Evaluation of Cardiac Function in Women With a History of Preeclampsia: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Abstract
Background
Women with a history of preeclampsia are at increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, the underlying mechanisms of disease association, and the ideal method of monitoring this high‐risk group, remains unclear. This review aims to determine whether women with a history of preeclampsia show clinical or subclinical cardiac changes when evaluated with an echocardiogram.
Methods and Results
A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases was performed to identify studies that examined cardiac function in women with a history of preeclampsia, in comparison with those with normotensive pregnancies. In the 27 included studies, we found no significant differences between preeclampsia and nonpreeclampsia women with regard to left ventricular ejection fraction, isovolumetric relaxation time, or deceleration time. Women with a history of preeclampsia demonstrated a higher left ventricular mass index and relative wall thickness with a mean difference of 4.25 g/m2 (95% CI, 2.08, 6.42) and 0.03 (95% CI, 0.01, 0.05), respectively. In comparison with the nonpreeclampsia population, they also demonstrated a lower E/A and a higher E/e′ ratio with a mean difference of −0.08 (95% CI, −0.15, −0.01) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.41, 1.27), respectively.
Conclusions
In comparison with women who had a normotensive pregnancy, women with a history of preeclampsia demonstrated a trend toward altered cardiac structure and function. Further studies with larger sample sizes and consistent echocardiogram reporting with the use of sensitive preclinical markers are required to assess the role of echocardiography in monitoring this high‐risk population group.
Clinical Perspective
What Is New?
•
Women with a history of preeclampsia have an increased left ventricular mass index, increased relative wall thickness, lower E/A ratio, and higher E/e′ ratio in comparison with those with a history of normotensive pregnancies.
•
Given that women with a history of preeclampsia demonstrate altered cardiac structure and function preceding the development of cardiovascular disease, echocardiography may play an important role in the ongoing evaluation of this high‐risk population group.
What Are the Clinical Implications?
•
Further research with larger sample sizes, consistent reporting, and assessment of sensitive preclinical markers, such as myocardial deformation, is required to clarify these findings.
Introduction
Preeclampsia is a heterogenous disorder of pregnancy that affects 3% to 5% of women and is characterized by a final common pathway of endothelial dysfunction resulting in hypertension and end‐organ damage.1, 2 The underlying etiology of preeclampsia is unclear, and there is increasing evidence to support that there are different pathophysiological subtypes of this disease.3, 4 These subtypes include: (1) the characteristic placental mediated disorder that results in placental ischemia and the release of antiangiogenic factors into the maternal circulation and (2) a syndrome where preeclampsia is a symptom of underlying vascular dysfunction and a failure of the physiological stress test of pregnancy.3 The latter in particular is now supported by epidemiological evidence that preeclampsia does not resolve with delivery of the placenta, but, rather, is associated with an increased risk of long‐term cardiovascular sequelae.5 For example, 20% of women with preeclampsia remain hypertensive at 6 months postpartum, and these women have a 3‐fold increased risk of chronic hypertension.6, 7 A recent systematic review of 22 studies also illustrated that a history of preeclampsia is associated with a 2‐ to 4‐fold increased risk of heart failure, coronary artery disease, stroke, and cardiovascular disease–related death.5 The American Heart Association has now recognized both gestational hypertension and preeclampsia as risk factors for cardiovascular disease.8, 9 However, it is unclear whether increased cardiovascular morbidity is a result of shared risk factors between preeclampsia and cardiovascular disease or a direct result of the hypertensive disorder of pregnancy.10 There is also insufficient evidence or consensus regarding the most appropriate method and timing of cardiovascular monitoring within this population group.
Transthoracic echocardiography is the gold standard for noninvasive evaluation of cardiac structure and function. However, there is little research examining the use of echocardiography to assess cardiovascular risk in women with a history of preeclampsia. The studies that have been conducted are limited by small sample sizes and have reported inconsistent results. Significant limitations to postpartum follow‐up studies in preeclampsia include the low incidence of disease, heterogeneity of the population group, and significant loss to follow‐up. With this in mind, a systematic review and meta‐analysis may be of benefit in identifying potential structural and functional changes to the cardiovascular system in women with a history of preeclampsia.
With this review, we aimed to determine whether women with a history of preeclampsia show clinical or subclinical cardiac changes when evaluated by echocardiography. We hypothesize that women with a history of preeclampsia demonstrate altered cardiac function in comparison with those with a history of normotensive pregnancies. Identified associations between echocardiogram abnormalities and preeclampsia provide a logical framework for prospective risk evaluations and interventions.
Methods
Literature Search
This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO (The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; ID, CRD42018115554) and conducted in accord with the MOOSE (Meta‐analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines (Table S1). There was no deviation from the original protocol submitted to PROSPERO, and the authors declare that all supporting data are available within the article and its online supplementary files.
We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases from inception to December 2018. The search strategy, described in detail in Table S2, focused on identifying studies that examined cardiac function in women with a history of preeclampsia in comparison with those with normotensive pregnancies. The reference lists of the included articles and other published reviews were also examined to identify additional relevant studies for this review. Both librarians and investigators were involved in developing the search strategy.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Studies were included if they assessed cardiac structure and function in women with a history of preeclampsia at >6 weeks postpartum using echocardiography. Studies were excluded if: (1) cardiac assessments were performed within 6 weeks of delivery; (2) detailed assessment of cardiac structure and function by echocardiography was not performed; (3) the timing of echocardiography was not reported; (4) no matched normotensive pregnancies were evaluated as part of the study; (5) the study evaluated gestational hypertensives only; or (6) the manuscript was not available for review in English or only available in abstract form. The decision to exclude conference abstracts was based on the: (1) limitations in assessing study quality of conference abstracts alone and (2) difficulty in extracting the required depth of information from such abstracts. Studies that assessed cardiac function within 6 weeks of delivery were excluded because of the known hemodynamic changes that occur in the immediate postpartum period.
Study Selection
Two reviewers (M.R., L.W.) independently screened the titles and abstracts and excluded articles that were irrelevant to the topic. The reviewers then evaluated the full text of eligible articles for suitability based on the strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. A third reviewer (D.L.R.) was used to resolve discrepancies.
