Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring for the Early Identification of Hypertension in Pregnancy

Abstract

Gestational hypertension and preeclampsia are major contributors to perinatal morbidity and mortality. The diagnosis of gestational hypertension still relies on conventional clinic blood pressure (BP) measurements and thresholds of ≥140/90 mm Hg for systolic (SBP)/diastolic (DBP) BP. However, the correlation between BP level and target organ damage, cardiovascular disease risk, and long-term prognosis is greater for ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) than clinic BP measurement. Accordingly, ABPM has been suggested as the logical approach to overcoming the low sensitivity and specificity of clinic BP measurements in pregnancy. With the use of ABPM, differing predictable BP patterns throughout gestation have been identified for clinically healthy and hypertensive pregnant women. In normotensive pregnancies, BP steadily decreases up to the middle of gestation and then increases up to the day of delivery. In contrast, women who develop gestational hypertension or preeclampsia show stable BP during the first half of pregnancy and a continuous linear BP increase thereafter until delivery. Epidemiologic studies have also consistently reported sex differences in the 24-h patterns of ambulatory BP and heart rate. Typically, men exhibit a lower heart rate and higher BP than women, the differences being larger for SBP than DBP. Additionally, as early as in the first trimester of gestation, statistically significant increased 24-h SBP and DBP means characterize women complicated with gestational hypertension or preeclampsia compared with women with uncomplicated pregnancies. However, the normally lower BP in nongravid women as compared with men, additional decrease in BP during the second trimester of gestation in normotensive but not in hypertensive pregnant women, and significant differences in the 24-h BP pattern between healthy and complicated pregnancies at all gestational ages have not been taken into consideration when establishing reference BP thresholds for the diagnosis of hypertension in pregnancy. Several studies reported that use of the 24-h BP mean is not a proper test for an individualized early diagnosis of hypertension in pregnancy defined on the basis of cuff BP measurements, thus concluding that from such an awkward approach ABPM is not useful in pregnancy. The 24-h BP pattern that characterizes healthy pregnant women at all gestational ages suggests the use for diagnosis of a time-specified reference limit reflecting that mostly predictable BP variability. Once the time-varying threshold, given, for instance, by the upper limit of a tolerance interval, is available, the hyperbaric index (HBI), as a determinant of BP excess, can be calculated as the total area of any given subject's BP above the threshold. This tolerance-hyperbaric test, where diagnosis of gestational hypertension is based on the HBI calculated with reference to a time-specified tolerance limit, has been shown to provide high sensitivity and specificity for the early identification of subsequent hypertension in pregnancy, as well as a valuable approach for prediction of pregnancy outcome. ABPM during gestation, starting preferably at the time of the first obstetric check-up following positive confirmation of pregnancy, provides sensitive endpoints for use in early risk assessment and guide for establishing prophylactic or therapeutic intervention, and should thus be regarded as the required standard for the diagnosis of hypertension in pregnancy. (Author correspondence: [email protected])

Keywords:

• Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring
• Circadian rhythm
• Gestational hypertension
• Preeclampsia
• Pregnancy

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work is dedicated to the loving memory of Dr. Manuel Iglesias, our true friend, research collaborator, and teacher.

Declaration of Interest: This work was supported by unrestricted grant support from Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (SAF2009-7028-FEDER); Consellería de Economía e Industria, Dirección Xeral de Investigación e Desenvolvemento, Xunta de Galicia (INCITE07-PXI-322003ES, INCITE08-E1R-322063ES, INCITE09-E2R-322099ES, IN845B-2010/114, 09CSA018322PR); and Vicerrectorado de Investigación, University of Vigo.

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.