4.1 Article

Preventing preeclampsia and its fetal complications with low-dose aspirin in East Asians and non-East Asians:A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

HYPERTENSION IN PREGNANCY
Volume 35, Issue 3, Pages 426-435

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10641955.2016.1178772

Keywords

Acetylsalicylic acid; Asian; aspirin; intrauterine growth restriction; IUGR; preeclampsia

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81070502, 81170585, 81100444]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Low-dose aspirin can reduce the incidence of preeclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). However, the effects of ethnicity upon low-dose aspirin's efficacy has not been analyzed. Here, we comparatively evaluated the efficacy of low-dose aspirin in preventing preeclampsia and related fetal complications in East Asian and non-East Asian pregnant women at risk for preeclampsia. Methods: Several databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing low-dose aspirin with either placebo or no treatment in pregnant women at risk for preeclampsia. Odds ratios (ORs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for preeclampsia and related fetal outcomes were tabulated. Results: Low-dose aspirin significantly reduced preeclampsia risk in both East Asians (OR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.11-0.35) and non-East Asians (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.77-0.92). Low-dose aspirin significantly reduced IUGR risk in East Asians (OR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.20-0.67) but not in non-East Asians (OR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.41-1.77). Low-dose aspirin did not significantly reduce the risk of cesarean section in either East Asians (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.14-3.22) or non-East Asians (OR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.86-1.19). Conclusions: Low-dose aspirin is effective in reducing preeclampsia risk in both East Asians and non-East Asians and has differential effects in East Asians and non-East Asians with respect to IUGR.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available