Introduction:
Pre-eclampsia (PE) and the more severe “eclampsia” together affect approximately 2–8% of pregnancies; and result in more than 50,000 maternal deaths globally.(1) The incidence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in the U.S. appears to have increased 25% in the last two decades,(2) and is a leading contributor to maternal and infant morbidity and mortality.(3) Diagnostic criteria have recently been revised to de-emphasize the previously required documentation of proteinuria; and to allow greater emphasis on clinical findings.(4) None the less, PE has been classically based on the new onset of hypertension and proteinuria after 20 weeks of gestation.(5) With severe PE, multiple organ systems can be affected, potentially resulting in complications such as renal failure, stroke, congestive heart failure, disseminated intravascular coagulopathy, and liver failure. Obstetric risk factors for development of PE have previously been identified, such as primiparity, multifetal pregnancy, and prior pregnancy with PE. In addition, traditional cardiovascular disease risk factors, such as increased age, obesity, altered glucose metabolism and pre-existing hypertension also play a role.(4) Specific details of the underlying etiology of PE are unknown; but the condition seems to develop initially from reduced placental perfusion, which leads to systemic inflammatory, metabolic, and thrombotic changes that impair maternal vascular function and lead to multi-organ damage.(6)
Although the blood pressure and albuminuria of patients with PE typically return to normal values within months of delivery, evidence is accumulating that acute episodes of PE are linked to future cardiovascular disease. From a few reports beginning in 1976,(7) to increasingly strong analyses in the past two decades evidence is showing that women who experience PE have an increased risk of hypertension and other cardiovascular conditions in later life.(8–10) In addition to a four-fold increased risk of hypertension,(5) PE is also associated with increased risk of other serious morbidity, including myocardial infarction,(11) renal disease,(12) diabetes(13) and stroke.(14) There also appears to be a “dose effect”(15–16) with those experiencing more severe, or earlier manifestations of PE being at increased risk of adverse outcomes, compared with those having had less severe PE.
One interpretation of these findings is PE and cardiovascular disease (CVD) share risk factors that may be subtle or currently unrecognized in young, pregnant women; and that the additional physiologic stress of pregnancy unmasks this predisposition years ahead of its eventual manifestation. Thus PE is viewed as a positive “stress test”, predictive of future CVD.(17)
Regardless of whether PE is an independent factor in the causal chain of future CVD, or simply shares other primary risk factors with CVD, pre-eclampsia was identified by the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology as a useful, clinical risk factor for heart disease and stroke. Indeed, the additional risk of future CVD attributed to a history of PE is comparable to that of smoking.(9)
The purpose of this study was to determine if there is an association between a history pre-eclampsia and future development of hypertension in an American Indian population.
Methods:
This investigation utilized data of American Indian women from a previously described case-control study of genetic influences on risk of PE.(18) Case status is equivalent to exposure status in this analysis. A retrospective review of medical records was conducted of women with and without PE that gave birth from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2012. Institutional Review Board (IRB) permission for this study was obtained from the Indian Health Service facility in the northern plains, the American Indian community and the University of North Dakota. Cases comprised women with PE (N=130), of which 96 met criteria as severe PE as defined by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.(19) Controls are women (N=288) women that did not meet criteria for PE.
Hospital diagnostic codes were searched from 1995 forward to ascertain potential cases. Criteria for the case and control definitions of PE in this study are fully described in previous publications.(18) In brief, cases were defined as those meeting criteria for PE if at least 2 of the following were identified:
At least two BP values above either 140 mmHg systolic or 90 mmHg diastolic on separate occasions at least 4 hours apart; and absence of a diagnosis of, or treatment for hypertension (during the year prior to conception and the first 20 weeks of gestation).
Proteinuria as indicated by a 24-hour excretion of >300 mg, or at least two +1 dipstick measurements in the absence of prior proteinuria.
A diagnosis of PE, eclampsia, or the hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, low platelet (HELLP) syndrome by an attending physician after 20 weeks of gestation.