Data Extraction
The research question, study design, patient demographic data, and cardiac indices reported in each study were recorded. Cardiac indices of interest were identified according to the American Society of Echocardiography and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging Guidelines.11, 12 For evaluation of diastolic function, the 2009 American Society of Echocardiography/European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging guidelines were used, given that a significant proportion of the studies were performed before the release of the new 2016 guidelines. Indices assessed included left ventricular mass index (LVMI), relative wall thickness (RWT), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), mean E/A ratio, mean E/e′ ratio, isovolumetric relaxation time, and deceleration time. These indices were chosen because they are key to assessing cardiac morphology, systolic function, and diastolic function and are further defined in Table 1.12, 13
| Cardiac Indices | Definition/Measurement Method | Normal Ranges | Implications |
|---|---|---|---|
| LVMI, g/m2 | Measured at the end of diastole using, linear method, 2D echocardiography, or 3D echocardiography and indexed to body surface area. | Linear measurement: 43 to 95 2D measurement: 44 to 88 | Increased LVMI suggests hypertrophy. The type of hypertrophy (eccentric or concentric) is determined by the RWT. |
| RWT | Calculated using the formula ‐ RWT=(2×posterior wall thickness)/(LV internal diameter at end diastole) | RWT>0.42 RWT≤0.42 | RWT>0.42 suggests concentric remodeling. RWT≤0.42 suggests eccentric remodeling. |
| LVEF | Ejection fraction is calculated through measurement of end‐diastolic velocity (EDV) and end‐systolic velocity (ESV). EF = (EDV‐ESV)/EDV | 53% to 73% | Reduced ejection fraction is suggestive of systolic dysfunction. |
| E/A ratio | The mitral E/A ratio is made up of 2 components which reflect the pressure gradient between the left atria and ventricle during early and late diastole. E wave: Early diastole is characterized by rapid flow across the mitral valve resulting in a peak in flow called the E wave. A wave: The “a wave” reflects increased filling velocities in late diastole attributed to an atrial contraction. | 0.8 to 2.0a | The E/A ratio in combination with DT and IVRT can be used to identify LV filling patterns that are suggestive of diastolic dysfunction. Mild diastolic dysfunction Characterized by decreased E/A ratio, prolonged DT, and prolonged IVRT. Pseudo‐normal phase E/A ratio, DT and IVRT return to within normal range. Increased E/e′ ratio and a decrease in E/A ratio with Valsalva maneuver. Severe dysfunction with restrictive filling pattern Characterized by increased E/A ratio, shortened DT, and IVRT. |
| DT | Interval between the peak of the E wave to the beginning of diastasis. Diastasis refers to the period where flow across the mitral valve decreases as a result of rising ventricular pressures. Deceleration time is influenced by LV relaxation and stiffness. | 140 to 200 msa | |
| IVRT | Time between closure of the aortic valve at the end of systole to the opening of the mitral valve at the beginning of diastole. | 70 to 100 msa | |
| Mean E/e′ ratio | Ratio of flow across the mitral valve through early diastole (the E wave) and the mitral annular early diastolic velocity (e′ wave). | E/e′<8=normal E/e′>14=abnormal | An elevated E/e′ ratio is indicative of raised LV filling pressures. |
DT indicates deceleration time; IVRT, isovolumetric relaxation time; LV, left ventricular; LVMI, left ventricular mass index; RWT, relative wall thickness.
a
With increasing age E/A ratio decreases, and DT and IVRT increase. Therefore, age‐specific ranges must be used.
Quality Assessment
Quality assessment was performed by 2 independent blinded authors (M.R., D.L.R.) using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for cohort studies.14 Risk of bias was analyzed within the 3 categories of case selection, comparability between cases and controls, and outcome. A study was considered good quality if it obtained ≥3 points in the selection domain, ≥1 point in the comparability domain, and ≥2 points in the outcome domain. A study was considered fair quality if it obtained 2 points in the selection domain, ≥1 point in the comparability domain, and ≥2 in the outcome domain. A study was assessed as poor quality if it obtained a score of 0 to 1 in the selection domain, a score of 0 in the comparability domain, or a score of 0 to 1 in the outcome domain.15
Statistical Analysis
Data regarding the variables of interest were extracted from each study for the preeclampsia and nonpreeclampsia groups. The primary outcome was the mean difference (MD) between the preeclampsia and nonpreeclampsia groups in relation to various cardiac indices. Most studies reported the data as a continuous variable using mean and SD. To ensure consistency and allow for aggregation of results, when the central tendency and the spread of the distribution were reported respectively as median and interquartile range (IQR), mean and SD were estimated according to the method devised by Hozo et al.16 In order to assess the potential influence of data transformation on analysis, a sensitivity analysis was performed with the exclusion of studies that used median/IQR. MD and a random‐effects model was used to compare the difference in cardiac indices between preeclampsia and nonpreeclampsia groups. A random‐effects model was used in preference to a common effect size, given that the studies included in the analysis were observational studies with different population groups.
Publication bias was assessed with funnel plot symmetry. The presence or absence of heterogeneity was determined using the chi‐square test, and the magnitude of heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic. Heterogeneity was considered to be present when the chi‐square test revealed a P<0.05 and the magnitude of heterogeneity considered to be low, moderate, and high with an I2 statistic of <25%, 50%, and >75%, respectively.17 When high heterogeneity (I2>75%) was identified, a subgroup analysis was performed to suggest potential sources of heterogeneity. The demographic and study characteristics assessed in the subgroup analysis included sample size, quality of study, age at assessment, time from index pregnancy, and body mass index (BMI). A subgroup analysis was also performed to assess the influence of the method of data reporting (mean/SD or median/IQR) on heterogeneity. The analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 (RevMan, version 5.3.5; The Cochrane collaboration, 2014).
Results
Study and Data Selection
The electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases identified 3456 potential studies (Figure 1). After the removal of duplicates, 2839 articles were screened for eligibility. Subsequently, 2778 publications were excluded through screening of titles and abstracts. The full text of the remaining 61 articles was assessed for eligibility, and, of those, 34 studies were excluded because of: (1) single‐arm study (n=8); (2) assessment within 6 weeks of delivery (n=5); (3) no or minimal echocardiogram data (n=8); (4) uncertain echocardiogram results (n=1); (5) duplicate reporting (n=6); (6) assessment of participants with gestational hypertension only (n=4); and (7) wrong study design (n=2). Of the 27 studies included, a further 2 studies were excluded from the meta‐analysis because they did not provide data regarding the echocardiogram variables of interest. One study assessed cardiac function at 1 and 14 years postpartum, and another assessed those with a history of early and late preeclampsia as separate groups. Thus, within these studies, the subgroups were analyzed as separate entities.
Quality Assessment
Nine studies (33%) were considered high quality, 1 (4%) fair quality, and 17 (63%) poor quality (Table S3). Most studies performed well in the domain of cohort selection and were representative of the preeclampsia and normotensive population in the community. With regard to comparability of cohorts, 41% of the studies failed to control for important factors such as age, BMI, and smoking. Most studies did not blind echocardiogram assessment to disease exposure, and 63% failed to report or had inadequate follow‐up.
