Uncontrolled and masked uncontrolled blood pressure in treated pregnant women with chronic hypertension and risk for preeclampsia/eclampsia.

To analyze the relationship between the level of BP achieved with treatment and the risk for development of preeclampsia/eclampsia (PE), we conducted a historical cohort study on 149 consecutive pregnant women with treated chronic hypertension, evaluated between January 1, 2016, and November 31, 2022. According to office BP readings and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) performed after 20 weeks of gestation, the cohort was classified in controlled hypertension, white-coat uncontrolled hypertension, masked uncontrolled hypertension and sustained hypertension. Risks for the development of PE were estimated using logistic regression. One hundred and twenty-four pregnant women with a control BP evaluation were included in this analysis. The rates of PE were 19.4%, 27.3%, 44.8% and 47.1% for controlled, white-coat uncontrolled, masked uncontrolled and sustained uncontrolled hypertension, respectively. Compared with women with controlled hypertension, the relative risk for PE increased markedly in women with sustained uncontrolled (OR 3.69, 95% CI, 1.19-11.45) and masked uncontrolled (OR 3.38, 95% CI, 1.30-11.45) hypertension, but not in those with white-coat uncontrolled (OR 1.56 95% CI, 0.36-6.70); adjustment for covariates did not modify the results. Each mmHg higher of systolic and diastolic daytime ABPM increased the relative risk for PE ~4% and ~5%, respectively. Each mmHg higher of systolic and diastolic nocturnal BP increased the risk ~5% and ~6%, respectively. When these risks were adjusted for ABPM values in opposite periods of the day, only nocturnal ABPM remained as a significant predictor. In conclusion, masked uncontrolled hypertension implies a substantial risk for the development of PE, comparable to those of sustained uncontrolled. The presence of nocturnal hypertension seems important.

Hypertension arising after 20 weeks of gestation: gestational hypertension or masked chronic hypertension?

The objectives of this study were 1-to evaluate the prevalence of masked chronic hypertension in pregnant women classified as gestational hypertension 2-to compare the risks of developing preeclampsia in true gestational hypertension vs those women classified as having gestational hypertension but who had had masked hypertension in the first half of pregnancy. We conducted a cohort study in consecutive high-risk pregnancies who were evaluated before 20 weeks of gestation. Women who developed gestational hypertension (normotension in the office before 20 weeks of gestation and office BP ≥ 140/90 mmHg and/or antihypertensive treatment in the second half of gestation) were divided, according to an ABPM performed before 20 weeks of pregnancy, in two subgroups: subgroup 1-if their ABPM was normal, and subgroup 2-if they had masked chronic hypertension. Risks for preeclampsia (PE) were estimated and compared with normotensive women. Before 20 weeks of gestation, 227 women were evaluated (age 32 ± 6 years, median gestation age 15 weeks); 67 had chronic hypertension (29.5%). Of the remaining 160, 39 developed gestational hypertension (16 in subgroup 1 and 23 insubgroup 2. Compared with normotensive pregnant women, subgroup 1 of women with gestational hypertension did not increase the risk of developing PE (OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.16-6.65). Conversely, subgroup 2 of gestational hypertension increased the risk of PE more than 4 times (0R = 4.47 CI = 1.16-12.63). Risk estimation did not change substantially after the adjustment for multiple possible confounders. In conclusion, the59% of women initially diagnosed as gestational hypertensive according to current recommendations had masked chronic hypertension and a very high risk of developing PE.

Nocturnal hypertension and risk of developing early-onset preeclampsia in high-risk pregnancies.