Potential controls were chosen by contacting the two women delivering just prior and after the case; and repeating the process until two control women consented to participate. Both cases and controls were excluded if they had a clinical diagnosis of hypertension prior to the identified pregnancy. The two highest blood pressure readings recorded within the period from 1 year prior to the pregnancy up to 20 weeks of gestation were collected. When available, the mean of both the systolic and diastolic pressures were calculated and used as covariates to adjust models.
The electronic medical records were searched for the four most recent blood pressure (BP) readings that were measured on separate office visits during the 2 years prior to follow-up; and if a hypertensive medication were prescribed in the past two years. Anti-hypertensive medications included: angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, and/or thiazide diuretics. The mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures were calculated from at least 2 of the 4 possible measurements. Defining criteria for “subsequent” hypertension of both cases and controls were a mean systolic BP ≥@140…AND a mean diastolic ≥90 …OR a prescription for anti-hypertensive medication (AHM). The most recent body mass index (BMI) during the prior 3 years was also recorded. The BMI calculated at the time of pregnancy used the recorded weight and height at the first prenatal visit.
The statistical software, SPSS 13.0.1 for Windows, was used to analyze demographic and clinical characteristics of patients. Frequencies and relative percentages were computed for each categorical variable. Chi-square tests and Fisher’s exact tests were performed to determine which categories were significantly different from one another, and Student’s t-test was used to compare continuous variables. Cytel Studio software, version 11.0.0 was used to calculate logistic regression results. All p-values were two-sided, and p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. Missing data was excluded from analysis.
Results:
The relevant baseline characteristics of the cases and controls are shown in Table 1. Women with a history of PE were more likely to be primiparous, have a higher BMI, have higher recorded blood pressures prior to 20 weeks of gestation and have exhibited gestational diabetes during their pregnancy. The mean gestational age at the time of first prenatal visit (when BMI was calculated) was 13.02 and only 4.7% of cases and controls attended their first prenatal visit at 30 weeks of gestation or later. Smoking prevalence was similar between cases and controls.
Table 1:
Characteristics of cases and controls at the time of pregnancy.
| Characteristic | Cases 31.1%(n=130) |
Controls 68.9%(n=288) |
p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, mean years (SD) | 26.5 (35.7) | 23.9 (7.3) | 0.411 |
| Parity ( % primiparous) | 88/130 (67.7%) | 123/286 (43.0%) | 0.001 |
| Mean systolic BP < 20wk gestation (SD) | 133.2 (20.3) | 122.3 (17.7) | 0.001 |
| Mean diastolic BP < 20wk gestation (SD) | 79.2 (12.7) | 71.7 (11.6) | 0.001 |
| Body-Mass index (SD) at first prenatal visit | 30.5 (7.09) | 28.0 (7.08) | 0.001 |
| Gestational diabetes (% yes) | 17/129 (13.2%) | 12/220 (5.5%) | 0.007 |
| Maternal smoking (% yes) | 34/87 (39.1%) | 85/173 (49.1%) | 0.125 |
Characteristics of women at follow-up are found in Table 2. Follow-up occurred at a mean (standard deviation, minimum, maximum) of 13.5 years (7.1, 3.6, 36.7) for cases and 12.9 years (6.7, 3.6, 36.6) for controls. There was no significant difference in length of follow-up between cases and controls (p=0.421). At follow-up cases had higher mean BMI, systolic and diastolic BP, prevalence of anti-hypertensive medication and study-defined hypertension;but otherwise were of similar age. )
Table 2:
Characteristics of cases and controls at follow-up.
