The effect of previous history of Pre-Eclampsia on subclinical carotid atherosclerosis up to 20 years Postpartum: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Andrea Sonaglioni , Antonino Bruno , Irene Pusca , Gian Luigi Nicolosi , Stefano Bianchi , Michele Lombardo
{"title":"The effect of previous history of Pre-Eclampsia on subclinical carotid atherosclerosis up to 20 years Postpartum: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Andrea Sonaglioni ,&nbsp;Antonino Bruno ,&nbsp;Irene Pusca ,&nbsp;Gian Luigi Nicolosi ,&nbsp;Stefano Bianchi ,&nbsp;Michele Lombardo","doi":"10.1016/j.ejogrb.2024.11.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>During the last two decades, a few studies have evaluated the common carotid artery (CCA) intima-media thickness (IMT) in women with previous history of pre-eclampsia (pPE) in comparison to women with uncomplicated pregnancies, providing not univocal results. This systematic review and <em>meta</em>-analysis has been designed to summarize the main findings of these studies and to examine the overall influence of pPE on CCA-IMT.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>All studies assessing CCA-IMT in pPE women in comparison to women who had uncomplicated pregnancies, selected from PubMed and EMBASE databases, were included. Studies evaluating women with previous history of early-onset (EO) or late-onset (LO) PE vs healthy controls were separately analyzed. Continuous data (CCA-IMT) were pooled as a standardized mean difference (SMD) comparing pPE group with healthy controls. The subtotal and overall SMDs of CCA-IMT were calculated using the random-effect model.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The full-texts of 12 studies with 583 pPE women and 610 healthy controls were analyzed. The average time after delivery was 8.5 yrs (range 1.1–20 yrs). The average CCA-IMT was significantly increased in pPE women than healthy controls in five studies (41.7 % of total), whereas it was similar between the two study groups or surprisingly reduced in pPE women vs controls in more than half of studies (58.3 % of total). The effect of pPE on CCA-IMT was very small for the studies including women with previous LO-PE (subtotal SMD 0.067, 95 %CI −0.339,0.472, P = 0.75) and small for those analyzing women with previous EO-PE (subtotal SMD 0.250, 95 %CI-0.231,0.732, P = 0.31). Overall, the effect of pPE on CCA-IMT was small and not statistically significant (SMD 0.143, 95 %CI −0.167,0.453, P = 0.37). Substantial heterogeneity was detected for the included studies, with an overall I<sup>2</sup> statistic value of 81 % (P &lt; 0.001). Egger’s test for a regression intercept yielded a P-value of 0.58, indicating no publication bias. On <em>meta</em>-regression analysis, none of the moderators and/or potential confounders was significantly associated with effect modification (all P &gt; 0.05).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Women with previous history of PE have an increased burden of cardiovascular risk factors, but do not appear to be affected by significant subclinical carotid atherosclerosis, up to 20 years postpartum.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11975,"journal":{"name":"European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology","volume":"303 ","pages":"Pages 250-258"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301211524006080","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

During the last two decades, a few studies have evaluated the common carotid artery (CCA) intima-media thickness (IMT) in women with previous history of pre-eclampsia (pPE) in comparison to women with uncomplicated pregnancies, providing not univocal results. This systematic review and meta-analysis has been designed to summarize the main findings of these studies and to examine the overall influence of pPE on CCA-IMT.

Methods

All studies assessing CCA-IMT in pPE women in comparison to women who had uncomplicated pregnancies, selected from PubMed and EMBASE databases, were included. Studies evaluating women with previous history of early-onset (EO) or late-onset (LO) PE vs healthy controls were separately analyzed. Continuous data (CCA-IMT) were pooled as a standardized mean difference (SMD) comparing pPE group with healthy controls. The subtotal and overall SMDs of CCA-IMT were calculated using the random-effect model.

