How Do Home and Clinic Blood Pressure Readings Compare in Pregnancy?

Hypertensive disorders during pregnancy result in substantial maternal morbidity and are a leading cause of maternal deaths worldwide. Self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) might improve the detection and management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, but few data are available, including regarding appropriate thresholds. This systematic review and individual patient data analysis aimed to assess the current evidence on differences between clinic and self-monitored BP through pregnancy. MEDLINE and 10 other electronic databases were searched for articles published up to and including July 2016 using a strategy designed to capture all the literature on self-monitoring of BP during pregnancy. Investigators of included studies were contacted requesting individual patient data: self-monitored and clinic BP and demographic data. Twenty-one studies that utilized self-monitoring of BP during pregnancy were identified. Individual patient data from self-monitored and clinic readings were available from 7 plus 1 unpublished articles (8 studies; n=758) and 2 further studies published summary data. Analysis revealed a mean self-monitoring clinic difference of ≤1.2 mm Hg systolic BP throughout pregnancy although there was significant heterogeneity (difference in means, I2 >80% throughout pregnancy). Although the overall population difference was small, levels of white coat hypertension were high, particularly toward the end of pregnancy. The available literature includes no evidence of a systematic difference between self and clinic readings, suggesting that appropriate treatment and diagnostic thresholds for self-monitoring during pregnancy would be equivalent to standard clinic thresholds.

Evaluation of chronic hypertension in pregnant young women.

Women with chronic hypertension are at higher risk of adverse obstetric outcomes. It is essential that the condition is identified and evaluated appropriately in early pregnancy. Therefore, an audit has been carried out to assess how well young pregnant women with chronic hypertension were investigated for secondary cause in South Auckland, compared with the recommendations of the Australasian Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy. The evaluation of chronic hypertension by history taking, physical examination, laboratory assessment and radiology tests was highly variable. Only 76% of women had appropriate follow-up for their hypertension. Screening for secondary causes was not consistent, and the majority had incomplete investigation.

Laparoscopic cervical cerclage: a series in women with a history of second trimester miscarriage.

We sought to develop a laparoscopic technique for placement of a cervical cerclage in women with a history of failed vaginal cerclage and recurrent miscarriage. This was a case series, design classification III. The study took place at The Recurrent Miscarriage Clinic at National Women's Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. Ten women with a history of second trimester miscarriage after failed vaginal cerclage, and 1 woman with a history of second trimester miscarriage and findings of a clinically deficient cervix were studied. A laparoscopic cervical cerclage was placed before pregnancy. No intraoperative or postoperative complications were experienced. Ten of 11 women subsequently became pregnant and all delivered live babies by cesarean section in the third trimester. Laparoscopic cervical cerclage is feasible and effective. Outcomes are good in a particularly high-risk group of women with cervical incompetence, who have had failed vaginal cerclage and have a history of recurrent pregnancy loss.

Use of automated home blood pressure monitoring in pregnancy: is it safe?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between blood pressure that is measured with the automated blood pressure monitor, Omron HEM-705CP (Omron Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), and mercury sphygmomanometry in normotensive and preeclamptic pregnant women. STUDY DESIGN: Healthy pregnant women (n = 101 women) underwent mercury and home Omron HEM-705CP monitor blood pressure measurements at 10 to 14, 19 to 22, 27 to 30, and 35 to 37 weeks of gestation and 5 to 9 weeks after delivery. After routine mercury blood pressure recordings that were taken by midwives, women with preeclampsia (n = 45 women) measured their own blood pressure using an Omron HEM-705CP monitor (n = 212 recordings). In the longitudinal cohort, mean +/- 2 SD were calculated for blood pressure levels throughout pregnancy. Individual variation in home Omron minus office mercury throughout pregnancy was determined. In preeclampsia, back-to-back blood pressure measurements by the two methods were correlated and quantified as being within 5, 10, and 15 mm Hg. Bland-Altman plots were calculated, and the sensitivity of the Omron HEM-705CP monitor to detect hypertension that was identified by mercury sphygmomanometry was evaluated. RESULTS: At 10 to 14, 19 to 22, 27 to 30, and 35 to 37 weeks of gestation, the upper limits for normal systolic blood pressure levels with the use of home Omron HEM-705CP monitor measurements were 132, 130, 133, and 138 mm Hg and for diastolic blood pressure levels were 82, 79, 81, and 88 mm Hg, respectively. For women who were normotensive and had preeclampsia (although group mean blood pressure values by mercury sphygmomanometry and Omron HEM-705CP monitor were similar), there were marked individual differences (90% of mild hypertension (140/90 mm Hg) but missed one third of hypertension with a blood pressure level of >160/100 mm Hg by mercury sphygmomanometry. CONCLUSION: Clinicians should be aware of the potential differences between blood pressure measurements with mercury sphygmomanometers and Omron HEM-705CP monitors in pregnancy. The Omron HEM-705CP monitor should not be used to monitor hypertension in preeclampsia.