| Characteristic | Cases 31.1%(n=130) |
Controls 68.9%(n=288) |
p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current age, mean (SD) | 36.1 (9.6) | 35.9 (9.0) | 0.832 |
| Current body-mass index (SD) | 34.3 (7.24) | 31.6 (7.53) | 0.001 |
| Mean systolic BP | 127.2 (13.2) | 121.3 (12.1) | 0.001 |
| Mean diastolic BP | 76.2 (9.0) | 72.6 (8.6) | 0.001 |
| Hypertensive medication use (% yes) | 35/130 (26.9%) | 25/288 (8.7%) | 0.001 |
| Study-defined, subsequent hypertension, any BMI increase | 41/130 (31.5%) | 29/288 (10.1%) | 0.001 |
| Subsequent hypertension among those with less than median BMI increase | 22/60 (36.7%) | 14/140 (10.0%) | 0.001 |
| Subsequent hypertension among those with more than median BMI increase | 17/65 (26.2%) | 15/135 (11.1%) | 0.012 |
| Follow-up time from pregnancy to current analysis (years) | 13.5 (7.1) | 12.9 (6.7) | 0.421 |
The results of linear regression models are shown in Table 3. This analysis shows increased subsequent systolic blood pressure of approximately 3mm of mercury among those with a history of prior PE, even when simultaneously adjusted for age, BMI and average systolic pressure prior to 20 weeks of gestation. . The association is also seen when the analysis is limited to those participants in the lowest quartile of follow-up time (between 3.59 and 7.19 years) as detailed in Table 3, along with summary results from the remaining quartiles. If baseline (rather than current) measures of age, and BMI were used as adjusting covariates in these linear models, the covariate association with follow-up blood pressures lost independent significance. Models including gestational diabetes failed to show significant, independent association in either the linear or logistic regression analyses. Analysis of controls only indicates significant and independent association between blood pressures prior to 20 weeks of gestation, age and BMI.
Table 3.
Multivariate linear regression model analyses.
| Linear Regression Model, Systolic Blood Pressure, N=337* | ||||
| B** | S.E. | β*** | P value | |
| Previous pre-eclampsia | 2.75 | 1.33 | 0.109 | 0.040 |
| Mean prior systolic BP**** | 0.14 | 0.03 | 0.220 | 0.001 |
| Current age | 0.19 | 0.07 | 0.138 | 0.007 |
| Current BMI | 0.28 | 0.09 | 0.170 | 0.002 |
| Linear Regression Model, Diastolic Blood Pressure, N=337 | ||||
| Previous pre-eclampsia | 1.74 | 0.96 | 0.182 | 0.070 |
| Mean prior systolic BP | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.179 | 0.001 |
| Current age | 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.129 | 0.013 |
| Current BMI | 0.20 | 0.06 | 0.170 | 0.002 |
| Participants in first quartile with shortest follow-up | ||||
| Linear Regression Model, Systolic Blood Pressure, N=69 | ||||
| Previous pre-eclampsia | 4.26 | 2.68 | 0.188 | 0.116 |
| Mean prior systolic BP | 0.20 | 0.09 | 0.273 | 0.038 |
| Current age | 0.233 | 0.21 | 1.093 | 0.278 |
| Current BMI | 0.16 | 0.17 | 0.115 | 0.362 |
| Remaining quartiles, same model, results given for previous pre-eclampsia only | ||||
| Second quartile of follow-up, N=89 | 2.45 | 2.52 | 0.106 | 0.335 |
| Third quartile, N=91 | 4.22 | 2.77 | 0.154 | 0.131 |
| Fourth quartile, N=89 | −1.81 | 2.83 | −0.070 | 0.523 |
| Linear Regression Model, Diastolic Blood Pressure, N=69 | ||||
| Previous pre-eclampsia | 3.35 | 1.67 | 0.217 | 0.049 |
| Mean prior diastolic BP*** | 0.26 | 0.09 | 0.319 | 0.007 |
| Current age | 0.35 | 0.13 | 0.271 | 0.012 |
| Current BMI | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.102 | 0.360 |
| Remaining quartiles, same model, results given for previous pre-eclampsia only | ||||
| Second quartile of follow-up, N=89 | 1.83 | 1.97 | 0.102 | 0.356 |
