 hour urine or ≥1 point increase on a urinary dipstick).25 Term and preterm preeclampsia were defined based on gestational age at delivery (≥37 or <37 weeks or when gestational age was missing (n=287/13 217), having a birth weight ≥2500 g or <2500 g. Gestational age was determined by ultrasound for 80.0%, last menstrual period for 17.8%, and birth weight for remaining 2.2% of pregnancies.
Statistical Methods
Descriptive characteristics are reported as mean (SD) and percent. Multivariable multinomial logistic regression analyses provided odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of characteristics for their prediction of gestational hypertension and preeclampsia and in a separate analyses of term and preterm preeclampsia. Multivariable models included parity (0, 1, or 2+), length of follow-up, baseline age (years), daily smoking (yes versus no), pregravid diabetes mellitus, and a history of gestational hypertension or preeclampsia in a prior pregnancy (obtained via record linkages to pre-CONOR pregnancies), educational level (≤12, 13–16, ≥17 years), marital status (married/common law partner versus other), and region of survey (Oslo versus other). Mother’s pseudo-ID was entered as a cluster variable. When lipids were evaluated, oral contraceptive use was added to the multivariable model.
Each potential additional risk factor was evaluated separately with the above mentioned parameters. Risk factors evaluated included physical activity (≥3 hours per week of light or vigorous activity on average in the past year), body mass index classifications (<25, 25–29.9, and ≥30 kg/m2), oral contraceptive use (yes versus no), alcohol consumption frequency (≥1/week, 1–3 times/month, and <1/month which included abstainers), binge drinking, a high total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol ratio (≥5 versus lower), a high triglyceride level (≥1.7 mmol/L versus lower), and blood pressure status (normal: systolic BP <130 mm Hg and diastolic BP <85 mm Hg; elevated: systolic BP 130–139 mm Hg or diastolic BP 85–89 mm Hg; hypertensive: systolic BP ≥140 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥90 mm Hg). Family history of chronic diseases was evaluated in unadjusted analyses. Selected postestimation tests were conducted to evaluate whether differences in regression coefficients between outcome groups were statistically significant. Stata 12 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX) was used in analyses; significance was determined by P<0.05.
Sensitivity Analyses
Three sensitivity analyses were conducted: (1) restricted to those with a follow-up <7.2 years (approximately the 70th percentile); (2) restricted to nulliparous women; and (3) for preterm preeclampsia, restricted to preterm births.
Results
Average age (SD) at the time of the baseline CONOR assessment was 27.9 years (4.5). At baseline, 24.1% patients had a higher education, 21.3% were married or had a common law partner, and 55.9% engaged in physical activity of ≥3 hours per week (Table 1). The median follow-up was 4.8 years (interquartile range 2.6–7.8; maximum 17.5 years). A total of 666 (5.0%) pregnancies were affected by either gestational hypertension (without proteinuria) or preeclampsia, of whom 114 were preterm and 315 term preeclampsia. Only 23 of 237 gestational hypertensive pregnancies resulted in preterm deliveries. The percent small-for-gestational age by sex (<10th percentile) was 16.5%, 36.8%, and 14.0% for gestational hypertension, preterm, and term preeclampsia groups, respectively, and the percent very small-for-gestational age (<2.5th percentile) was 5.9%, 14.9%, and 3.8%, for the 3 groups, respectively.
| Baseline Characteristics: | Mean (SD) or % |
|---|---|
| Age, y | 27.9 (4.5) |
| Current daily smoking, % | 27.1 |
| Education % | |
| ≤12 y | 46.1 |
| 13–16 y | 29.8 |
| ≥17 y | 24.1 |
| Married, % | 21.3 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 23.9 (3.8) |
| Systolic blood pressure, mm Hg | 118.9 (10.9) |
| Diastolic blood pressure, mm Hg | 68.9 (8.4) |
| Total cholesterol, mmol/L | 4.90 (0.92) |
| HDL cholesterol, mmol/L | 1.54 (0.36) |
| Triglyceride, mmol/L | 1.14 (0.68) |
| Physical activity (≥3 h/wk in past year), % | 55.9 |
| Weekly past-year alcohol consumption, % | 22.2 |
| Binge drinkers (≥5 drinks/d at least once in past year), %† | 63.6 |
A family history of diabetes mellitus and women’s pregravid diabetes mellitus predicted both gestational hypertension and preeclampsia, whereas a family history of myocardial infarction before 60 years of age predicted preeclampsia, but not gestational hypertension (postestimation test for differences in coefficients, P=0.053; Table 2). A family history of stroke predicted the combined outcome of gestational hypertension or preeclampsia (OR 1.5; 95% CI: 1.02–2.10), with similar but nonsignificant ORs noted for the 2 outcomes separately evaluated (Table 2).