To test the hypothesis that nocturnal hypertension identifies risk for early-onset preeclampsia/eclampsia (PE), we conducted an historical cohort study of consecutive high-risk pregnancies between 1st January 2016 and 31st March 2020. Office blood pressure (BP) measurements and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) were performed. The cohort was divided into patients without PE or with early- or late-onset PE (<34 and ≥34 weeks of gestation, respectively). The relative risks of office and ABPM hypertension for the development of late- or early-onset PE were estimated with multinomial logistic regression using no PE as a reference category. Four hundred and seventy-seven women (mean age 30 ± 7 years, with 23 ± 7 weeks of gestation at the time of the BP measurements) were analyzed; 113 (23.7%) developed PE, 69 (14.5%) developed late-onset PE, 44 (9.2%) developed early-onset PE. Office and ambulatory BP increased between the groups, and women who developed early-onset PE had significantly higher office and ambulatory BP values than those with late-onset PE or without PE. Hypertension prevalence increased across groups, with the highest values in early-onset PE. Nocturnal hypertension was the most prevalent finding and was highly prevalent in women who developed early-onset PE (88.6%); only 1.6% of women without nocturnal hypertension developed early-onset PE. Additionally, nocturnal hypertension was a stronger predictor for early-onset PE than for late-onset PE (adjusted OR, 5.26 95%CI 1.67-16.60) vs. 2.06, 95%CI 1.26-4.55, respectively). In conclusion, nocturnal hypertension was the most frequent BP abnormality and a significant predictor of early-onset PE in high-risk pregnancies.

Office blood pressure values and the necessity of out-of-office measurements in high-risk pregnancies.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if there is an office blood pressure (BP) value below which out-of-office measurements are unnecessary in high-risk pregnant women. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study in women in the second half of high-risk pregnancies. Office BP measurements and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was performed. The cohort was divided according to quartiles of office BP and in normotension, white-coat hypertension, masked hypertension and sustained hypertension. The risks for preeclampsia/eclampsia for each category were estimated. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-three women (30 ±â€Š7 years with 32 ±â€Š4 weeks of gestation) were included; 69 women (18.5%) developed preeclampsia/eclampsia. Risk for preeclampsia/eclampsia increased in a stepwise manner through quartiles of systolic office BP (8.8, 13.4, 19.6 and 32.3%, P < 0.001) and diastolic office BP (6.5, 13.7, 19.6 and 34,4%, P < 0.001). OR increased significantly through quartiles of systolic (P = 0.004) and diastolic (P < 0.001) office BP; the significance becomes evident between the second and third quartile, the cut-off point between these was 125/76 mmHg. Prevalence of white-coat and masked hypertension were 3.8 and 24.7%, respectively. Using ABPM, 14/61 office hypertensive women were reclassified as white-coat hypertension but 92/312 normotensive women as masked hypertension. OR for preeclampsia/eclampsia increased significantly in women with masked hypertension. Absolute risk for preeclampsia/eclampsia in women with office BP less than 125/75 mmHg was similar than that in women with normal ABPM, 7.2 and 7.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Masked hypertension was a prevalent and high-risk condition. Office BP at least 125/75 mmHg in the second half of gestation seems appropriate to indicate out-of-office measurements in high-risk pregnancies.

Nocturnal hypertension in high-risk mid-pregnancies predict the development of preeclampsia/eclampsia.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test if hypertension detected by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) performed at mid-pregnancy, is a useful predictor for preeclampsia/eclampsia (PEEC). METHODS: The study was performed in women coursing high-risk mid-pregnancies. Office blood pressure (BP) was estimated as the mean of three values, taken by a specialized nurse after a 15-min interview, and office hypertension defined as at least 140/90 mmHg. Immediately after, an ABPM was started. Diurnal hypertension was defined as ABPM at least 135/85 mmHg during daily activities, nocturnal hypertension as ABPM at least 120/70 mmHg during night rest. The adjusted risk of PEEC was estimated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Eighty-seven women (mean age 31 ±â€Š7 years) with 23 ±â€Š2 weeks of pregnancy were included. The prevalence of office and ABPM hypertension was 13.8 and 40.2%, respectively. The concordance between both hypertension diagnosis was low (κ = 0.170, P = 0.044). Nocturnal hypertension (35.6%) was more frequent than diurnal hypertension (26.4%). Nocturnal hypertension markedly increased the relative risk of PEEC (OR 5.32, 95% CI 1.48-19.10). The risk of PEEC attributed to diurnal hypertension did not reach statistical significance; and when both, diurnal and nocturnal hypertension were included in the same model, only the second one was a significant predictor (P = 0.012). The relative risk associated with nocturnal hypertension increased for women not taking acetylsalicylic acid (ASA); (OR 11.40, 95% CI 2.35-55.25). CONCLUSION: Nocturnal hypertension at high-risk mid-pregnancy is a frequent condition and a strong predictor for PEEC; the risk doubled for women not taking ASA.