| Third quartile, N=91 | 0.31 | 1.92 | 0.017 | 0.872 |
| Fourth quartile, N=89 | −1.02 | 1.95 | −0.058 | 0.601 |
| Cases excluded, Controls only | ||||
| Linear Regression Model, Systolic Blood Pressure, N=211 | ||||
| Mean prior systolic BP | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.20 | 0.003 |
| Current age | 0.25 | 0.09 | 0.19 | 0.003 |
| Current BMI | 0.43 | 0.11 | 0.27 | 0.001 |
| Linear Regression Model, Diastolic Blood Pressure, N=211 | ||||
| Mean prior diastolic BP | 0.15 | 0.05 | 0.21 | 0.001 |
| Current age | 0.18 | 0.06 | 0.19 | 0.004 |
| Current BMI | 0.30 | 0.07 | 0.26 | 0.001 |
N= the number of participants with available covariates for a particular analysis
Unstandardized regression coefficient
Standardized regression coefficient
Mean systolic or diastolic blood pressure, one year pre-pregnancy through 20 weeks gestation
Table 4 indicates the results of multivariate logistic regression analysis with subsequent, study-defined hypertension as the outcome and adjusting covariates as noted for the linear analyses. This also showsassociation between prior PE and future hypertension (OR 3.43, 95% CI 1.83 – 6.43, p=0.001), even when limited to those within the lowest quartile of follow-up. When the analysis is limited to the controls and those with severe PE (mild cases omitted), the point estimate of the odds ratio is greater (OR 4.18, 95% CI 2.19 – 8.00, p=0.001). If the history of PE is entered as an ordinal variable, with control status, mild PE and severe PE entered as 0, 1 and 2 respectively, the odds ratio is 2.19 ( 95% CI 1.54 – 3.10, p=0.001) for each increasing step of severity. In logistic analyses, substituting baseline age or BMI for current measures did not materially affect the association with PE; but did result in a loss of independent association for age at delivery.
Table 4.
Multivariate logistic regression model analyses.
| Logistic Regression (Subsequent hypertension as the outcome), N=337* | |||
| OR** | 95% CI | P value | |
| Previous pre-eclampsia | 3.43 | 1.83 − 6.43 | 0.001 |
| Mean prior systolic BP*** | 1.02 | 1.00 − 1.04 | 0.032 |
| Current age | 1.08 | 1.04 − 1.11 | 0.001 |
| Current BMI | 1.01 | 0.97 − 1.06 | 0.505 |
| Participants in quartile with shortest follow-up, N=69 | |||
| Logistic Regression (Subsequent hypertension as the outcome) | |||
| OR | 95% CI | P value | |
| Previous pre-eclampsia | 11.31 | 1.15 − 111.2 | 0.038 |
| Mean prior systolic BP | 1.06 | 0.99 − 1.13 | 0.090 |
| Current age | 1.09 | 0.93 − 1.29 | 0.270 |
| Current BMI | 0.85 | 0.72 − 1.01 | 0.062 |
| Remaining quartiles, same model, results given for previous pre-eclampsia only | |||
| Second quartile of follow-up, N=89 | 3.52 | 0.69 − 18.1 | 0.132 |
| Third quartile, N=91 | 3.65 | 1.05 − 12.7 | 0.042 |
| Fourth quartile, N=89 | 2.20 | 0.80 − 6.08 | 0.128 |
| Cases excluded, Controls only, N=211 | |||
| Logistic Regression (Subsequent hypertension as the outcome) | |||
| OR | 95% CI | P value | |
| Mean prior systolic BP | 1.04 | 1.00 − 1.07 | 0.041 |
| Current age | 1.12 | 1.05 − 1.18 | 0.001 |
| Current BMI | 1.05 | 0.98 − 1.13 | 0.188 |
N= the number of participants with available covariates for a particular analysis
Odds Ratio
Mean systolic or diastolic blood pressure, one year pre-pregnancy through 20 weeks gestation
The inclusion of pre-natal tobacco use showed only marginally significant association with systolic blood pressure (p=0.055) and no association in other fully adjusted linear or logistic models for diastolic pressure and subsequent hypertension respectively. Results of logistic regression analysis of the controls alone indicated significant, independent association with prior systolic blood pressure and age; but not BMI.