| N | G. Hypertension† (n=237) | Preeclampsia‡ (n=429) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cases | OR (95% CI)§ | Cases | OR(95% CI)§ | ||
| Family history in first-degree relatives | |||||
| Diabetes mellitus | |||||
| No | 12 386 | 209 | 1.0 | 389 | 1.0 |
| Yes | 831 | 28 | 2.1 (1.39–3.09) | 40 | 1.6 (1.12–2.25) |
| Cerebrovascular stroke | |||||
| No | 12 666 | 223 | 1.0 | 404 | 1.0 |
| Yes | 551 | 14 | 1.5 (0.85–2.55) | 25 | 1.5 (0.95–2.24) |
| Myocardial infarction before 60 y | |||||
| No | 12 099 | 216 | 1.0 | 370 | 1.0 |
| Yes | 1118 | 21 | 1.1 (0.69–1.70) | 59 | 1.8 (1.31–2.39)‖ |
| Women’s prepregnancy diabetes mellitus¶ | |||||
| No | 13 138 | 233 | 1.0 | 422 | 1.0 |
| Yes | 79 | 4 | 3.2 (1.14–8.68) | 7 | 3.1 (1.43–6.49) |
Physical activity was protective for preeclampsia (OR 0.8; 95% CI 0.61–0.97) and particularly for preterm preeclampsia (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.32–0.76), but not for gestational hypertension (Table 3). Body mass index classifications and baseline hypertensive status predicted both outcomes, albeit with stronger effects noted for gestational hypertension than for preeclampsia (postestimation tests, P<0.05). Further, the Oslo region had a greater risk of gestational hypertension (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.38–2.67) than the other regions, but no regional differences in preeclampsia were noted. Baseline educational attainment, marital status, smoking, and oral contraceptive use were not significantly related to gestational hypertension or preeclampsia (Table 3). A high total cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio predicted both gestational hypertension and preeclampsia. In contrast, an elevated triglyceride level only predicted preeclampsia.
| N | G. Hypertension† (n=237) | Preeclampsia‡ (n=429) | Preterm Preeclampsia§ (n=114) | Term Preeclampsia‖ (n=315) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cases | OR (95% CI)¶ | Cases | OR (95% CI)¶ | Cases | OR (95% CI)¶ | Cases | OR (95% CI)¶ | ||
| Physical activity (past year) | |||||||||
| Not active | 5425 | 92 | 1.0 | 190 | 1.0 | 62 | 1.0 | 128 | 1.0 |
| Active (≥3 h/wk) | 6869 | 131 | 1.1 (0.8–1.40) | 209 | 0.8 (0.61–0.97) | 45 | 0.5 (0.32–0.76)# | 164 | 0.9 (0.70–1.19) |
| BMI classifications, kg/m2 | |||||||||
| <25 | 9266 | 120 | 1.0 | 248 | 1.0 | 71 | 1.0 | 177 | 1.0 |
| 25–29.9 | 3037 | 69 | 1.8 (1.31–2.56) | 127 | 1.7 (1.32–2.18) | 25 | 1.2 (0.69–1.92) | 102 | 1.9 (1.46–2.52) |
| ≥30 | 869 | 46 | 4.2 (2.86–6.21) | 50 | 2.0 (1.35–3.02)** | 16 | 2.2 (1.13–4.09) | 34 | 2.0 (1.21–3.14) |
| Education | |||||||||
| ≤12 y | 6019 | 105 | 1.0 | 189 | 1.0 | 51 | 1.0 | 138 | 1.0 |
| 13–16 y | 3882 | 56 | 0.7 (0.47–0.99) | 128 | 0.9 (0.66–1.14) | 30 | 0.7 (0.43–1.24) | 98 | 0.9 (0.68–1.24) |
| ≥17 y | 3149 | 72 | 0.9 (0.66–1.42) | 102 | 0.8 (0.56–1.09) | 29 | 0.8 (0.45–1.39) | 73 | 0.8 (0.53–1.14) |
| Smoking daily | |||||||||