Study Characteristics
Study characteristics and demographic data are illustrated in Table 2.18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 A total of 5058 women were reviewed beyond pregnancy, of which 1797 had a history of preeclampsia. The majority of studies defined preeclampsia using the traditional criteria of hypertension and proteinuria after 20 weeks of gestation. Few studies (n=3) utilized the updated definition of hypertension with evidence of end‐organ dysfunction. With regard to superimposed preeclampsia, a large proportion of the studies excluded women with pre‐existing hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and renal disease (n=15). Of the remaining, the addition of proteinuria or end‐organ dysfunction was required to confirm the diagnosis of preeclampsia.
| Study | Sample Size | Age (y), Mean/Median | Time From Index Pregnancy (mo) | Body Mass Index (kg/m), Mean/Median | Mean Arterial Pressure, Mean/Median | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| preeclampsia | nonpreeclampsia | preeclampsia | SD/IQR | nonpreeclampsia | SD/IQR | preeclampsia | SD/IQR | nonpreeclampsia | SD/IQR | preeclampsia | SD/IQR | nonpreeclampsia | SD/IQR | preeclampsia | SD/IQR | nonpreeclampsia | SD/IQR | |
| Abdel Wahab (2018)18a | 101 | 42 | 25 | 4 | 25 | 4 | 14 | 5 | 14 | 6 | 25 | 1 | 24 | 1 | 90 | 8 | 82 | 6 |
| Al‐Nashi (2016)19 | 15 | 16 | 39 | 4 | 41 | 3 | 134 | 7 | 134 | 7 | 26 | 6 | 23 | 3 | 93 | 9 | 92 | 10 |
| Andrietti (2008)20b | 55 | 9 | NPV (31), LPV (31) | NPV (28–34), LPV (29–33) | 32 | 30 to 32 | >5 | … | >5 | … | NPV (22), LPV (24) | NPV (20–26), LPV (24–29) | 23 | 20 to 25 | NPV (86), LPV (94) | NPV (79–95), LPV (80–100) | 85 | 80 to 90 |
| Attalla (2015)21 | 72 | 50 | 29 | 11 | 30 | 13 | 7 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 25 | 3 | 25 | 3 | 95 | 11 | 91 | 10 |
| Bokslag (2018)22b | 131 | 56 | 44 | 6 | 47 | 5 | 157 | 26 | 170 | 28 | 26a | 23 to 29 | 24a | 21 to 27 | 97 | 12 | 87 | 11 |
| Breetveld (2018)23b | 67 | 37 | 36 | 33 to 39 | 40 | 37 to 43 | 64 | 53 to 77 | 100 | 79 to 119 | 24 | 21 to 29 | 23 | 21 to 25 | 85 | 81 to 91 | 83 | 75 to 89 |
| Ciftci (2014)24 | 40 | 27 | 34 | 8 | 36 | 10 | 60 | … | 60 | … | 27 | 4 | 26 | 4 | 89 | 10 | 90 | 9 |
| Clemmensen (2018)25 | 53 | 40 | 41 | 6 | 41 | 6 | 150 | 43 | 144 | 36 | 29 | 6 | 27 | 5 | 109 | 15 | 104 | 12 |
| Collen (2013)26 | 50 | 55 | 63 | 6 | 63 | 5 | 480 | … | 480 | … | 28 | 5 | 26 | 5 | 106 | 13 | 104 | 14 |
| Estensen (2013)27 | 75 | 63 | 33 | 5 | 32 | 5 | 6 | … | 6 | … | … | … | … | … | 100 | 14 | 86 | 7 |
| Evans (2011)28a | 18 | 50 | 28 | 1 | 30 | 1 | 17 | 1 | 17 | 1 | 26 | 2 | 26 | 1 | 86 | 3 | 80 | 1 |
| Ghi (2014)29b | 16 | 18 | 37 | 17 to 49 | 31 | 24 to 38 | 6 to 12 | … | 6 to 12 | … | 20 | 19 to 29 | 22 | 17 to 32 | 92 | 67 to 117 | 78 | 67 to 98 |
| Ghossein‐Doha (2013)—1 y30b | 20 | 8 | 31 | 30 to 32 | 33 | 32 to 34 | 12 | … | 12 | … | 22 | 20 to 26 | 21 | 19 to 25 | 88 | 81 to 84 | 91 | 79 to 95 |
| Ghossein‐Doha (2013)—14 y30b | 20 | 8 | 43 | 42 to 45 | 45 | 44 to 47 | 168 | … | 168 | … | 24 | 23 to 30 | 23 | 20 to 27 | 98 | 84 to 111 | 97 | 85 to 104 |
| Ghossein‐Doha (2017)31b | 107 | 41 | 36 | 4 | 40 | 4 | 58 | 48 to 76 | 94 | 76 to 119 | 26 | 6 | 23 | 3 | 86 | 10 | 82 | 9 |
| Melchiorre (2011)—Preterm preeclampsia32b | 27 | 40 | 31 | 29 to 36 | 33 | 29 to 37 | 12 | … | 12 | … | 26 | 24 to 31 | 24 | 23 to 27 | 93 | 80 to 102 | 83 | 73 to 93 |
| Melchiorre (2011)—Term preeclampsia32b | 37 | 38 | 33 | 29 to 37 | 34 | 29 to 38 | 12 | … | 12 | … | 26 | 23 to 33 | 23 | 21 to 26 | 90 | 80 to 99 | 80 | 70 to 87 |
| Orabona (2017)33 | 109 | 60 | 37 | 5 | 37 | 4 | 30 | 12 | 26 | 7 | 23 | 3 | 23 | 2 | 93 | 12 | 89 | 7 |
| Rafik Hamad (2009)34c | 35 | 30 | 31 | 5 | 31 | 4 | 6 to 12 | … | 6 to 12 | … | … | … | … | … | 92 | 2 | 86 | 2 |
| Scantlebury (2015)35 | 427 | 2210 | 54 | 13 | 56 | 13 | 312 | 168 | … | … | 34 | 8 | 31 | 7 | 95 | 17 | 91 | 16 |
| Shahul (2018)36b | 32 | 25 | 32 | 7 | 31 | 5 | 12 | … | 12 | … | 31 | 27–35 | 27 | 24 to 31 | … | … | … | … |
| Simmons (2002)37 | 15 | 44 | 32 | 6 | 29 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … |
| Soma—Pillay (2018)38 | 96 | 45 | 29 | 7 | 27 | 7 | 12 | … | 12 | … | 30 | 8 | 28 | 4 | 97 | 14 | 87 | 9 |
| Spaan (2009)39 | 22 | 29 | 49 | 4 | 50 | 4 | 276 | 20 to 28 | 276 | 20 to 28 | 25 | 4 | 26 | 4 | 100 | 12 | 88 | 10 |
| Strobl (2011)40 | 31 | 17 | 43 | 4 | 44 | 4 | 180 | 23 | 179 | 19 | 24 | 2 | 24 | 3 | 93 | 7 | 95 | 4 |
| Tyldum (2012)41 | 19 | 19 | 29 | 5 | 27 | 4 | 3 | … | 3 | … | 29 | 4 | 24 | 3 | 91 | 9 | 84 | 6 |
| Valensise (2016)42 | 75 | 147 | 34 | 4 | 34 | 4 | 12 to 18 | … | 12 to 18 | … | 23 | 4 | 23 | 3 | 88 | 12 | 85 | 10 |
| Yu (2018)43 | 25 | 30 | … | … | 29 | 6 | 3 | … | 3 | … | 22 | 2 | 20 | 3 | 92 | 8 | 86 | 8 |
| Yuan (2014)44 | 7 | 7 | … | … | … | … | 16 to 20 | … | 16 to 20 | … | … | … | … | … | 97 | 12 | 87 | 9 |
IQR indicates interquartile range; LPV, low plasma volume; NPV, normal plasma volume.
a
These studies were excluded from the meta‐analysis because they did not provide echocardiogram data on the variables of interest.
b
Studies reported median and interquartile range.
c
Studies reported mean and standard error.
