4.3 Review

Preeclampsia and future cardiovascular disease in women: How good are the data and how can we manage our patients?

期刊

SEMINARS IN PERINATOLOGY
卷 39, 期 4, 页码 276-283

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.semperi.2015.05.006

关键词

preeclampsia; hypertension; pregnancy; cardiovascular disease; women's health

资金

  1. Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), Washington, DC, USA [CER-1306-02603]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Women with a history of preeclampsia have double the risk of future heart disease and stroke, and elevated risks of hypertension and diabetes. The American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology now include preeclampsia as a risk factor for future cardiovascular disease (CVD) with the recommendation of obtaining a history of preeclampsia and improving lifestyle behaviors for women with such a history. Research has progressed from asking whether preeclampsia is associated with CVD to how preeclampsia is associated with CVD, and the implications for prevention of C'VD among women with a history of preeclampsia. A history of preeclampsia unmasks future CVD risk; research is inconclusive whether it also causes vascular damage that leads to CVD. For women with prior preeclampsia, the AHA recommends CVD risk reduction actions similar to those for other at risk groups: cessation of cigarette smoking, physical activity, weight reduction if overweight or obese and counseling to follow a DASH like diet. The efficacy of these lifestyle modifications to lower risk of CVD in women with prior preeclampsia remains to be determined. Barriers exist to implementing lifestyle improvement measures in this population, including lack of awareness of both patients and clinicians of this link between preeclampsia and CVD. We review patient, provider, and systems level barriers and solutions to leverage this information to prevent CVD among women with a history of preeclampsia. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据