| No | 9194 | 173 | 1.0 | 305 | 1.0 | 80 | 1.0 | 225 | 1.0 |
| Yes | 3415 | 50 | 0.8 (0.56–1.08) | 95 | 0.8 (0.56–1.08) | 29 | 0.8 (0.46–1.27) | 66 | 0.8 (0.58–1.02) |
| Marital status | |||||||||
| Single, divorced | 10 348 | 181 | 1.0 | 352 | 1.0 | 88 | 1.0 | 264 | 1.0 |
| Married | 2799 | 56 | 1.3 (0.90–1.95) | 74 | 1.0 (0.70–1.32) | 24 | 1.0 (0.59–1.68) | 50 | 1.0 (0.67–1.38) |
| Region | |||||||||
| Other | 10 023 | 148 | 1.0 | 311 | 1.0 | 78 | 1.0 | 233 | 1.0 |
| Oslo | 3194 | 89 | 1.9 (1.38–2.67) | 118 | 1.1 (0.80–1.38) | 36 | 1.3 (0.81 – 2.13) | 82 | 1.0 (0.70 – 1.33) |
| Blood pressure status†† | |||||||||
| Normotensive | 10 977 | 140 | 1.0 | 287 | 1.0 | 78 | 1.0 | 209 | 1.0 |
| Elevated | 1577 | 50 | 2.7 (1.90–3.90) | 87 | 2.1 (1.57–2.87) | 19 | 1.6 (0.91–2.93) | 68 | 2.3 (1.66–3.23) |
| Hypertensive | 615 | 46 | 7.1 (4.84–10.44) | 54 | 3.5 (2.48–4.97)# | 17 | 3.8 (2.04–7.08) | 37 | 3.4 (2.32–5.01)# |
| Triglyceride** | |||||||||
| <1.7 mmol/L | 9014 | 172 | 1.0 | 263 | 1.0 | 72 | 1.0 | 191 | 1.0 |
| ≥1.7 mmol/L | 1388 | 33 | 1.3 (0.84–2.03) | 86 | 2.4 (1.71–3.30) | 22 | 2.3 (1.29–4.07) | 64 | 2.4 (1.65–3.52) |
| Chol/HDL ratio** | |||||||||
| <5.0 | 12 417 | 214 | 1.0 | 382 | 1.0 | 97 | 1.0 | 285 | 1.0 |
| ≥5.0 | 769 | 23 | 1.9 (1.11–3.10) | 44 | 1.8 (1.17–2.84) | 15 | 2.4 (1.24–4.65) | 29 | 1.6 (0.94–2.85) |
| Oral contraceptive use | |||||||||
| No | 7610 | 137 | 1.0 | 250 | 1.0 | 63 | 1.0 | 187 | 1.0 |
| Yes | 4061 | 73 | 1.1 (0.77–1.45) | 136 | 1.0 (0.75–1.26) | 35 | 1.1 (0.71–1.81) | 101 | 0.9 (0.69 – 1.25) |
| Alcohol frequency | |||||||||
| Less than monthly | 3306 | 59 | 1.0 | 110 | 1.0 | 27 | 1.0 | 83 | 1.0 |
| Occasional | 6800 | 120 | 1.0 (0.68–1.36) | 230 | 0.9 (0.70–1.17) | 67 | 1.2 (0.73–1.90) | 163 | 0.8 (0.61–1.10) |
| Weekly | 2880 | 55 | 0.9 (0.48–1.39) | 85 | 0.7 (0.48–0.95) | 18 | 0.7 (0.32–1.36) | 67 | 0.7 (0.47–0.99) |
Weekly alcohol consumption relative to none or less than once a month was associated with lower risk of preeclampsia (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.48–0.95) and term preeclampsia (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.47–0.99; Table 3). In the analyses limited to the subcohort with available binge drinking data, weekly alcohol consumption (adjusted for binge drinking and other covariates) was associated with an OR for preeclampsia of 0.5 (95% CI 0.27–0.78) with a stronger protective effect noted for preterm preeclampsia (Table 4). Binge drinking (adjusted for alcohol consumption frequency and other covariates) was associated with increased risk of preeclampsia (OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.16–2.92) with an especially strong association noted for preterm preeclampsia (OR 3.7; 95% CI 1.25–10.78). However, there was no evidence for a binge frequency dose–response effect given that the OR associated with 1 to 5 binges was the same as that associated with ≥6 binges in the past year (Table 4).
