Dataset Information

Trends of blood pressure and heart rate in normal pregnancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Current reference ranges for blood pressure and heart rate throughout pregnancy have a poor evidence base.

Methods

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis. We included studies measuring blood pressure or heart rate from healthy pregnant women within defined gestational periods of 16 weeks or less. We analysed systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and heart rate by gestational age. We assessed effects of measurement year and method.

Results

We included 39 studies undertaken in 1967-2017, containing 124,349 systolic measurements from 36,239 women, 124,291 diastolic measurements from 36,181 women and 10,948 heart rate measurements from 8317 women. Mean (95% CI) systolic blood pressure was lowest at 10?weeks gestation, 110.4 (108.5, 112.3) mmHg, rising to 116.0 (113.6, 118.4) mmHg at 40?weeks, mean (95% CI) change 5.6 (4.0, 7.2) mmHg. Mean (95% CI) diastolic blood pressure was lowest at 21?weeks gestation, 65.9 (64.2, 67.7) mmHg; rising to 72.8 (71.0, 74.6) mmHg at 40?weeks, mean (95% CI) change 6.9 (6.2, 7.5) mmHg. Mean (95% CI) heart rate rose from 79.3 (75.5, 83.1) beats/min at 10?weeks to 86.9 (82.2, 91.6) beats/min at 40?weeks gestation, mean (95% CI) change 7.6 (1.8, 13.4) beats/min. Studies using manual measurement reported higher diastolic blood pressures than studies using automated measurement, mean (95 CI) difference 4.9 (0.8, 8.9) mmHg. Diastolic blood pressure increased by 0.26 (95% CI 0.10-0.43) mmHg/year. Including only higher-quality studies had little effect on findings, with heterogeneity remaining high (I² statistic >?50%).

Conclusions

Significant gestational blood pressure and heart rate changes occur that should be taken into account when assessing pregnant women. Commonly taught substantial decreases in blood pressure mid-pregnancy were not seen and heart rate increases were lower than previously thought. Manual and automated blood pressure measurement cannot be used interchangeably. Increases in diastolic blood pressure over the last half-century and differences between published studies show contemporary data are required to define current normal ranges.

Study registration

PROSPERO CRD42014009673.

SUBMITTER: Loerup L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6737610 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Trends of blood pressure and heart rate in normal pregnancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Loerup Lise L Pullon Rebecca M RM Birks Jacqueline J Fleming Susannah S Mackillop Lucy H LH Gerry Stephen S Watkinson Peter J PJ

BMC medicine 20190911 1

<h4>Background</h4>Current reference ranges for blood pressure and heart rate throughout pregnancy have a poor evidence base.<h4>Methods</h4>This is a systematic review and meta-analysis. We included studies measuring blood pressure or heart rate from healthy pregnant women within defined gestational periods of 16 weeks or less. We analysed systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and heart rate by gestational age. We assessed effects of measurement year and method.<h4>Results</h4>We in ...[more]

PMID: 31506067

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRegular exercise performed during pregnancy has been shown to reduce the risk of developing perinatal gestational hypertensive conditions. Further evidence on the exact parameters of exercise needed to explain these beneficial responses is required, within both uncomplicated and at-risk pregnancies.ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the effects of aerobic and resistance exercise on blood pressure during pregnancy.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources and methodsAn online search of six search engines was conducted up to February 2023. Randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, cohort, and longitudinal studies were included. Studies included an acute exercise bout or intervention of land-based aerobic and/or resistance exercise during any trimester in uncomplicated and at-risk pregnancies. Outcomes included mean arterial pressure (MAP), or systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP).ResultsFollowing the removal of duplicates, 1538 articles were screened with 59 studies meeting the inclusion criteria for the review (randomized controlled trials (RCTs) n = 34, clinical trials n = 19, cohort n = 5 and cross-sectional n = 2), and 21 studies included in the meta-analysis. A random effects model was used with mean difference calculated in mmHg. Overall, there were no statistically significant effects of exercise on resting blood pressure (BP) outcomes in pregnant women with normal blood pressure compared to control/usual care populations following intervention (SBP mean diff -1.54 mmHg (favours intervention), p = 0.38; DBP mean diff -2.25 mmHg (favours intervention), p = 0.1; MAP mean diff -1.75 mmHg (favours intervention), p = 0.31). In at-risk pregnant women, both aerobic and combination exercise significantly reduced BP outcomes compared to control (SBP mean diff -3.91 mmHg, p < 0.01; DBP mean diff -2.9 mmHg, p = 0.01; MAP mean diff -2.38 mmHg, p = 0.01). Twenty-seven studies reported an acute increase in SBP and DBP during aerobic exercise, with no difference found between uncomplicated and at-risk pregnancies.ConclusionsCompared to usual care, aerobic and/or resistance exercise performed throughout uncomplicated pregnancy had no influence on blood pressure. Pregnant women with no diagnosed complications should be encouraged to exercise regularly due to the multitude of known benefits. In women who are at risk of, or diagnosed, with gestational hypertensive conditions during pregnancy, moderate to vigorous exercise during pregnancy improves blood pressure outcomes. Higher risk pregnancies may reduce their risk of future cardiovascular complications through regular exercise training during pregnancy.RegistrationCRD42020159998.