In the preeclampsia group, cardiac function was assessed within 12 months of delivery in 11 studies (41%), between 12 months and 5 years in 7 studies (26%), between 5 and 10 years in 1 study (4%), and >10 years from the index pregnancy in 7 studies (26%). In the nonpreeclampsia group, cardiac function was assessed within 12 months of delivery in 11 studies (41%), between 12 months and 5 years in 6 studies (22%), between 5 and 10 years in 2 studies (7%), >10 years in 6 studies (22%), and was not reported in 1 study (4%). Furthermore, 1 study assessed cardiac function at both 1 and 14 years postpartum in both preeclampsia and nonpreeclampsia groups. The mean age of assessment was <50 years in 23 of 27 (85%) and 24 of 27 studies (89%) in the preeclampsia and nonpreeclampsia groups, respectively. Two studies assessed women at a mean age >50 years in both the preeclampsia and nonpreeclampsia groups. Two studies did not report age of assessment in the preeclampsia group, and 1 study did not report age of assessment in the nonpreeclampsia group. Of the 24 studies (89%) that reported BMI, the mean BMI was normal in 42% of the studies in the preeclampsia group and 71% of the studies in the nonpreeclampsia group. Three studies reported a mean BMI≥30 kg/m2 in the preeclampsia group, and 1 reported a mean BMI≥30 kg/m2 in the nonpreeclampsia group. Mean arterial pressure was reported in 25 of 27 studies (93%). Most studies reported a normal mean arterial pressure of <100 mm Hg in both the preeclampsia and nonpreeclampsia groups. A mean mean arterial pressure of ≥100 mm Hg was reported in 4 studies in the preeclampsia group and 2 studies in the nonpreeclampsia group.
With regard to cardiovascular risk factors, most studies either excluded or did not report cardiovascular risk factors (Table S4). Of the studies that included women with cardiovascular risk factors, hypertension was more common in the preeclampsia group in comparison with the nonpreeclampsia group. The rate of current or past smoking was similar in both groups. Few studies included or reported the presence of diabetes mellitus, renal disease, or cardiovascular disease at the time of evaluation.
Furthermore, 3 studies within the preeclampsia group included participants with a history of gestational hypertension or preeclampsia. Two of the 3 studies reported that the majority of participants were identified to have preeclampsia, and 1 did not report this information. Analysis was performed with inclusion and exclusion of these studies and showed no difference in results (data not presented).
Left Ventricular Mass Index
LVMI was assessed in 19 of 27 studies (70%). LVMI was significantly higher in those with a history of preeclampsia in comparison with those with normotensive pregnancies (MD, 4.25 g/m2; 95% CI, 2.08–6.42; P=0.0001; Figure 2A).19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 42, 44 While there was no evidence of funnel plot asymmetry suggesting publication bias (Figure S1), the heterogeneity between studies was significant (I2=93%; P<0.00001). Subgroup analysis to determine the source of heterogeneity showed that study quality, sample size, age of assessment, BMI, and time from index pregnancy did not reduce heterogeneity. However, when studies that required transformation of median/IQR were removed from analysis, heterogeneity reduced from high to moderate (I2=50%; P=0.02). LVMI remained significantly higher in women with a history of preeclampsia despite the removal of these studies from analysis (MD, 3.85 g/m2; 95% CI, 1.79–5.91; P=0.0003).
Relative Wall Thickness
RWT was reported in 13 of 27 studies (48%). The pooled RWT was marginally higher in women with a history of preeclampsia in comparison with those with normotensive pregnancies (MD, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01–0.05; P=0.02; Figure 2B).19, 23, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 42, 44 When we performed a sensitivity analysis and removed studies that reported data as median/IQR, we identified no differences in RWT between groups (MD, 0.01; 95% CI, −0.01–0.04; P=0.26). There was no evidence of funnel plot asymmetry to suggest publication bias (Figure S1). Again, there was significant heterogeneity between studies (I2=94%; P<0.00001). Subgroup analysis did not reduce heterogeneity when assessed for method of data reporting (mean/SD or median/IQR), sample size, study quality, age at assessment, time from index pregnancy, and BMI.
Left Ventricular Systolic Function
Most studies assessed systolic function using LVEF. LVEF was reported in 19 of 27 studies (70%), and all studies reported a normal mean ejection fraction in both the preeclampsia and nonpreeclampsia groups. There were no differences in LVEF between women with a history of preeclampsia and normotensive pregnancies (MD, −0.69%; 95% CI, −1.77–0.38; P=0.21; Figure 3).19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 43, 44 There was no evidence of funnel plot asymmetry to suggest publication bias (Figure S1). However, there was heterogeneity between studies (I2=86%; P<0.00001). A subgroup and sensitivity analysis showed that when studies that reported median/IQR were removed, women with a history of preeclampsia had a lower LVEF (MD, −1.05%; 95% CI, −1.92 to −0.18; P=0.02). Furthermore, heterogeneity between studies improved from high to moderate (I2=51%; P=0.01). Subgroup analysis did not suggest any difference in heterogeneity when assessed for sample size, study quality, age at assessment, BMI, or time from index pregnancy.
Left Ventricular Diastolic Function
The most common diastolic parameters reported were E/e′ ratio, E/A ratio, isovolumetric relaxation time, and DT. The E/e′ ratio was reported in 11 of 27 studies (41%) and was higher in women with a history of preeclampsia in comparison with normotensive pregnancies (MD, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.41–1.27; P=0.0001; Figure 4A).19, 22, 24, 25, 29, 32, 33, 36, 38, 41, 42 The E/A ratio was reported in 18 of 27 studies (67%) and was lower in women with a history of preeclampsia in comparison with normotensive pregnancies (MD, −0.08; 95% CI, −0.15 to −0.01; P=0.03; Figure 4B).19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44 In the 11 studies (41%) that assessed isovolumetric relaxation time, there was no difference in measurements between the preeclampsia and nonpreeclampsia groups (MD, 0.52 ms; 95% CI, −4.30–5.30; P=0.83; Figure S2). Similarly, in the 15 studies (56%) that assessed deceleration time, there was no difference in measurements between the preeclampsia and nonpreeclampsia groups (MD, 1.50 ms; 95% CI, −4.56–7.55; P=0.63; Figure S3). Funnel plot symmetry revealed no evidence of publication bias across all diastolic indices (Figure S1). However, there was significant heterogeneity between studies in all diastolic indices, with the I2 statistic ranging from 85% to 95%. Across all diastolic indices, subgroup analysis of sample size, method of data reporting, study quality, mean age at assessment, time from index pregnancy, and BMI did not reduce heterogeneity.