| N | G. Hypertension† (n=133) | Preeclampsia‡ (n=211) | Preterm Preeclampsia§ (n=56) | Term Preeclampsia‖ (n=155) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cases | OR (95% CI)¶ | Cases | OR (95% CI)¶ | Cases | OR (95% CI)¶ | Cases | OR (95% CI)¶ | |||
| Alcohol Frequency | ||||||||||
| Less than monthly | 1748 | 36 | 1.0 | 53 | 1.0 | 15 | 1.0 | 38 | 1.0 | |
| Occasional | 2871 | 60 | 0.9 (0.51–1.57) | 106 | 0.8 (0.55–1.28) | 31 | 0.9 (0.32–2.27) | 75 | 0.8 (0.53–1.30) | |
| Weekly | 1869 | 37 | 0.8 (0.40–1.42) | 52 | 0.5 (0.27–0.78) | 10 | 0.3 (0.09–0.92) | 42 | 0.5 (0.30–0.96) | |
| Binge drinking# | ||||||||||
| None | 1297 | 27 | 1.0 | 28 | 1.0 | 5 | 1.0 | 23 | 1.0 | |
| Yes | 4125 | 87 | 1.0 (0.60–1.78) | 152 | 1.8 (1.16–2.92) | 41 | 3.7 (1.25–10.78)** | 111 | 1.5 (0.89–2.45) | |
| Nonresponders | 1066 | 19 | 0.7 (0.32–1.32) | 31 | 1.5 (0.86–2.71) | 10 | 2.8 (0.78–10.06) | 21 | 1.2 (0.63–2.37) | |
| Binge drinking frequency†† | ||||||||||
| None | 1297 | 27 | 1.0 | 28 | 1.0 | 5 | 1.0 | 23 | 1.0 | |
| 1–5 times past year | 1173 | 27 | 0.9 (0.45–1.64) | 45 | 1.8 (1.06–3.12) | 14 | 3.7 (1.09–12.36)** | 31 | 1.5 (0.83–2.71) | |
| ≥6 times past year | 2952 | 60 | 1.2 (0.65–2.12) | 107 | 1.8 (1.09–2.94) | 27 | 3.7 (1.22–11.02) | 80 | 1.5 (0.85–2.53) | |
Sensitivity Analyses
The adverse effects of binge drinking for preterm preeclampsia remained significant when analyses were restricted to preterm births (n=703; OR 3.2; 95% CI 1.07–9.57), restricted to pregnancies occurring within 7.2 years of follow-up (n=9419; OR 3.8; 95% CI 1.11–12.81), and when restricted to nulliparous women (n=3975; OR 4.5; 95% CI 1.15–17.30).
In contrast, the protective effect of weekly alcohol consumption was not consistently observed in the sensitivity analyses (ie, a protective association was noted when restricting analyses to within 7.2 years of follow-up, but not when restricting analyses to nulliparous women or to preterm deliveries).
The protective effect of physical activity for preterm preeclampsia, however, persisted in analyses limited to nulliparous pregnancies (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.28–0.85); to those with a follow-up within 7.2 years (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.33–0.89); and to preterm deliveries (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.30–0.81). Further, the majority of all results reported remained unaltered in the sensitivity analyses with the exception that in nulliparous pregnancies, a history of oral contraceptive use predicted gestational hypertension (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.16–3.01).
Discussion
The results presented provide evidence of similarities and potentially important differences in predisposing factors for gestational hypertension and preeclampsia and preterm preeclampsia. Gestational hypertension and preeclampsia shared several baseline risk factors: a family history of diabetes mellitus, pregravid diabetes mellitus, baseline blood pressure status, obesity, a high total cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio, and a nonsignificant tendency to have a family history of stroke. Preeclampsia, however, was also predicted by a family history of myocardial infarction before 60 years of age, physical inactivity, an elevated triglyceride level, and binge drinking.
The notable adverse association of binge drinking with preterm preeclampsia in the current study mirrors the deleterious cardiovascular disease effects of heavy or binge drinking noted in the literature.24,26–28 Biologically plausible mechanisms for the observed association between binge drinking and increased risk of preterm preeclampsia, but not gestational hypertension or term preeclampsia, likely relate to alcohol’s impairment of placentation and utero-placental growth and function through a variety of mechanisms.29–32
There are only a few studies that report on alcohol consumption’s association with preeclampsia. In the Screening for Pregnancy End points study of 5628 participants, early pregnancy alcohol consumption including binge drinking was not associated with preeclampsia or any other adverse outcome.33 In a large study of over 1 million singleton birth in Missouri, binge drinking was not accessed, but 1 to 2 drinks per week was associated with a lower multivariable adjusted OR for preeclampsia (OR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74–0.90).34 Further, in an evaluation of blood pressure in pregnancy, those reporting light alcohol drinking during pregnancy were reported to have significantly lower blood pressure.35 Although our study found reduced risk of preeclampsia associated with preconception weekly alcohol consumption, the results were not consistent in our sensitivity analyses. In contrast, our findings that preconception past-year binge drinking was associated with increased risk of preterm preeclampsia were consistently observed in all subsequent sensitivity analyses. We did not, however, observe a dose–response effect related to past-year binge drinking frequency. We speculate that there may have been reluctance to report the frequency of binge drinking in the current study or that binge drinking is a marker for other risk factors not measured.