Project description:Objective To systematically review studies quantifying the associations of long term (clinic), mid-term (home), and short term (ambulatory) variability in blood pressure, independent of mean blood pressure, with cardiovascular disease events and mortality.Data sources Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and Web of Science, searched to 15 February 2016 for full text articles in English.Eligibility criteria for study selection Prospective cohort studies or clinical trials in adults, except those in patients receiving haemodialysis, where the condition may directly impact blood pressure variability. Standardised hazard ratios were extracted and, if there was little risk of confounding, combined using random effects meta-analysis in main analyses. Outcomes included all cause and cardiovascular disease mortality and cardiovascular disease events. Measures of variability included standard deviation, coefficient of variation, variation independent of mean, and average real variability, but not night dipping or day-night variation.Results 41 papers representing 19 observational cohort studies and 17 clinical trial cohorts, comprising 46 separate analyses were identified. Long term variability in blood pressure was studied in 24 papers, mid-term in four, and short-term in 15 (two studied both long term and short term variability). Results from 23 analyses were excluded from main analyses owing to high risks of confounding. Increased long term variability in systolic blood pressure was associated with risk of all cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.22), cardiovascular disease mortality (1.18, 1.09 to 1.28), cardiovascular disease events (1.18, 1.07 to 1.30), coronary heart disease (1.10, 1.04 to 1.16), and stroke (1.15, 1.04 to 1.27). Increased mid-term and short term variability in daytime systolic blood pressure were also associated with all cause mortality (1.15, 1.06 to 1.26 and 1.10, 1.04 to 1.16, respectively).Conclusions Long term variability in blood pressure is associated with cardiovascular and mortality outcomes, over and above the effect of mean blood pressure. Associations are similar in magnitude to those of cholesterol measures with cardiovascular disease. Limited data for mid-term and short term variability showed similar associations. Future work should focus on the clinical implications of assessment of variability in blood pressure and avoid the common confounding pitfalls observed to date.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42014015695.

Project description:Abstract Aims High blood pressure (BP) is the commonest modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, yet its monitoring remains problematic. Wearable cuffless BP devices offer potential solutions; however, little is known about their validity and utility. We aimed to systematically review the validity, features and clinical use of wearable cuffless BP devices. Methods and results We searched MEDLINE, Embase, IEEE Xplore and the Cochrane Database till December 2019 for studies that reported validating cuffless BP devices. We extracted information about study characteristics, device features, validation processes, and clinical applications. Devices were classified according to their functions and features. We defined devices with a mean systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) biases of <5 mmHg as valid as a consensus. Our definition of validity did not include assessment of device measurement precision, which is assessed by standard deviation of the mean difference—a critical component of ISO protocol validation criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 tool. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed to summarise the mean biases for SBP and DBP across studies. Of the 430 studies identified, 16 studies (15 devices, 974 participants) were selected. The majority of devices (81.3%) used photoplethysmography to estimate BP against a reference device; other technologies included tonometry, auscultation and electrocardiogram. In addition to BP and heart rate, some devices also measured night-time BP (n = 5), sleep monitoring (n = 3), oxygen saturation (n = 3), temperature (n = 2) and electrocardiogram (n = 3). Eight devices showed mean biases of <5 mmHg for SBP and DBP compared with a reference device and three devices were commercially available. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between the wearable and reference devices for SBP (pooled mean difference = 3.42 mmHg, 95% CI: −2.17, 9.01, I2 95.4%) and DBP (pooled mean = 1.16 mmHg, 95% CI: −1.26, 3.58, I2 87.1%). Conclusion Several cuffless BP devices are currently available using different technologies, offering the potential for continuous BP monitoring. The variation in standards and validation protocols limited the comparability of findings across studies and the identification of the most accurate device. Challenges such as validation using standard protocols and in real-life settings must be overcome before they can be recommended for uptake into clinical practice. Graphical Abstract Graphical abstract Wearable BP device system.

Dataset Information

Trends of blood pressure and heart rate in normal pregnancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Study registration

Publications

Trends of blood pressure and heart rate in normal pregnancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets