MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4316655802 · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2023.01.013

The 2017 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association blood pressure categories in the second half of pregnancy—a systematic review of their association with adverse pregnancy outcomes

2023· review· en· W4316655802 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Slade, Milly Wilson, Hiten D. Mistry, Jeffrey N. Bone, Natalie A. Bello, Maya Blackman, Nuhaat Syeda, Peter von Dadelszen, Laura A. Magee

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Issues in Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUK Research and Innovation
KeywordsBlood pressureMedicinePrehypertensionGestationPregnancyCardiologyInternal medicineDiastoleGestational hypertensionObstetrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: A relationship between the 2017 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association blood pressure thresholds and adverse pregnancy outcomes has been reported, but few studies have explored the diagnostic test properties of these cutoffs when used within pregnancy. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched (2017-2021) for measurements of blood pressure in pregnancy at >20 weeks, classified according to the 2017 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association criteria, and their relationship with pregnancy outcomes. Blood pressure was categorized as "normal" (systolic blood pressure of <120 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure of <80 mm Hg), "elevated blood pressure" (systolic blood pressure of 120-129 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure of <80 mm Hg), "stage 1 hypertension" (systolic blood pressure of 130-139 mm Hg and/or diastolic blood pressure of 80-89 mm Hg), and "stage 2 hypertension" (systolic blood pressure of ≥140 mm Hg and/or diastolic blood pressure of ≥90 mm Hg). STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies recording blood pressure at or above 20 weeks gestation were included. METHODS: Meta-analyses were used to investigate the strength of the association between blood pressure cutoffs and adverse outcomes, and the diagnostic test properties were calculated accounting for gestation. RESULTS: There were 12 included studies. The American College of Cardiology or American Heart Association blood pressure categories were determined from peak blood pressures at any point from 20 weeks of gestation and at specific gestational ages (20-27, 28-32, or 33-36 weeks of gestation), as available. A higher (vs normal) blood pressure category was consistently associated with adverse outcomes. The strength of association between blood pressure categories and adverse outcomes was the greatest with "stage 2 hypertension" (blood pressure of ≥140/90 mm Hg). The results were similar when peak blood pressure was reported either at any time from 20 weeks of gestation or within gestational age groups (as above). No blood pressure category was useful as a diagnostic "rule-out test" for adverse outcomes, as all negative likelihood ratios were ≥0.2. Only "stage 2 hypertension" was useful as a "rule in-test," with positive likelihood ratios of ≥5.0, for maximum blood pressure at >20 weeks of gestation for preeclampsia and blood pressure within any gestational age groups for preeclampsia, eclampsia, stroke, maternal death, and stillbirth. CONCLUSION: From 20 weeks of gestation, blood pressure thresholds of 140 mm Hg (systolic) and 90 mm Hg (diastolic) were useful in identifying women at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, irrespective of the specific gestational age at blood pressure measurement. Lowering the blood pressure threshold for abnormal blood pressure at >20 weeks of gestation would not assist clinicians in identifying women at heightened maternal or perinatal risk. No American College of Cardiology or American Heart Association blood pressure threshold can provide reassurance that women are unlikely to develop adverse outcomes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and GynecologySame topicCardiovascular Issues in PregnancyFrench-language works237,207