Metabolic Syndrome as a Risk Factor for Hypertension After Preeclampsia

Julia J. Spaan*, Simone J. S. Sep, Veronica Lopes van Balen, Marc E. A. Spaanderman, Louis L. H. Peeters

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review


OBJECTIVE: To identify metabolic and obstetric risk factors associated with hypertension after preeclampsia. METHODS: We analyzed demographic and clinical data from a postpartum screening (blood pressure, microalbuminuria and fasting plasma levels of glucose, insulin, and lipid profile) from 683 primiparous women with a history of preeclampsia. We excluded women with pre-existing hypertension, kidney disease, or diabetes mellitus. In the group of women who were normotensive at postpartum screening, we evaluated the risk of developing chronic hypertension in the years after screening using questionnaires. RESULTS: Hypertension at postpartum screening (n=107, 17% of all cases) was related to obesity (odds ratio [OR] 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-3.2), elevated fasting levels of insulin (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.0-2.9), low-density lipoprotein (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.6), microalbuminuria (OR 2.3, 95%-CI 1.3-4.0), family history of hypertension (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-2.8), and delivery before 34 weeks of gestation (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.6-4.0). We identified 27 cases of hypertension within 2,095 person-years during a median 6-year follow-up in the group of women normotensive at postpartum screening. The hazard rate for the development of hypertension was 2.9 (95% CI 1.2-7.5) and 8.1 (95% CI 2.8-22.9), respectively, when two and three or more components of the metabolic syndrome were present; 3.7 (95% CI 1.4-10.0) for family history of hypertension; and 4.3 (95% CI 1.6-11.5) for recurrence of a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy. CONCLUSION: Several metabolic and obstetric risk factors related to hypertension postpartum in the short term and predisposed to the subsequent development of chronic hypertension after preeclampsia in initially normotensive women. (Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120:311-7) DOI:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31825f21ff
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)311-317
JournalObstetrics and Gynecology
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2012

Cite this