MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415513782 · doi:10.3389/fmed.2025.1665100

Arterial stiffness after 6 weeks postdelivery in women with a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4415513782 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xolani B. Mbongozi, Stuart D. R. Galloway, Angus M. Hunter, Jean Paul Muambangu Milambo, Charles Bitamazire Businge

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArterial stiffnessBlood pressureArterial diseaseEpidemiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The main objective of this systematic review was to determine if the arterial stiffness remains elevated after 6 weeks post-delivery in women with a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP). Methods and analysis: A comprehensive systematic literature search was conducted across multiple electronic databases, including Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and CINAHL. We included studies assessing arterial stiffness in women with a history of HDP between 43 days and 10 years postdelivery, with participants under 60 years of age. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. We extracted data on arterial stiffness indices, including carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV), augmentation index (AIx), and heart rate adjusted augmentation index (AIx@75), along with the mean ± standard deviation for each study. A random-effects model was used to pool data, and heterogeneity was explored through sensitivity and subgroup analyses. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) were used to assess risk of bias and quality of evidence. Results: Out of 121 identified articles, 12 studies involving a total of 856 women were included in the final review after eliminating duplicates and irrelevant studies. The overall pooled data revealed a significantly elevated AIx and cfPWV among women with a history of HDP. Specifically, the mean difference (MD) in AIx was 11.63 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): [1.72-21.54]), and for cfPWV, the MD was 0.53 (95% CI: [0.27-0.78]). Notably, while AIx showed no significant change in women within 1 year postpartum (MD 14.85, 95% CI [-6.03-35.72]), an elevation was observed in those beyond 1 year post-delivery (MD 9.11, 95% CI [4.20-14.02]). cfPWV was also found to be elevated in HDP patients both within 1 year (MD 0.59, 95% CI [0.32-0.86]) and beyond 1 year (MD 0.45, 95% CI [0.03-0.88]). In cases of early-onset preeclampsia, AIx did not show a significant increase; however, a significant increase in cfPWV was observed, with AIx having an MD of 1.55 (95% CI: [-0.74-3.84]) and cfPWV an MD of 1.86 (95% CI: [0.25-3.47]). For late-onset preeclampsia, there was no significant difference in AIx (MD 2.44, 95% CI: [-8.82-13.70]) or cfPWV (MD 0.10, 95% CI: [-0.42-0.62]). Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that arterial stiffness may remain elevated beyond 6 weeks postpartum in women with a history of HDP. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneity across studies and limited number of available studies. Larger and standardized longitudinal studies are needed to confirm these results. In the meantime, regular cardiovascular monitoring for these women is recommended while awaiting more conclusive evidence. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/search, CRD42023461867.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.034
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MedicineSame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207