Discussion
Despite epidemiological evidence of increased cardiovascular risk in women with a history of preeclampsia, postpartum evaluation has not been widely implemented. This is in contrast to other pregnancy conditions, such as gestational diabetes mellitus, where because of an increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus, it is recommended that women undergo glycemic testing every 1 to 3 years after delivery.45, 46 Unfortunately, widespread implementation of cardiovascular screening in the setting of preeclampsia is limited by an inadequate understanding of the mechanisms that cause cardiovascular disease in this population group. To our knowledge, this systematic review is the first to describe changes to cardiac structure and function in women with a history of preeclampsia. When compared with normotensive pregnancies, women with a history of preeclampsia have a higher LVMI, higher RWT, lower E/A ratio, and higher E/e′ ratio. These findings are highly relevant, in that they add to the body of evidence that preeclampsia is associated with persisting cardiovascular dysfunction and support the need for closer monitoring of this high‐risk population group. However, we have also identified a need to study more‐robust markers of early cardiac disease, such as myocardial deformation and exercise capacity, to aid in clinical decision making in these high‐risk women.25, 47, 48
During pregnancy, women with preeclampsia have evidence of cardiac remodeling and a difference in cardiac function in comparison with those with normotensive pregnancies.49, 50 Systematic reviews by De Haas et al and Castleman et al have shown that antenatally, preeclampsia is associated with increased left ventricular mass and RWT and mild diastolic dysfunction (as demonstrated by a decrease in the E/A ratio and an increase in the E/e′ ratio).49, 50 Long‐term epidemiological studies have shown that women with a history of preeclampsia have a 2‐ to 4‐fold increased risk of heart failure and cardiovascular morbidity.5 Thus, it is assumed that the structural and functional changes observed antenatally persist beyond pregnancy and contribute to the long‐term cardiovascular sequelae in this population group. However, while our review supports this hypothesis, the findings suggest that the echocardiogram changes following delivery are perhaps too subtle to explain the longer‐term morbidities. This may be attributable to several reasons.
First, a large proportion of the studies excluded women with hypertension, diabetes mellitus, renal disease, and cardiovascular disease. Women with such pre‐existing comorbidities are at a greater risk of developing preeclampsia.51, 52 Furthermore, women with a history of preeclampsia are more likely to develop hypertension, metabolic syndrome, renal disease, and diabetes mellitus in the long term.6, 53, 54, 55, 56 It is thus plausible that the cardiovascular morbidity associated with preeclampsia is a result of an increased incidence of these cardiovascular risk factors within this population group rather than the preeclampsia per se. Exclusion of these risk factors may have contributed to selection bias and may have influenced the results of the constituent trials included in this review. It is also plausible that the cardiovascular sequelae observed in those with a history of preeclampsia are a result of shared risk factors between preeclampsia and cardiovascular disease.57 Therefore, when women with cardiovascular risk factors are excluded, the effect of preeclampsia on cardiac structure, function, and morbidity may be clinically insignificant. Further studies which compare pre‐eclamptic women with and without cardiovascular risk factors are required in order to answer this clinical question.
Second, the available studies included in this review are of small sample size and significant heterogeneity. It is likely that the heterogeneity stems from the inherent limitations of cohort studies which cannot control for all demographic factors within the population assessed. While a random‐effects model and subgroup analyses were performed in order to account for such differences, this did not significantly improve heterogeneity measures. Potential methods of addressing this in future research would include larger sample sizes and consistent reporting of patient demographics and echocardiogram measures. Limitations to performing large studies in women with a history of preeclampsia include the low incidence of disease and significant loss to follow‐up. Thus, international collaboration is essential. Standardization and consistent reporting of echocardiogram measurements is also vital. The American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging provide clear guidelines on methods of measurement of cardiovascular indices to assess chamber size, systolic function, and diastolic function.11, 12 These guidelines now include the use of 4 markers to catagorize diastolic dysfunction—average E/e′, septal e′ velocity, lateral e′ velocity, tricuspid regurgitation velocity, and left atrial volume index.58 This increases the sensitivity for prediction of left ventricular filling pressures over using markers in isolation.58 The studies included in this review did not evaluate the newly included tricuspid regurgitation maximum velocity, and very few assessed volumetric measures of left atrial size. Unfortunately, this limits our ability to apply the new guidelines in this cohort. Adopting these guidelines may reduce heterogeneity and allow for easier comparison between different cohort studies examining cardiac function in women with a history of preeclampsia.
It is also important to note that many of the included studies performed poorly with regard to quality assessment. Primary issues included a lack of blinding for outcome, controlling for confounding factors, and loss to follow‐up. These quality issues make it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions. As a result, it is essential that while also addressing heterogeneity, future research efforts focus on robust methodology with adequate blinding of echocardiogram assessors and reporting of loss to follow‐up. Furthermore, it is necessary that confounding factors, such as age, BMI, smoking, and other cardiovascular risk factors, are reported and considered in analysis. Although out of the scope of this review, there is also a need for an individual patient data meta‐analysis. This may help address issues with heterogeneity and confounding. Furthermore, an individual patient data would enable a detailed review of the echocardiogram markers and allow for both categorical and continuous analysis of cardiac indices. This would shed light on whether the differences between preeclampsia and nonpreeclampsia groups are within the variation of normal or a true reflection of a higher incidence of abnormal results.
Last, it is also plausible that grading of diastolic dysfunction may not be the ideal method of risk stratification in women with a history of preeclampsia. Invasive studies have shown only modest correlations of E/e′ ratio and invasive filling pressures.59 The measurement of global myocardial deformation using speckle tracking imaging is a novel marker that can be performed during routine echocardiographic assessment. It has been demonstrated that global longitudinal strain is a robust marker of cardiac outcomes and incremental to other echocardiogram parameters for prediction of outcomes in stage B heart failure.47 A small number of studies have used global longitudinal strain in preeclampsia cohorts and observed reduced strain in preeclampsia as compared with normotensive pregnancies.25, 48 Furthermore, the differences between women with and without a history of preeclampsia in this systematic review are analogous to hypertensive heart disease and are relatively subtle. Global longitudinal strain has proved to be an important prognostic marker of cardiovascular events in the general population and in hypertensive cohorts,60, 61 suggesting that this may be a logical investigative tool for future research. An overlooked, but essential, parameter is a clear definition of exercise capacity. When combined with echocardiography, cardiopulmonary exercise testing can aid in the identification of stage B heart failure,62 and reduced exercise capacity has been shown to be one of the strongest predictors of heart failure and premature mortality.63, 64, 65 Further research is required to delineate whether a combination of structural evaluation of cardiac function and exercise capacity is necessary to determine risk of cardiovascular sequelae in pre‐eclamptic women.