The protective association of physical activity with preterm preeclampsia may reflect several protective underlying mechanisms beyond weight management, such as reduced inflammation and oxidative stress and improved endothelial function and placental growth and vascular development.36 The preponderance of evidence suggests physical activity is protective of preeclampsia with a few notable exceptions.37
Our lipid results indicate that nonfasting lipid levels are useful in predicting preeclampsia and gestational hypertension and note that nonfasting lipid levels have been successfully used in cardiovascular research.38,39 In the previous prospective study in Norway, which forms a subset of our current study, cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and nonHDL cholesterol were positively related to preeclampsia but trends associated with serum triglyceride quintiles were nonsignificant.21 In Finland, triglycerides were associated with increased risk of preeclampsia but not cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, or HDL cholesterol.20 Our lipid results corroborate the preponderance of existing evidence that elevated triglyceride levels is a risk factor for preeclampsia40 and identified that a high total cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio was a shared risk factor for gestational hypertension and preeclampsia. Nonfasting triglyceride levels reflect exposures to atherogenic remnant lipoproteins39 and elevated triglyceride levels associate with small, dense low-density lipoprotein cholesterol,41,42 which is readily oxidized. Of relevance to preeclampsia is that oxidized low-density lipoprotein inhibits the fetal trophoblast invasion of the uterus.43 Thus, further investigation of the role of derangements in lipid metabolism in preeclampsia is warranted.
Obesity was an important risk factor for gestational hypertension and preeclampsia as expected. However, our postestimation test for equality in coefficients identified that obesity was a significantly stronger predictor of gestational hypertension than preeclampsia, highlighting that for preeclampsia, there are other factors that increase risk.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths of the current study include the large population-based cohort with uniformly assessed preconception risk factors and complete linkage to the Medical Birth Registry: strengths which contribute to the generalizability of the study. Further, the national healthcare system in Norway and our multivariate adjustment for educational and marital status and region are strengths of the study in that they minimize the possibility for disparities in the adequacy of prenatal care to influence results. Also, self-reported alcohol consumption data were obtained before pregnancy and would, therefore, not be influenced by under-reporting associated with the stigma of drinking during pregnancy. However, we recognize that under-reporting of alcohol consumption is also possible in nonpregnant study populations. Limitations of the study include the lack of information of fasting glucose or HbA1C, apolipoproteins, urine samples, and family history of hypertension. Other limitations include the largely ethnic Norwegian study population and inability to generalize to more ethnically diverse populations. Further, changes in risk factors over time could not be assessed. In our study, smoking had a nonsignificant association with a lower risk of preeclampsia in multivariable analyses, with the observed OR of 0.8 being greater than the anticipated OR of 0.5.44 However, because of the sharp decline in smoking in women in Norway over the past decade, the attenuated smoking association may result from misclassification, where smokers identified in CONOR would be less likely to be smokers at the time of their subsequent pregnancy.
Perspectives
The study suggests similarities and some potentially important differences between risk factors for gestational hypertension and preeclampsia and between preterm and term preeclampsia. The results are intriguing given the lifetime increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality observed in women with a history of preeclampsia.4–8 Further, although the majority of prospective studies of long-term consequences have focused on preeclampsia, an 18-year follow-up of mothers found that women with a history of gestational hypertension had similar predicted 10-year cardiovascular disease risk based on the Framingham score as women with a history of preeclampsia.45 Our findings support the hypotheses that pregnancy unmasks predisposing familial and modifiable cardiometabolic risk. However, in the current study, a greater number of risk factors predicted preeclampsia than gestational hypertension. The presence of risk factors in women of reproductive age could help clinicians identify women needing greater clinical monitoring and lifestyle changes. Promoting better lifestyles in women of reproductive age would be advantageous for preventing the short- and long-term outcomes associated with hypertension disorders of pregnancy.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the CONOR Steering Committee and research teams which contributed the majority of participants for analyses: The Tromsø Study (IV and V), Troms and Finnmark Health Study (TROFINN), Oslo Health and Immigrant Health Study (HUBRO and I-HUBRO), and HUNT II Study, Nord-Trøndelag. We also thank Hordaland Health Study (HUSK) and Oppland and Hedmark Health Study (OPPHED).
Disclosures
None.