A number of analyses were conducted in an attempt to separate the effects of PE per se from the effects of increasing obesity during the follow-up period, As seen in Table 2, the prevalence of hypertension among cases was nominally lower (17/65=26.2%) among those with the greatest increase in BMI, compared with (22/60=36.7%) among those with the least; but this was not statistically significant (p=0.463). The participants were stratified into those with a change in BMI below or above the median increase of 3.7 BMI units; and these results are presented in Table 5. Among those with the lesser change (mean and median change of −0.53, and +0.37 BMI units respectively) both the linear and logistic regression relationship to history of PE remained significant and strong. Among those with the greater change in BMI (mean and median change of +8.08, and +7.08 units respectively), the linear models now showed no association with systolic or diastolic pressure, whereas the logistic models continued to show statistically significant association with future hypertension as defined (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.06 – 6.70, p=0.036). Lastly, an additive model, attempting to scale the effects of PE and increasing BMI over time showed a strong relationship to subsequent hypertension, as seen in Table 5.
Table 5.
Analyses contrasting those above and those below the median change in BMI from pregnancy to follow-up.
| Linear Regression Model, Systolic Blood Pressure | ||||
| Above median change in BMI, N=162* | ||||
| B** | S.E. | β*** | P value | |
| Previous pre-eclampsia | −1.17 | 1.85 | −0.05 | 0.529 |
| Mean prior systolic BP**** | 0.23 | 0.07 | 0.279 | 0.001 |
| Current age | 0.17 | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.072 |
| Current BMI | 0.31 | 0.14 | 0.18 | 0.028 |
| Below median change in BMI, N=167 | ||||
| Previous pre-eclampsia | 6.26 | 1.93 | 0.24 | 0.001 |
| Mean prior systolic BP | 0.13 | 0.05 | 0.21 | 0.008 |
| Current age | 0.26 | 0.11 | 0.18 | 0.016 |
| Current BMI | 0.12 | 0.14 | 0.07 | 0.393 |
| Linear Regression Model, Diastolic Blood Pressure | ||||
| Above median change in BMI, N=162 | ||||
| Previous pre-eclampsia | −0.62 | 1.43 | −0.03 | 0.664 |
| Mean prior diastolic BP | 0.20 | 0.07 | 0.24 | 0.003 |
| Current age | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.387 |
| Current BMI | 0.25 | 0.10 | 0.19 | 0.015 |
| Below median change in BMI, N=167 | ||||
| Previous pre-eclampsia | 3.10 | 1.29 | 0.18 | 0.018 |
| Mean prior diastolic BP | 0.19 | 0.05 | 0.29 | 0.001 |
| Current age | 0.13 | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.063 |
| Current BMI | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.222 |
| Logistic Regression Model (Subsequent hypertension as outcome) | ||||
| Above median change in BMI, N=162 | ||||
| OR | 95% CI | |||
| Previous pre-eclampsia | 2.67 | 1.06 − 6.70 | 0.036 | |
| Mean prior systolic BP | 1.04 | 1.01 − 1.07 | 0.041 | |
| Current age | 1.07 | 1.02 − 1.13 | 0.006 | |
| Current BMI | 0.99 | 0.92 − 1.07 | 0.800 | |
| Below median change in BMI, N=167 | ||||
| Previous pre-eclampsia | 4.22 | 1.76 − 10.1 | 0.001 | |
| Mean prior systolic BP | 1.02 | 0.99 − 1.03 | 0.277 | |
| Current age | 1.10 | 1.04 − 1.15 | 0.001 | |
| Current BMI | 1.04 | 0.98 − 1.11 | 0.201 | |
| Logistic Regression Model (Subsequent hypertension as outcome) | ||||
| Additive model, N=329 | ||||
| Additive risk score***** | 1.55 | 1.16 − 2.06 | 0.003 | |
| Mean prior systolic BP | 1.03 | 1.01 − 1.05 | 0.009 | |
| Current age | 1.08 | 1.05 − 1.12 | 0.001 | |
| Current BMI | 1.00 | 0.96 − 1.05 | 0.994 | |
N= the number of participants with available covariates for a particular analysis
Unstandardized regression coefficient
Standardized regression coefficient
Mean systolic blood pressure, one year pre-pregnancy through 20 weeks gestation
0=no PE, below median BMI increase (v BMI), 1=no PE, above median BMI increase (^BMI), 2= +PE, v BMI, 3= +PE, ^BMI
Women with a history of PE were also more likely to be prescribed antihypertensive medication (OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.60 – 5.91, p=0.001) compared to women experiencing normal pregnancies.