Nonetheless, the findings of this study support that women with a history of preeclampsia have persisting cardiac dysfunction, and further efforts should be directed at identifying the most appropriate method of monitoring these high‐risk women. Furthermore, it is important to investigate whether, once identified, intervention within this high‐risk group improves outcomes. It is plausible that early detection and treatment of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and renal disease with lifestyle and pharmacological measures will alter cardiovascular risk in women with a history of preeclampsia. This, however, has not been investigated. Interestingly, studies have demonstrated that an awareness of the probability of developing cardiovascular disease influences behavior modification in those with a history of preeclampsia.66 Thus, empowering patients with such information may, on its own, trigger the necessary lifestyle changes to improve cardiovascular outcomes. There is also considerable evidence to demonstrate that progression from asymptomatic to symptomatic heart failure is associated with a 5‐fold increase in mortality.67 Early identification of asymptomatic heart failure and implementation of lipid management and blood pressure control have been shown to reduce the risk of progression to symptomatic disease.67 There are no studies to date that have addressed the role of monitoring and early intervention in women with a history of preeclampsia, and it is certainly an important area of future research.
Conclusions
Women with a history of preeclampsia demonstrate altered cardiac structure and evidence of diastolic function, which may then translate to an increased risk of long‐term cardiovascular sequelae. However, the ideal method of monitoring and risk stratification in this high‐risk group remains elusive. Further research with larger sample sizes, consistent reporting, and assessment of sensitive preclinical markers, such as myocardial deformation, are required in order to clarify these findings.
Disclosures
B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Merck KGaA, and Guerbet. M.R. is supported by a NHMRC Postgraduate Scholarship (GTN1151281) and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Fotheringham Scholarship. The remaining authors have no disclosures to report.
Supplemental Material
Table S1. Study Methodology in Accord With the Meta‐Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Guidelines1
Table S2. Search Strategy Used for Each Database
Table S3. Quality Assessment Using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale
Table S4. Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Included Studies
Figure S1. Funnel plots as an assessment of publication bias.
Figure S2. Forest plot illustrating the mean difference in isovolumetric relaxation time (ms) between PE and non‐PE groups.
Figure S3. Forest plot illustrating the mean difference in deceleration time (ms) between PE and non‐PE groups.
- Download
- 971.24 KB
References
1.
Tranquilli AL, Dekker G, Magee L, Roberts J, Sibai BM, Steyn W, Zeeman GG, Brown MA. The classification, diagnosis and management of the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: a revised statement from the ISSHP. Pregnancy Hypertens. 2014;4:97–104.
2.
Duley L. The global impact of pre‐eclampsia and eclampsia. Semin Perinatol. 2009;33:130–137.
3.
Myatt L, Roberts JM. Preeclampsia: syndrome or disease? Curr Hypertens Rep. 2015;17:83.
4.
Myatt L, Redman CW, Staff AC, Hansson S, Wilson ML, Laivuori H, Poston L, Roberts JM; Global Pregnancy CoLaboratory . Strategy for standardization of preeclampsia research study design. Hypertension. 2014;63:1293–1301.
5.
Wu P, Haththotuwa R, Kwok CS, Babu A, Kotronias RA, Rushton C, Zaman A, Fryer AA, Kadam U, Chew‐Graham CA, Mamas MA. Preeclampsia and future cardiovascular health: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2017;10:e003497.
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.
7.
Podymow T, August P. Postpartum course of gestational hypertension and preeclampsia. Hypertens Pregnancy. 2010;29:294–300.
8.
Bushnell C, McCullough LD, Awad IA, Chireau MV, Fedder WN, Furie KL, Howard VJ, Lichtman JH, Lisabeth LD, Pina IL, Reeves MJ, Rexrode KM, Saposnik G, Singh V, Towfighi A, Vaccarino V, Walters MR; American Heart Association Stroke Council; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; Council for High Blood Pressure Research . Guidelines for the prevention of stroke in women: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2014;45:1545–1588.
9.
Mosca L, Benjamin EJ, Berra K, Bezanson JL, Dolor RJ, Lloyd‐Jones DM, Newby LK, Pina IL, Roger VL, Shaw LJ, Zhao D, Beckie TM, Bushnell C, D'Armiento J, Kris‐Etherton PM, Fang J, Ganiats TG, Gomes AS, Gracia CR, Haan CK, Jackson EA, Judelson DR, Kelepouris E, Lavie CJ, Moore A, Nussmeier NA, Ofili E, Oparil S, Ouyang P, Pinn VW, Sherif K, Smith SC Jr, Sopko G, Chandra‐Strobos N, Urbina EM, Vaccarino V, Wenger NK. Effectiveness‐based guidelines for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in women—2011 update: a guideline from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;123:1243–1262.
10.
Romundstad PR, Magnussen EB, Smith GD, Vatten LJ. Hypertension in pregnancy and later cardiovascular risk: common antecedents? Circulation. 2010;122:579–584.
11.
Nagueh SF, Appleton CP, Gillebert TC, Marino PN, Oh JK, Smiseth OA, Waggoner AD, Flachskampf FA, Pellikka PA, Evangelisa A. Recommendations for the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function by echocardiography. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2009;10:165–193.
12.
Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor‐Avi V, Afilalo J, Armstrong A, Ernande L, Flachskampf FA, Foster E, Goldstein SA, Kuznetsova T, Lancellotti P, Muraru D, Picard MH, Rietzschel ER, Rudski L, Spencer KT, Tsang W, Voigt JU. Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015;28:1–39.e14
13.
Nagueh SF, Smiseth OA, Appleton CP, Byrd BF III, Dokainish H, Edvardsen T, Flachskampf FA, Gillebert TC, Klein AL, Lancellotti P, Marino P, Oh JK, Alexandru Popescu B, Waggoner AD. Recommendations for the Evaluation of Left Ventricular Diastolic Function by Echocardiography: an Update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;17:1321–1360.
14.
Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P. The Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta‐analyses. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7:e2195.
15.
Borge TC, Aase H, Brantsaeter AL, Biele G. The importance of maternal diet quality during pregnancy on cognitive and behavioural outcomes in children: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e016777.
16.
Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:13.
17.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–560.
18.
AbdelWahab MA, Farrag HM, Saied CE. 24‐Hour blood pressure variability as a predictor of short‐term echocardiographic changes in normotensive women with past history of preeclampsia/eclampsia. Pregnancy Hypertens. 2018;13:72–78.
19.
Al‐Nashi M, Eriksson MJ, Ostlund E, Bremme K, Kahan T. Cardiac structure and function, and ventricular‐arterial interaction 11 years following a pregnancy with preeclampsia. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2016;10:297–306.
20.
Andrietti S, Kruse AJ, Bekkers SC, Sep S, Spaanderman M, Peeters LL. Cardiac adaptation to pregnancy in women with a history of preeclampsia and a subnormal plasma volume. Reprod Sci. 2008;15:1059–1065.
