Erkan Kalafat1, Karin Leslie2, Amar Bhide2, Basky Thilaganathan2, Asma Khalil3. 1. Fetal Medicine Unit, St. George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Middle East Technical University, Department of Statistics, Ankara, Turkey. 2. Middle East Technical University, Department of Statistics, Ankara, Turkey; Molecular & Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St. George's University of London, London, UK. 3. Middle East Technical University, Department of Statistics, Ankara, Turkey; Molecular & Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St. George's University of London, London, UK. Electronic address: akhalil@sgul.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and office (traditional) blood pressure measurements in a cohort of pregnant women with gestational hypertension (GH). STUDY DESIGN: This was a cohort study at St. George's Hospital, University of London conducted between December 2013 and August 2018. The inclusion criteria was pregnant women with a diagnosis of GH. Eligible patients were counseled and trained by a specialist midwife and were provided with an automated Microlife® "WatchBP Home" BP machine. Each patient followed an individualised schedule of hospital visits and BP measurements based on the HBPM pathway or standard hospital protocol which was based on the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adverse fetal, neonatal and maternal outcomes as well as number of antenatal hospital visits were recorded and compared between HBPM and office (traditional) pathways. RESULTS: 143 women with GH were included in the study (80 HBPM vs 63 standard care). There were no significant difference between the two groups in maternal high-dependency unit admission (P = 0.999), birth weight centile (P = 0.803), fetal growth restriction (p = 0.999), neonatal intensive care unit admissions (p = 0.507) and composite neonatal (p = 0.654), maternal (p = 0.999) or fetal adverse outcomes (p = 0.999). The number of Day Assessment Unit (DAU) visits was significantly lower in the HBPM group than the traditional pathway (median 4.0 vs. 5.0, P = 0.009). The difference was greater when the number of visits were adjusted for the duration of monitoring in weeks (median: 1.0 vs 1.5, P < 0.001). There were no significant difference between the two groups in the total number of outpatient (P = 0.357) and triage visits (p = 0.237). However, the total number of antenatal visits adjusted for the duration of monitoring was significantly lower for the HBPM group compared to the traditional pathway (median 1.4 vs 1.8, P = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: HBPM in women with GH results in significantly less antenatal visits compared to women on a standard pathway of care. The two groups had comparable fetal, neonatal and maternal adverse outcomes. Large multicentre studies are needed to ascertain the safety of rare adverse pregnancy outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and office (traditional) blood pressure measurements in a cohort of pregnant women with gestational hypertension (GH). STUDY DESIGN: This was a cohort study at St. George's Hospital, University of London conducted between December 2013 and August 2018. The inclusion criteria was pregnant women with a diagnosis of GH. Eligible patients were counseled and trained by a specialist midwife and were provided with an automated Microlife® "WatchBP Home" BP machine. Each patient followed an individualised schedule of hospital visits and BP measurements based on the HBPM pathway or standard hospital protocol which was based on the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adverse fetal, neonatal and maternal outcomes as well as number of antenatal hospital visits were recorded and compared between HBPM and office (traditional) pathways. RESULTS: 143 women with GH were included in the study (80 HBPM vs 63 standard care). There were no significant difference between the two groups in maternal high-dependency unit admission (P = 0.999), birth weight centile (P = 0.803), fetal growth restriction (p = 0.999), neonatal intensive care unit admissions (p = 0.507) and composite neonatal (p = 0.654), maternal (p = 0.999) or fetal adverse outcomes (p = 0.999). The number of Day Assessment Unit (DAU) visits was significantly lower in the HBPM group than the traditional pathway (median 4.0 vs. 5.0, P = 0.009). The difference was greater when the number of visits were adjusted for the duration of monitoring in weeks (median: 1.0 vs 1.5, P < 0.001). There were no significant difference between the two groups in the total number of outpatient (P = 0.357) and triage visits (p = 0.237). However, the total number of antenatal visits adjusted for the duration of monitoring was significantly lower for the HBPM group compared to the traditional pathway (median 1.4 vs 1.8, P = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: HBPM in women with GH results in significantly less antenatal visits compared to women on a standard pathway of care. The two groups had comparable fetal, neonatal and maternal adverse outcomes. Large multicentre studies are needed to ascertain the safety of rare adverse pregnancy outcomes.
Authors: Fatemeh Sarhaddi; Iman Azimi; Sina Labbaf; Hannakaisa Niela-Vilén; Nikil Dutt; Anna Axelin; Pasi Liljeberg; Amir M Rahmani Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2021-03-24 Impact factor: 3.576