Results

The full-texts of 12 studies with 583 pPE women and 610 healthy controls were analyzed. The average time after delivery was 8.5 yrs (range 1.1–20 yrs). The average CCA-IMT was significantly increased in pPE women than healthy controls in five studies (41.7 % of total), whereas it was similar between the two study groups or surprisingly reduced in pPE women vs controls in more than half of studies (58.3 % of total). The effect of pPE on CCA-IMT was very small for the studies including women with previous LO-PE (subtotal SMD 0.067, 95 %CI −0.339,0.472, P = 0.75) and small for those analyzing women with previous EO-PE (subtotal SMD 0.250, 95 %CI-0.231,0.732, P = 0.31). Overall, the effect of pPE on CCA-IMT was small and not statistically significant (SMD 0.143, 95 %CI −0.167,0.453, P = 0.37). Substantial heterogeneity was detected for the included studies, with an overall I2 statistic value of 81 % (P < 0.001). Egger’s test for a regression intercept yielded a P-value of 0.58, indicating no publication bias. On meta-regression analysis, none of the moderators and/or potential confounders was significantly associated with effect modification (all P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Women with previous history of PE have an increased burden of cardiovascular risk factors, but do not appear to be affected by significant subclinical carotid atherosclerosis, up to 20 years postpartum.
子痫前期病史对产后 20 年亚临床颈动脉粥样硬化的影响:系统综述与 Meta 分析。
背景:在过去的二十年中,有几项研究对既往有子痫前期(pPE)病史的妇女与无并发症妊娠妇女的颈总动脉(CCA)内膜中层厚度(IMT)进行了评估,但结果并不一致。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在总结这些研究的主要发现,并研究 pPE 对 CCA-IMT 的总体影响:方法:从 PubMed 和 EMBASE 数据库中筛选出所有评估 pPE 妇女与无并发症妊娠妇女的 CCA-IMT 比较的研究。分别分析了评估既往有早发(EO)或晚发(LO)PE病史的女性与健康对照组的研究。将连续数据(CCA-IMT)汇总为 pPE 组与健康对照组的标准化平均差 (SMD)。采用随机效应模型计算 CCA-IMT 的小计和总 SMD:结果:分析了 12 项研究的全文,其中包括 583 名 pPE 妇女和 610 名健康对照组。平均产后时间为 8.5 年(1.1-20 年不等)。在五项研究(占总数的 41.7%)中,pPE 妇女的平均 CCA-IMT 比健康对照组明显增加,而在一半以上的研究(占总数的 58.3%)中,pPE 妇女的平均 CCA-IMT 与健康对照组相似或出人意料地减少。在包括曾患 LO-PE 的女性的研究中,pPE 对 CCA-IMT 的影响非常小(SMD 小计 0.067,95 %CI -0.339,0.472,P = 0.75),而在分析曾患 EO-PE 的女性的研究中,pPE 对 CCA-IMT 的影响也很小(SMD 小计 0.250,95 %CI-0.231,0.732, P = 0.31)。总体而言,PPE 对 CCA-IMT 的影响较小,且无统计学意义(SMD 0.143,95 %CI -0.167,0.453,P = 0.37)。在纳入的研究中发现了大量异质性,总体I2统计值为81%(P 0.05):结论:曾有过 PE 病史的妇女的心血管风险因素负担会增加,但在产后 20 年内似乎不会受到明显的亚临床颈动脉粥样硬化的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
3.80%
发文量
898
审稿时长
8.3 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology is the leading general clinical journal covering the continent. It publishes peer reviewed original research articles, as well as a wide range of news, book reviews, biographical, historical and educational articles and a lively correspondence section. Fields covered include obstetrics, prenatal diagnosis, maternal-fetal medicine, perinatology, general gynecology, gynecologic oncology, uro-gynecology, reproductive medicine, infertility, reproductive endocrinology, sexual medicine and reproductive ethics. The European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology provides a forum for scientific and clinical professional communication in obstetrics and gynecology throughout Europe and the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信