21.
Attalla W, Gaber R, Bayomy S. Detection of early left ventricular dysfunction in patients with maternal placental syndrome using tissue Doppler and strain rate imaging. Hypertens Pregnancy. 2015;34:80–89.
22.
Bokslag A, Franssen C, Alma LJ, Kovacevic I, Kesteren FV, Teunissen PW, Kamp O, Ganzevoort W, Hordijk PL, Groot CJM, Paulus WJ. Early‐onset preeclampsia predisposes to preclinical diastolic left ventricular dysfunction in the fifth decade of life: an observational study. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0198908.
23.
Breetveld NM, Ghossein‐Doha C, van Neer J, Sengers M, Geerts L, van Kuijk SMJ, van Dijk AP, Van der Vlugt MJ, Heidema WM, Brunner‐La Rocca HP, Scholten RR, Spaanderman MEA. Decreased endothelial function and increased subclinical heart failure in women several years after pre‐eclampsia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;52:196–204.
24.
Ciftci FC, Ciftci O, Gullu H, Caliskan M, Uckuyu A, Ozcimen EE. Does mild preeclampsia cause arterial stiffness and ventricular remodeling through inflammation? Ginekol Pol. 2014;85:900–907.
25.
Clemmensen TS, Christensen M, Kronborg CJS, Knudsen UB, Løgstrup BB. Long‐term follow‐up of women with early onset pre‐eclampsia shows subclinical impairment of the left ventricular function by two‐dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography. Pregnancy Hypertens. 2018;14:9–14.
26.
Collen AC, Hellgren M, Gustafsson H, Johansson MC, Manhem K. Cardiovascular and metabolic characteristics 40 years after hypertensive pregnancies: a long‐term follow‐up study of mothers. J Hypertens. 2013;31:758–765.
27.
Estensen ME, Remme EW, Grindheim G, Smiseth OA, Segers P, Henriksen T, Aakhus S. Increased arterial stiffness in pre‐eclamptic pregnancy at term and early and late postpartum: a combined echocardiographic and tonometric study. Am J Hypertens. 2013;26:549–556.
28.
Evans CS, Gooch L, Flotta D, Lykins D, Powers RW, Landsittel D, Roberts JM, Shroff SG. Cardiovascular system during the postpartum state in women with a history of preeclampsia. Hypertension. 2011;58:57–62.
29.
Ghi T, Degli Esposti D, Montaguti E, Rosticci M, De Musso F, Youssef A, Salsi G, Pilu G, Borghi C, Rizzo N. Post‐partum evaluation of maternal cardiac function after severe preeclampsia. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014;27:696–701.
30.
Ghossein‐Doha C, van Kuijk SM, Spaanderman ME, Delhaas T, Peeters LL. Age‐related alterations in cardiac geometry in formerly preeclamptic women and healthy parous controls: an explorative study. Reprod Sci. 2013;20:39–44.
31.
Ghossein‐Doha C, van Neer J, Wissink B, Breetveld NM, de Windt LJ, van Dijk AP, van der Vlugt MJ, Janssen MC, Heidema WM, Scholten RR, Spaanderman ME. Pre‐eclampsia: an important risk factor for asymptomatic heart failure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49:143–149.
32.
Melchiorre K, Sutherland GR, Liberati M, Thilaganathan B. Preeclampsia is associated with persistent postpartum cardiovascular impairment. Hypertension. 2011;58:709–715.
33.
Orabona R, Vizzardi E, Sciatti E, Prefumo F, Bonadei I, Valcamonico A, Metra M, Frusca T. Maternal cardiac function after HELLP syndrome: an echocardiography study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50:507–513.
34.
Rafik Hamad R, Larsson A, Pernow J, Bremme K, Eriksson MJ. Assessment of left ventricular structure and function in preeclampsia by echocardiography and cardiovascular biomarkers. J Hypertens. 2009;27:2257–2264.
35.
Scantlebury DC, Kane GC, Wiste HJ, Bailey KR, Turner ST, Arnett DK, Devereux RB, Mosley TH Jr, Hunt SC, Weder AB, Rodriguez B, Boerwinkle E, Weissgerber TL, Garovic VD. Left ventricular hypertrophy after hypertensive pregnancy disorders. Heart. 2015;101:1584–1590.
36.
Shahul S, Ramadan H, Nizamuddin J, Mueller A, Patel V, Dreixler J, Tung A, Lang RM, Weinert L, Nasim R, Chinthala S, Rana S. Activin A and late postpartum cardiac dysfunction among women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Hypertension. 2018;72:188–193.
37.
Simmons LA, Gillin AG, Jeremy RW. Structural and functional changes in left ventricle during normotensive and preeclamptic pregnancy. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2002;283:H1627–H1633.
38.
Soma‐Pillay P, Louw MC, Adeyemo AO, Makin J, Pattinson RC. Cardiac diastolic function after recovery from pre‐eclampsia. Cardiovasc J Afr. 2018;29:26–31.
39.
Spaan JJ, Ekhart T, Spaanderman ME, Peeters LL. Remote hemodynamics and renal function in formerly preeclamptic women. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:853–859.
40.
Strobl I, Windbichler G, Strasak A, Weiskopf‐Schwendinger V, Schweigmann U, Ramoni A, Scheier M. Left ventricular function many years after recovery from pre‐eclampsia. BJOG. 2011;118:76–83.
41.
Tyldum EV, Backe B, Stoylen A, Slordahl SA. Maternal left ventricular and endothelial functions in preeclampsia. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91:566–573.
42.
Valensise H, Lo Presti D, Gagliardi G, Tiralongo GM, Pisani I, Novelli GP, Vasapollo B. Persistent Maternal Cardiac Dysfunction After Preeclampsia Identifies Patients at Risk for Recurrent Preeclampsia. Hypertension. 2016;67:748–753.
43.
Yu L, Zhou Q, Peng Q, Yang Z. Left ventricular function of patients with pregnancy‐induced hypertension evaluated using velocity vector imaging echocardiography and N‐terminal pro‐brain natriuretic peptide. Echocardiography. 2018;35:459–466.
44.
Yuan LJ, Duan YY, Xue D, Cao TS, Zhou N. Ultrasound study of carotid and cardiac remodeling and cardiac‐arterial coupling in normal pregnancy and preeclampsia: a case control study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:113.
45.
Kim C, Newton KM, Knopp RH. Gestational diabetes and the incidence of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Diabetes Care. 2002;25:1862–1868.
46.
American Diabetes Association . 13. Management of diabetes in pregnancy: standards of medical care in diabetes—2018. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(Suppl 1):S137–S143.
47.
Yang H, Negishi K, Wang Y, Nolan M, Saito M, Marwick TH. Echocardiographic screening for non‐ischaemic stage B heart failure in the community. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016;18:1331–1339.
48.