Discussion:
Our findings clearly demonstrate that this cohort of American Indian women with a history of pre-eclampsia (PE) have an increased risk of future hypertension both over relatively short or longer periods of follow-up. This is in agreement with several investigations, primarily conducted among European populations.(8,13,20,21) Bellamy et al.(15) conducted a meta-analysis of 13 studies with a mean follow-up of 14.1 years, finding a composite relative risk (RR 3.70, 95% CI 2.70 – 5.05) for subsequent hypertension, albeit with significant heterogeneity between studies (smaller studies showing increased RR). This result is nearly identical to our present study. Of note, case-control studies were excluded in this meta-analysis of cohorts, of which all but three (8,14,22) evaluated fewer cases and controls than the present study. Only one of the larger cohorts (14) adjusted for BMI and obtained an odds ratio of 3.98 for a physician’s diagnosis of hypertension.
Although not our primary objective and well established in the literature,(23) we provide additional evidence of the association between obesity and hypertension; both as an independent factor in the relationship between PE and subsequent hypertension and among those with previously normal pregnancies. The lack of a difference in hypertension prevalence between those with greater or lesser increases in BMI supports the independent influence of PE on the risk of subsequent hypertension.The stratified analysis showing a strong association with PE and subsequent hypertension among those with less than the median increase in BMI during follow-up, gives further weight to the hypothesis that risk of future hypertension is not due merely to a tendency of those with PE toward obesity. Interestingly, those with the greatest increase in BMI continued to show a relationship between hypertension and PE in logistic analysis, but not in linear analysis of blood pressure. This may be due to the increased effect of obesity overwhelming the influence of prior PE. There are relatively few studies of PE associated with an outcome of hypertension that are adjusted for BMI, but one moderate sized investigation14 found an odds ratio of 2.62 (95% CI 1.77 – 3.86, p=0.001).
We have been able to identify only three reports relating PE to hypertension among non-European populations. These include studies among Samoan,(24) Jordanian,(25) and primarily African American.(22) There is no prior information available regarding subsequent hypertension among American Indian women.
An interesting question is whether the pathophysiologic changes of PE alter the cardiovascular system of women in a lasting way that increases the risk of future hypertension and CVD events, or whether the stress of pregnancy merely unmasks underlying pathophysiology that is common to both PE and CVD. This debate is well described in a review by Garovic et al;(26) but remains unresolved. The current study offers additional support for PE as an independent, intrinsic risk factor, in that those with a lesser increase in BMI during follow-up continued to show a strong association with PE, discounting the theory that obesity is perhaps one of multiple primary risk factors for future hypertension. While the addition of blood pressure prior to pregnancy and up to 20 weeks of gestation attenuates the association of PE with subsequent blood pressures in both linear and logistic analyses, a couple of caveats need to be considered. First, the blood pressure at follow-up will be lessened in those under treatment for hypertension, thus decreasing the power of these linear analyses. The logistic models take into account hypertensive treatment; and thus capture this potential effect of PE exposure. Secondly, a large portion of the “prior” blood pressure measures were obtained during the first 20 weeks of gestation; and could well have captured mild elevations from PE that preceded the formal definition of PE (ie “after 20 weeks of gestation”). Thus the use of these prior blood pressures as a covariate may result in “over adjustment”. The results of logistic models showing subsequent hypertension significantly and independently associated with a history of PE, even among those with the shortest follow-up, is especially impressive in the light of these caveats.
