MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Arterial health abnormalities in women with pre-eclampsia: contributing role of central obesity

2022· article· en· W4306254754 on OpenAlexaffabout
A Paquin, Ana Werlang, T Coutinho

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalOttawa Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineArterial stiffnessBlood pressureCardiologyHemodynamicsInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusEclampsiaPreeclampsiaObesityObstetricsPregnancyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Women who suffer from pre-eclampsia (PE) are at higher risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) later in life. This risk can be explained in part by the observation of worse arterial health in these women, with PE either acting as a cause or harbinger of a worse baseline risk profile. Central obesity (CO) is an established risk factor for PE, while it also adversely affects cardiovascular risk. However, whether CO contributes to further worsening of arterial hemodynamics in pre-eclamptic women remains unclear. Purpose To evaluate the effect of CO combined with previous PE on women's arterial hemodynamics. Methods We studied 40 women with history of PE <6 years and 40 age-matched women with previous normotensive pregnancy (controls) in the same timeframe. We estimated aortic stiffness, central blood pressure, and measures of steady and pulsatile arterial load with validated techniques combining applanation tonometry and transthoracic echocardiography. CO was defined as a waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) ≥0.85 according to WHO criteria for women. Differences in arterial hemodynamics across the 3 groups [PE with CO (PE-CO), PE without CO (PE-noCO), controls] were assessed with One-Way ANOVA, and in multivariable linear regression models adjusted for age, hypertension, diabetes, serum creatinine, and parity. Results Twenty-six (65%) of the PE women had CO, compared to 18 (45%) of controls (p=0.07). Patient characteristics are described in the Table. In unadjusted analyses, PE-CO women had higher central systolic blood pressure as compared to PE-noCO and controls respectively (117±21 vs 100±12 and 95±9 mmHg, p<0.01), as well as higher carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (6.58±0.97 vs 5.95±1.01 and 5.68±0.75 m/s, p<0.01) and forward pressure wave amplitude (42.32±11.16 vs 33.31±6.85 and 37.12±8.70 mmHg, p=0.01), with lower proximal aortic compliance (8.56±3.19 vs 11.47±0.95 and 11.06±3.59x10–6 cm4/dyne, p=0.01) and total arterial compliance (1.38±0.42 vs 1.74±0.53 and 1.71±0.45 mL/mmHg, p=0.01). (Figure) After adjustment for potential confounders in multivariable linear regression, PE-CO women had higher central systolic blood pressure (mean difference [MD] = 10±2.5 mmHg, p<0.01), carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (MD = 0.42±0.15 m/s, p<0.01) and lower proximal aortic compliance (MD = −1.13±0.63x10–6 cm4/dyne, p=0.04) as compared to controls, while hemodynamics of PE-noCO did not significantly differ from controls. Conclusion We demonstrate for the first time the contribution of CO in adversely affecting arterial health and central hemodynamics in women with PE. Conversely, women with prior PE who did not have CO had similar arterial hemodynamics as compared to women with normotensive pregnancies. Understanding that worse arterial stiffness and hemodynamics are linked to future CVD, our results suggest that PE-CO may represent a higher risk subgroup who may be candidates for early, targeted efforts at primary prevention of CVD. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Foundation. Main funding source(s): Heart Team Grant from the University of Ottawa Heart Institute Foundation

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies→French-language works237,207→