Orabona R, Vizzardi E, Sciatti E, Bonadei I, Valcamonico A, Metra M, Frusca T. Insights into cardiac alterations after pre‐eclampsia: an echocardiographic study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49:124–133.
49.
De Haas S, Ghossein‐Doha C, Geerts L, van Kuijk SMJ, van Drongelen J, Spaanderman MEA. Cardiac remodeling in normotensive pregnancy and in pregnancy complicated by hypertension: systematic review and meta‐analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50:683–696.
50.
Castleman JS, Ganapathy R, Taki F, Lip GY, Steeds RP, Kotecha D. Echocardiographic structure and function in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: a systematic review. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9:e004888.
51.
Bramham K, Parnell B, Nelson‐Piercy C, Seed PT, Poston L, Chappell LC. Chronic hypertension and pregnancy outcomes: systematic review and meta‐analysis. BMJ. 2014;348:g2301.
52.
Persson M, Norman M, Hanson U. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in type 1 diabetic pregnancies: a large, population‐based study. Diabetes Care. 2009;32:2005–2009.
53.
Stekkinger E, Zandstra M, Peeters LL, Spaanderman ME. Early‐onset preeclampsia and the prevalence of postpartum metabolic syndrome. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:1076–1084.
54.
McDonald SD, Han Z, Walsh MW, Gerstein HC, Devereaux PJ. Kidney disease after preeclampsia: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2010;55:1026–1039.
55.
Lykke JA, Langhoff‐Roos J, Sibai BM, Funai EF, Triche EW, Paidas MJ. Hypertensive pregnancy disorders and subsequent cardiovascular morbidity and type 2 diabetes mellitus in the mother. Hypertension. 2009;53:944–951.
56.
Vikse BE, Hallan S, Bostad L, Leivestad T, Iversen BM. Previous preeclampsia and risk for progression of biopsy‐verified kidney disease to end‐stage renal disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;25:3289–3296.
57.
Stuart JJ, Tanz LJ, Cook NR, Spiegelman D, Missmer SA, Rimm EB, Rexrode KM, Mukamal KJ, Rich‐Edwards JW. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and 10‐year cardiovascular risk prediction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:1252–1263.
58.
Nagueh SF, Smiseth OA, Appleton CP, Byrd BF III, Dokainish H, Edvardsen T, Flachskampf FA, Gillebert TC, Klein AL, Lancellotti P, Marino P, Oh JK, Popescu BA, Waggoner AD. Recommendations for the Evaluation of Left Ventricular Diastolic Function by Echocardiography: an Update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2016;29:277–314.
59.
Sharifov OF, Schiros CG, Aban I, Denney TS, Gupta H. Diagnostic accuracy of tissue doppler index E/e′ for evaluating left ventricular filling pressure and diastolic dysfunction/heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5:e002530.
60.
Biering‐Sorensen T, Biering‐Sorensen SR, Olsen FJ, Sengelov M, Jorgensen PG, Mogelvang R, Shah AM, Jensen JS. Global longitudinal strain by echocardiography predicts long‐term risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a low‐risk general population: the copenhagen city heart study. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10:e005521.
61.
Lee WH, Liu YW, Yang LT, Tsai WC. Prognostic value of longitudinal strain of subepicardial myocardium in patients with hypertension. J Hypertens. 2016;34:1195–1200.
62.
Kosmala W, Jellis CL, Marwick TH. Exercise limitation associated with asymptomatic left ventricular impairment: analogy with stage B heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:257–266.
63.
Khan H, Kunutsor S, Rauramaa R, Savonen K, Kalogeropoulos AP, Georgiopoulou VV, Butler J, Laukkanen JA. Cardiorespiratory fitness and risk of heart failure: a population‐based follow‐up study. Eur J Heart Fail. 2014;16:180–188.
64.
Pandey A, Cornwell WK III, Willis B, Neeland IJ, Gao A, Leonard D, DeFina L, Berry JD. Body mass index and cardiorespiratory fitness in mid‐life and risk of heart failure hospitalization in older age: findings from the cooper center longitudinal study. JACC Heart Fail. 2017;5:367–374.
65.
Imboden MT, Harber MP, Whaley MH, Finch WH, Bishop DL, Kaminsky LA. Cardiorespiratory fitness and mortality in healthy men and women. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:2283–2292.
66.
Bokslag A, Hermes W, de Groot CJ, Teunissen PW. Reduction of cardiovascular risk after preeclampsia: the role of framing and perceived probability in modifying behavior. Hypertens Pregnancy. 2016;35:470–473.
67.
Writing Committee Members, Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, Butler J, Casey DE Jr, Drazner MH, Fonarow GC, Geraci SA, Horwich T, Januzzi JL, Johnson MR, Kasper EK, Levy WC, Masoudi FA, McBride PE, McMurray JJ, Mitchell JE, Peterson PN, Riegel B, Sam F, Stevenson LW, Tang WH, Tsai EJ, Wilkoff BL; American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines . 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 2013;128:e240–e327.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2019 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
History
Received: 11 June 2019
Accepted: 25 September 2019
Published online: 8 November 2019
Published in print: 19 November 2019
Keywords
Subjects
Notes
(J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8:e013545. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.119.013545.)
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
- A Comparative Research With Normotensive Pregnant Women on Echocardiography Changes in Women With Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy, Clinical and Comparative Research on Maternal Health, (74-90), (2024).https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-5941-9.ch005
- Early Mortality, Cardiovascular, and Renal Diseases in Women's Lives Following Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: The Prospective Nationwide Study CONCEPTION, Journal of the American Heart Association, 13, 8, (2024)./doi/10.1161/JAHA.123.033252
- Genomic variation associated with cardiovascular disease progression following preeclampsia: a systematic review, Frontiers in Epidemiology, 3, (2023).https://doi.org/10.3389/fepid.2023.1221222
- The association between hypertensive disorders during pregnancy and maternal and neonatal outcomes: a retrospective claims analysis, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 23, 1, (2023).https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05818-9
- Cardiac Remodeling After Hypertensive Pregnancy Following Physician-Optimized Blood Pressure Self-Management: The POP-HT Randomized Clinical Trial Imaging Substudy, Circulation, 149, 7, (529-541), (2023)./doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.067597
- Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, BMJ, (e071653), (2023).https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-071653
- Gestational hypertensive disorders and blood pressure and childhood cardiac outcomes: A prospective cohort study, BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 130, 10, (1226-1237), (2023).https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17468
- Adverse pregnancy outcomes and future risk of heart failure, Current Opinion in Cardiology, (2023).https://doi.org/10.1097/HCO.0000000000001035
- Preeclampsia: Effects on Cardiovascular Outcomes, Contemporary Topics in Cardio-Obstetrics, (157-195), (2023).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34103-8_10
- Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and long‐term cardiovascular health: FIGO Best Practice Advice , International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 160, S1, (22-34), (2023).https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.14540
- See more
Loading...
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Personal login Institutional LoginPurchase Options
Purchase this article to access the full text.
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.