Other studies provide clear evidence of persisting abnormalities in cardiovascular function (27) and even anatomy (28) post PE; but no comparable measures from these women prior to pregnancy. To know whether PE, directly affects these changes, detailed longitudinal studies of a cohort of women from pre-pregnancy to a couple years post pregnancy would be ideal; but would be difficult due to the large population needed, continuing difficulty discriminating between possibly distinct forms of PE (eg early vs late pregnancy, young vs older women) and the need to control or adjust for pre-existing risk factors. This question is not without practical implications. If PE is the cause of a persistent increase in CVD risk, then management of women with PE may require more aggressive interventions to prevent adverse outcomes.(26)
Strengths of this study include PE as a well-defined exposure, confirmed by clinical measures and a conservative definition; and similarly reliable clinical measures of outcome (blood pressure and prescribed medications). Important covariates were also well documented, in some cases both during pregnancy and at the end of follow-up; and there was adequate power to analyze both long and short term outcome. These results from a non-European population support the view that there is a generalizable physiology underlying this association.
Limitations to this investigation include the possibility that some BMI’s from the time of pregnancy were obtained during a late prenatal visit, and thus biased upward, although the proportion of women over 30 weeks gestation at first prenatal was less than 5%. It is possible that some women were seen and actively treated for hypertension at a facility other than the Indian Health Service in this community. If there was a systematic bias in loss to follow-up, this could have affected the results. Reassuringly, although abstraction was limited to about 200 per abstractor due to time constraints, of the 418 abstracted (out of a potential 542), all but one had at least three blood pressures measured within the prior 3 years (resulting in a minimum follow-up of 77%). Loss to follow-up did occur due to death for 2 control women from the original study; and the cause is unknown. We also caution that these findings from a single community may not generalize to other American Indian populations; and further studies in other areas would be useful.
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death for women ≥ 65 years of age in the United States,(29) and the American Heart Association has recognized the importance of PE as a CVD risk factor,(30) which is comparable to the effects of smoking.(9) These insights and the development of clinical recommendations for the prevention and treatment of PE have made vital contributions to women’s health.(31)
Acknowledgements:
We thank the study participants, Indian Health Service facilities, and participating tribal communities for their extraordinary cooperation and involvement, which has been critical to the success of this investigation. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Indian Health Service. Research reported in this publication was supported by an Institutional Development Award (IDeA) from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under grant number P20GM103442.
Footnotes
Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest.
References
- 1.Duley L. The global impact of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia. Semin Perinatol. 2009; 33(3):130–7. [] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Wallis AB, Saftlas AF, Hsia J, Atrash HK. Secular trends in the rates of preeclampsia, eclampsia, and gestational hypertension, United States, 1987–2004. Am J Hypertens. 2008; 21(5):521–6. [] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Lindheimer MD, Taler SJ, Cunningham FG. Hypertension in pregnancy. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2010; 4(2):68–78. [PubMed:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.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(5):1122–31. [PubMed:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Health, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (2000) Report of the National High Blood Pressure Education Program Working Group on High Blood Pressure in Pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183: S1–S22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Jeyabalan A Epidemiology of preeclampsia: impact of obesity. Nutr Rev. 2013; 71 Suppl 1:S18–25. [PubMed: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Mann JI, Doll R, Thorogood M, Vessey MP, Waters WE. Risk factors for myocardial infarction in young women. Br J Prev Soc Med. 1976; 30(2):94–100. [PubMed:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Hannaford P, Ferry S, Hirsch S. Cardiovascular sequelae of toxaemia of pregnancy. Heart. 1997; 77(2):154–8. [PubMed:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Chen CW, Jaffe IZ, Karumanchi SA. Pre-eclampsia and cardiovascular disease. Cardiovasc Res. 2014; 101(4):579–86. [PubMed:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Lo JO, Mission JF, Caughey AB. Hypertensive disease of pregnancy and maternal mortality. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 25(2):124–32. [PubMed PMID:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Wikström AK, Haglund B, Olovsson M, Lindeberg SN. The risk of maternal ischaemic heart disease after gestational hypertensive disease. BJOG. 2005; 112(11):1486–91. [PubMed:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.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(8):800–9. [PubMed: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.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(6):944–51. [PubMed:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Wilson BJ, Watson MS, Prescott GJ, Sunderland S, Campbell DM, Hannaford P, et al. Hypertensive diseases of pregnancy and risk of hypertension and stroke in later life: results from cohort study. BMJ. 2003;326(7394):845 [PubMed:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.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(7627):974 [PubMed:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.McDonald SD, Malinowski A, Zhou Q, Yusuf S, Devereaux PJ. Cardiovascular sequelae of preeclampsia/eclampsia: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Am Heart J. 2008; 156(5):918–30. [PubMed:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Myatt L, Webster RP. Vascular biology of preeclampsia. J Thromb Haemost. 2009; 7(3):375–84. [PubMed: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Best LG, Saxena R, Anderson CM, Barnes MR, Hakonarson H, Falcon G, et al. Two variants of the C-reactive protein gene are associated with risk of pre-eclampsia in an American Indian population. PLoS One. 2013; 8(8):e71231 [PubMed:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.ACOG Committee on Obstetric Practice. ACOG practice bulletin. Diagnosis and management of preeclampsia and eclampsia. Number 33, January 2002. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2002; 77(1):67–75. [PubMed:] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Magnussen EB, Vatten LJ, Smith GD, Romundstad PR. Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy and subsequently measured cardiovascular risk factors. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114(5):961–70. [PubMed:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.McDonald SD, Ray J, Teo K, Jung H, Salehian O, Yusuf S, et al. Measures of cardiovascular risk and subclinical atherosclerosis in a cohort of women with a remote history of preeclampsia. Atherosclerosis. 2013; 229(1):234–9. [PubMed:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Sibai BM, el-Nazer A, Gonzalez-Ruiz A. Severe preeclampsia-eclampsia in young primigravid women: subsequent pregnancy outcome and remote prognosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1986; 155(5):1011–6. [PubMed:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Abramson BL, Melvin RG. Cardiovascular risk in women: focus on hypertension. Can J Cardiol. 2014; 30(5):553–9. [PubMed:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.North RA, Simmons D, Barnfather D, Upjohn M. What happens to women with preeclampsia? Microalbuminuria and hypertension following preeclampsia. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996; 36(3):233–8. [PubMed:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Shammas AG, Maayah JF. Hypertension and its relation to renal function 10 years after pregnancy complicated by pre-eclampsia and pregnancy induced hypertension. Saudi Med J. 2000; 21(2):190–2. [PubMed:] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Garovic VD, August P. Preeclampsia and the future risk of hypertension: the pregnant evidence. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2013; 15(2):114–21. [PubMed:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Chambers JC, Fusi L, Malik IS, Haskard DO, De Swiet M, Kooner JS. Association of maternal endothelial dysfunction with preeclampsia. JAMA. 2001; 285(12):1607–12. [PubMed:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Melchiorre K, Sutherland GR, Liberati M, Thilaganathan B. Preeclampsia is associated with persistent postpartum cardiovascular impairment. Hypertension. 2011; 58(4):709–15. [PubMed: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, Adams RJ, Berry JD, Brown TM, et al. American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart disease and stroke statistics−−2011 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011; 123(4):e18–e209. [PubMed:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Mosca L, Benjamin EJ, Berra K, Bezanson JL, Dolor RJ, Lloyd-Jones DM, et al. Effectiveness-based guidelines for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in women−−2011 update: a guideline from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011; 123(11):1243–62. [PubMed:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Bushnell C, McCullough LD, Awad IA, Chireau MV, Fedder WN, Furie KL, et al. 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(5):1545–88. [PubMed: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]