Footnotes
References
- 1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Task Force on Hypertension in Pregnancy. Hypertension in pregnancy. Report of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Task Force on Hypertension in Pregnancy.Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 122:1122–1131.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
- 2.
Steegers EA, von Dadelszen P, Duvekot JJ, Pijnenborg R . Pre-eclampsia.Lancet. 2010; 376:631–644. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60279-6.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 3.
Vikse BE, Irgens LM, Leivestad T, Skjaerven R, Iversen BM . Preeclampsia and the risk of end-stage renal disease.N Engl J Med. 2008; 359:800–809. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0706790.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 4.
Skjaerven R, Wilcox AJ, Klungsøyr K, Irgens LM, Vikse BE, Vatten LJ, Lie RT . Cardiovascular mortality after pre-eclampsia in one child mothers: prospective, population based cohort study.BMJ. 2012; 345:e7677.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 5.
Smith GC, Pell JP, Walsh D . Pregnancy complications and maternal risk of ischaemic heart disease: a retrospective cohort study of 129,290 births.Lancet. 2001; 357:2002–2006. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)05112-6.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 6.
Bellamy L, Casas JP, Hingorani AD, Williams DJ . Pre-eclampsia and risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer in later life: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ. 2007; 335:974. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39335.385301.BE.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 7.
Valdés G, Quezada F, Marchant E, von Schultzendorff A, Morán S, Padilla O, Martínez A . Association of remote hypertension in pregnancy with coronary artery disease: a case-control study.Hypertension. 2009; 53:733–738. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.108.127068.LinkGoogle Scholar - 8.
Melchiorre K, Sutherland GR, Liberati M, Thilaganathan B . Preeclampsia is associated with persistent postpartum cardiovascular impairment.Hypertension. 2011; 58:709–715. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.111.176537.LinkGoogle Scholar - 9.
Redman CW, Staff AC . Preeclampsia, biomarkers, syncytiotrophoblast stress, and placental capacity.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 213(4 suppl):S9.e1–e4. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.08.003.CrossrefGoogle Scholar - 10.
Burton GJ, Woods AW, Jauniaux E, Kingdom JC . Rheological and physiological consequences of conversion of the maternal spiral arteries for uteroplacental blood flow during human pregnancy.Placenta. 2009; 30:473–482. doi: 10.1016/j.placenta.2009.02.009.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 11.
Levine RJ, Maynard SE, Qian C, Lim KH, England LJ, Yu KF, Schisterman EF, Thadhani R, Sachs BP, Epstein FH, Sibai BM, Sukhatme VP, Karumanchi SA . Circulating angiogenic factors and the risk of preeclampsia.N Engl J Med. 2004; 350:672–683. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa031884.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 12.
van der Graaf AM, Toering TJ, Faas MM, Lely AT . From preeclampsia to renal disease: a role of angiogenic factors and the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system?Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012; 27(suppl 3):iii51–iii57.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 13.
Lynch AM, Eckel RH, Murphy JR, Gibbs RS, West NA, Giclas PC, Salmon JE, Holers VM . Prepregnancy obesity and complement system activation in early pregnancy and the subsequent development of preeclampsia.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 206:428.e1–428.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.02.035.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 14.
Zavalza-Gómez AB . Obesity and oxidative stress: a direct link to preeclampsia?Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011; 283:415–422. doi: 10.1007/s00404-010-1753-1.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 15.
Andraweera PH, Dekker GA, Roberts CT . The vascular endothelial growth factor family in adverse pregnancy outcomes.Hum Reprod Update. 2012; 18:436–457. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dms011.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 16.
Kenny LC, Black MA, Poston L, Taylor R, Myers JE, Baker PN, McCowan LM, Simpson NA, Dekker GA, Roberts CT, Rodems K, Noland B, Raymundo M, Walker JJ, North RA . Early pregnancy prediction of preeclampsia in nulliparous women, combining clinical risk and biomarkers: the Screening for Pregnancy Endpoints (SCOPE) International Cohort Study.Hypertension. 2014; 64:644–652. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.114.03578.LinkGoogle Scholar - 17.
Powers RW, Roberts JM, Plymire DA, Pucci D, Datwyler SA, Laird DM, Sogin DC, Jeyabalan A, Hubel CA, Gandley RE . Low placental growth factor across pregnancy identifies a subset of women with preterm preeclampsia: type 1 versus type 2 preeclampsia?Hypertension. 2012; 60:239–246. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.112.191213.LinkGoogle Scholar - 18.
Redman CW, Sargent IL, Staff AC . IFPA Senior Award Lecture: making sense of pre-eclampsia - two placental causes of preeclampsia?Placenta. 2014; 35(suppl):S20–S25. doi: 10.1016/j.placenta.2013.12.008.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 19.
