The assessment of blood pressure in pregnant women: pitfalls and novel approaches.

Accurate assessment of blood pressure is fundamental to the provision of safe obstetrical care. It is simple, cost effective, and life-saving. Treatments for preeclampsia, including antihypertensive drugs, magnesium sulfate, and delivery, are available in many settings. However, the instigation of appropriate treatment relies on prompt and accurate recognition of hypertension. There are a number of different techniques for blood pressure assessment, including the auscultatory method, automated oscillometric devices, home blood pressure monitoring, ambulatory monitoring, and invasive monitoring. The auscultatory method with a mercury sphygmomanometer and the use of Korotkoff sounds was previously recommended as the gold standard technique. Mercury sphygmomanometers have been withdrawn owing to safety concerns and replaced with aneroid devices, but these are particularly prone to calibration errors and regular calibration is imperative to ensure accuracy. Automated oscillometric devices are straightforward to use, but the physiological changes in healthy pregnancy and pathologic changes in preeclampsia may affect the accuracy of a device and monitors must be validated. Validation protocols classify pregnant women as a "special population," and protocols must include 15 women in each category of normotensive pregnancy, hypertensive pregnancy, and preeclampsia. In addition to a scarcity of devices validated for pregnancy and preeclampsia, other pitfalls that cause inaccuracy include the lack of training and poor technique. Blood pressure assessment can be affected by maternal position, inappropriate cuff size, conversation, caffeine, smoking, and irregular heart rate. For home blood pressure monitoring, appropriate instruction should be given on how to use the device. The classification of hypertension and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy has recently been revised. These are classified as preeclampsia, transient gestational hypertension, gestational hypertension, white-coat hypertension, masked hypertension, chronic hypertension, and chronic hypertension with superimposed preeclampsia. Blood pressure varies across gestation and by ethnicity, but gestation-specific thresholds have not been adopted. Hypertension is defined as a sustained systolic blood pressure of ≥140 mm Hg or a sustained diastolic blood pressure of ≥90 mm Hg. In some guidelines, the threshold of diagnosis depends on the setting in which blood pressure measurement is taken, with a threshold of 140/90 mm Hg in a healthcare setting, 135/85 mm Hg at home, or a 24-hour average blood pressure on ambulatory monitoring of >126/76 mm Hg. Some differences exist among organizations with respect to the criteria for the diagnosis of preeclampsia and the correct threshold for intervention and target blood pressure once treatment has been instigated. Home blood pressure monitoring is currently a focus for research. Novel technologies, including early warning devices (such as the CRADLE Vital Signs Alert device) and telemedicine, may provide strategies that prompt earlier recognition of abnormal blood pressure and therefore improve management. The purpose of this review is to provide an update on methods to assess blood pressure in pregnancy and appropriate technique to optimize accuracy. The importance of accurate blood pressure assessment is emphasized with a discussion of preeclampsia prediction and treatment of severe hypertension. Classification of hypertensive disorders and thresholds for treatment will be discussed, including novel developments in the field.

Recurrent ectopic pregnancy as a unique clinical sub group: a case control study.

BACKGROUND: Women with recurrent ectopic pregnancy (EP) represent a unique cohort of patients in whom diagnostic expertise is paramount. We determined whether recurrent EP is associated with significant differences in patient demographics, clinical presentation, risk factors and surgical findings when compared with primary EP. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study of all EPs diagnosed from 2003 to 2014, at Whipps Cross University Hospital, London. RESULTS: In the above period 849 EPs were surgically managed (758 primary EPs and 91 recurrent EPs). Recurrent EPs were significantly older than primary EPs (32.2 ± 5.08 vs. 30.5 ± 5.83 years, p < 0.05). They presented at a significantly earlier gestation (5.99 ± 1.08 vs. 6.52 ± 1.81 weeks, p < 0.05) and with a significantly lower primary ßHCG (3176 ± 7350 vs. 6243 ± 12,282, p < 0.05). Recurrent EPs were significantly more likely to have a positive history of tubal or pelvic surgery (61.5 % vs. 3.5 %, p < 0.05 and 53.8 vs. 14 %, p < 0.05). At surgery, primary EPs had a significantly greater volume of hemoperitoneum (592 ± 850 vs. 249 ± 391 ml, p < 0.05), whereas recurrent EPs were significantly more likely to have contralateral pathology (31.1 vs. 9.8 %, p < 0.05). Regression analysis showed that the parameters of age, gestational age at presentation, first ßHCG level, positive history of previous tubal surgery and previous ectopic pregnancy differ in women at risk of a recurrent EP when compared to women not at risk of a recurrent ectopic (AUC, 0.844). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that recurrent EPs may represent a unique sub-group of patients with EP.

Evaluation of the selective use of abdomino-pelvic drains at laparoscopic myomectomy: in enhanced recovery, do drains delay discharge home?

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the use of abdominal drains at laparoscopic myomectomy (LM) influences length of hospital stay. The primary outcome was to determine whether the use of intra-abdominal drains after LM was associated with prolonged hospital stay after surgery. Secondary outcomes were to identify factors that influence the use of abdomino-pelvic drains during LM. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of 217 consecutive single surgeon LMs in a London university teaching hospital. Abdominal drains were used selectively after LM. Of the 217 patients, 123 (57%) had a drain left in situ at the end of the operation. RESULTS: The two cohorts of patients were not significantly different in their demographics. The use of a drain was significantly associated with an increased number of fibroids (4.6±3.8 vs. 2.8±2.1, p<0.0001), increased weight of fibroids (277±211 g vs. 133±153 g, p<0.0001), increased surgical time (133±40 min vs. 90±35 min, p<0.0001) and increased estimated blood loss (406±265 ml vs. 199±98 ml, p<0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in length of hospital stay (mean duration of admission 2.1 days±0.98 with drain, vs. 2.1 days±0.97 without a drain, p=0.98). CONCLUSION: We conclude that although the use of a drain may be associated with a more complex operation, this does not delay the patient's discharge.