Sattar N, Greer IA . Pregnancy complications and maternal cardiovascular risk: opportunities for intervention and screening?BMJ. 2002; 325:157–160.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 20.
Harville EW, Viikari JS, Raitakari OT . Preconception cardiovascular risk factors and pregnancy outcome.Epidemiology. 2011; 22:724–730. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e318225c960.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 21.
Magnussen EB, Vatten LJ, Lund-Nilsen TI, Salvesen KA, Davey Smith G, Romundstad PR . Prepregnancy cardiovascular risk factors as predictors of pre-eclampsia: population based cohort study.BMJ. 2007; 335:978. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39366.416817.BE.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 22.
Naess O, Søgaard AJ, Arnesen E, Beckstrøm AC, Bjertness E, Engeland A, Hjort PF, Holmen J, Magnus P, Njølstad I, Tell GS, Vatten L, Vollset SE, Aamodt G . Cohort profile: Cohort of Norway (CONOR).Int J Epidemiol. 2008; 37:481–485. doi: 10.1093/ije/dym217.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 23.
Graff-Iversen S, Anderssen SA, Holme IM, Jenum AK, Raastad T . Two short questionnaires on leisure-time physical activity compared with serum lipids, anthropometric measurements and aerobic power in a suburban population from Oslo, Norway.Eur J Epidemiol. 2008; 23:167–174. doi: 10.1007/s10654-007-9214-2.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 24.
Graff-Iversen S, Jansen MD, Hoff DA, Høiseth G, Knudsen GP, Magnus P, Mørland J, Normann PT, Næss OE, Tambs K . Divergent associations of drinking frequency and binge consumption of alcohol with mortality within the same cohort.J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013; 67:350–357. doi: 10.1136/jech-2012-201564.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 25.
Klungsøyr K, Harmon QE, Skard LB, Simonsen I, Austvoll ET, Alsaker ER, Starling A, Trogstad L, Magnus P, Engel SM . Validity of pre-eclampsia registration in the Medical Birth Registry of Norway for women participating in the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study, 1999-2010.Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2014; 28:362–371. doi: 10.1111/ppe.12138.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 26.
Leong DP, Smyth A, Teo KK, McKee M, Rangarajan S, Pais P, Liu L, Anand SS, Yusuf S ; INTERHEART Investigators. Patterns of alcohol consumption and myocardial infarction risk: observations from 52 countries in the INTERHEART case-control study.Circulation. 2014; 130:390–398. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.007627.LinkGoogle Scholar - 27.
Mukamal KJ, Maclure M, Muller JE, Mittleman MA . Binge drinking and mortality after acute myocardial infarction.Circulation. 2005; 112:3839–3845. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.574749.LinkGoogle Scholar - 28.
Sundell L, Salomaa V, Vartiainen E, Poikolainen K, Laatikainen T . Increased stroke risk is related to a binge-drinking habit.Stroke. 2008; 39:3179–3184. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.520817.LinkGoogle Scholar - 29.
Gundogan F, Elwood G, Longato L, Tong M, Feijoo A, Carlson RI, Wands JR, de la Monte SM . Impaired placentation in fetal alcohol syndrome.Placenta. 2008; 29:148–157. doi: 10.1016/j.placenta.2007.10.002.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 30.
Burd L, Roberts D, Olson M, Odendaal H . Ethanol and the placenta: A review.J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2007; 20:361–375. doi: 10.1080/14767050701298365.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 31.
Bolnick JM, Karana R, Chiang PJ, Kilburn BA, Romero R, Diamond MP, Smith SM, Armant DR . Apoptosis of alcohol-exposed human placental cytotrophoblast cells is downstream of intracellular calcium signaling.Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2014; 38:1646–1653. doi: 10.1111/acer.12417.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 32.
Ramadoss J, Jobe SO, Magness RR . Alcohol and maternal uterine vascular adaptations during pregnancy-part I: effects of chronic in vitro binge-like alcohol on uterine endothelial nitric oxide system and function.Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2011; 35:1686–1693. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2011.01515.x.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 33.
McCarthy FP, O’Keeffe LM, Khashan AS, North RA, Poston L, McCowan LM, Baker PN, Dekker GA, Roberts CT, Walker JJ, Kenny LC . Association between maternal alcohol consumption in early pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes.Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 122:830–837. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182a6b226.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 34.
Salihu HM, Kornosky JL, Lynch O, Alio AP, August EM, Marty PJ . Impact of prenatal alcohol consumption on placenta-associated syndromes.Alcohol. 2011; 45:73–79. doi: 10.1016/j.alcohol.2010.05.010.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 35.
Bouthoorn SH, Gaillard R, Steegers EA, Hofman A, Jaddoe VW, van Lenthe FJ, Raat H . Ethnic differences in blood pressure and hypertensive complications during pregnancy: the Generation R study.Hypertension. 2012; 60:198–205. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.112.194365.LinkGoogle Scholar - 36.
Genest DS, Falcao S, Gutkowska J, Lavoie JL . Impact of exercise training on preeclampsia: potential preventive mechanisms.Hypertension. 2012; 60:1104–1109. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.112.194050.LinkGoogle Scholar - 37.
Aune D, Saugstad OD, Henriksen T, Tonstad S . Physical activity and the risk of preeclampsia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Epidemiology. 2014; 25:331–343. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000036.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 38.
Magnus P, Bakke E, Hoff DA, Høiseth G, Graff-Iversen S, Knudsen GP, Myhre R, Normann PT, Næss Ø, Tambs K, Thelle DS, Mørland J . Controlling for high-density lipoprotein cholesterol does not affect the magnitude of the relationship between alcohol and coronary heart disease.Circulation. 2011; 124:2296–2302. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.036491.LinkGoogle Scholar - 39.
Nordestgaard BG, Benn M, Schnohr P, Tybjaerg-Hansen A . Nonfasting triglycerides and risk of myocardial infarction, ischemic heart disease, and death in men and women.JAMA. 2007; 298:299–308. doi: 10.1001/jama.298.3.299.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 40.
Spracklen CN, Smith CJ, Saftlas AF, Robinson JG, Ryckman KK . Maternal hyperlipidemia and the risk of preeclampsia: a meta-analysis.Am J Epidemiol. 2014; 180:346–358. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwu145.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 41.
Sattar N, Greer IA, Louden J, Lindsay G, McConnell M, Shepherd J, Packard CJ . Lipoprotein subfraction changes in normal pregnancy: threshold effect of plasma triglyceride on appearance of small, dense low density lipoprotein.J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1997; 82:2483–2491. doi: 10.1210/jcem.82.8.4126.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 42.
Griffin BA, Freeman DJ, Tait GW, Thomson J, Caslake MJ, Packard CJ, Shepherd J . Role of plasma triglyceride in the regulation of plasma low density lipoprotein (LDL) subfractions: relative contribution of small, dense LDL to coronary heart disease risk.Atherosclerosis. 1994; 106:241–253.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 43.
Pavan L, Hermouet A, Tsatsaris V, Thérond P, Sawamura T, Evain-Brion D, Fournier T . Lipids from oxidized low-density lipoprotein modulate human trophoblast invasion: involvement of nuclear liver X receptors.Endocrinology. 2004; 145:4583–4591. doi: 10.1210/en.2003-1747.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 44.
England L, Zhang J . Smoking and risk of preeclampsia: a systematic review.Front Biosci. 2007; 12:2471–2483.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar - 45.
Fraser A, Nelson SM, Macdonald-Wallis C, Cherry L, Butler E, Sattar N, Lawlor DA . Associations of pregnancy complications with calculated cardiovascular disease risk and cardiovascular risk factors in middle age: the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children.Circulation. 2012; 125:1367–1380. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.044784.LinkGoogle Scholar
Novelty and Significance
What Is New?
Preeclampsia, but not gestational hypertension, was predicted by a family history of myocardial infarction before 60 years of age, binge drinking, physical inactivity, and an elevated triglyceride level.
Gestational hypertension and preeclampsia shared many pregravid risk factors, including a high total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio, family history of diabetes mellitus, pregravid diabetes mellitus, overweight and obesity, and baseline blood pressure status.
What Is Relevant?
The majority of risk factors were modifiable.
Summary
Physical activity, avoidance of binge drinking, weight management, blood pressure, and glucose monitoring and control for women of reproductive age may reduce hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and its short- and long-term sequelae.
eLetters(0)
eLetters should relate to an article recently published in the journal and are not a forum for providing unpublished data. Comments are reviewed for appropriate use of tone and language. Comments are not peer-reviewed. Acceptable comments are posted to the journal website only. Comments are not published in an issue and are not indexed in PubMed. Comments should be no longer than 500 words and will only be posted online. References are limited to 10. Authors of the article cited in the comment will be invited to reply, as appropriate.
Comments and feedback on AHA/ASA Scientific Statements and Guidelines should be directed to the AHA/ASA Manuscript Oversight Committee via its Correspondence page.