Waist Circumference Measurement for Prediction of Preeclampsia: A Population-Based Cohort Study.
blood pressure
body mass index
hypertension
obesity
preeclampsia
prevention
waist circumference
Journal
American journal of hypertension
ISSN: 1941-7225
Titre abrégé: Am J Hypertens
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8803676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 02 2022
01 02 2022
Historique:
received:
23
06
2021
revised:
04
09
2021
accepted:
28
09
2021
pubmed:
28
9
2021
medline:
21
4
2022
entrez:
27
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Identifying women at high risk for preeclampsia is essential for the decision to start treatment with prophylactic aspirin. Prediction models have been developed for this purpose, and these typically incorporate body mass index (BMI). As waist circumference (WC) is a better predictor for metabolic and cardiovascular outcomes than BMI in nonpregnant populations, we aimed to investigate if WC is a BMI-independent predictor for preeclampsia and if the addition of WC to a prediction model for preeclampsia improves its performance. We used a population-based cohort of 4,696 women with WC measurements taken in the first trimester. The influence of WC on the risk of developing preeclampsia was evaluated by multivariable logistic regression. We generated receiver operating characteristic curves and calculated the area under the curve (AUC) to evaluate the usefulness of WC measurements for prediction of preeclampsia. Women who developed preeclampsia had greater early pregnancy WC than women who did not (85.8 ± 12.6 vs. 82.3 ± 11.3 cm, P < 0.001). The risk of preeclampsia increased with larger WC in a multivariate model, adjusted odds ratio 1.02 (95% confidence interval 1.01-1.03). However, when adding BMI into the model, WC was not independently associated with preeclampsia. The AUC value for preeclampsia prediction with BMI and the above variables was 0.738 and remained unchanged with the addition of WC to the model. Large WC is associated with a higher risk of preeclampsia, but adding WC to a prediction model for preeclampsia that already includes BMI does not improve the model's performance.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Identifying women at high risk for preeclampsia is essential for the decision to start treatment with prophylactic aspirin. Prediction models have been developed for this purpose, and these typically incorporate body mass index (BMI). As waist circumference (WC) is a better predictor for metabolic and cardiovascular outcomes than BMI in nonpregnant populations, we aimed to investigate if WC is a BMI-independent predictor for preeclampsia and if the addition of WC to a prediction model for preeclampsia improves its performance.
METHODS
We used a population-based cohort of 4,696 women with WC measurements taken in the first trimester. The influence of WC on the risk of developing preeclampsia was evaluated by multivariable logistic regression. We generated receiver operating characteristic curves and calculated the area under the curve (AUC) to evaluate the usefulness of WC measurements for prediction of preeclampsia.
RESULTS
Women who developed preeclampsia had greater early pregnancy WC than women who did not (85.8 ± 12.6 vs. 82.3 ± 11.3 cm, P < 0.001). The risk of preeclampsia increased with larger WC in a multivariate model, adjusted odds ratio 1.02 (95% confidence interval 1.01-1.03). However, when adding BMI into the model, WC was not independently associated with preeclampsia. The AUC value for preeclampsia prediction with BMI and the above variables was 0.738 and remained unchanged with the addition of WC to the model.
CONCLUSIONS
Large WC is associated with a higher risk of preeclampsia, but adding WC to a prediction model for preeclampsia that already includes BMI does not improve the model's performance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34570167
pii: 6376065
doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpab156
pmc: PMC8807166
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
200-206Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd.
Références
Am J Hum Biol. 2008 May-Jun;20(3):317-24
pubmed: 18203125
Obes Res. 1996 Nov;4(6):533-47
pubmed: 8946438
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2010 Jan;64(1):16-22
pubmed: 19654593
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2010 Jan;64(1):6-15
pubmed: 19738633
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2013 Jan;21(1):178-84
pubmed: 23505184
Semin Perinatol. 2009 Jun;33(3):130-7
pubmed: 19464502
Eur J Epidemiol. 2004;19(8):803-9
pubmed: 15469038
Cad Saude Publica. 2007 Feb;23(2):391-8
pubmed: 17221088
Health Promot Perspect. 2013 Jun 30;3(1):73-9
pubmed: 24688955
Am J Hypertens. 2012 Jan;25(1):120-5
pubmed: 21976280
Minerva Ginecol. 2012 Aug;64(4):259-80
pubmed: 22728572
N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377(7):613-622
pubmed: 28657417
BMJ. 1995 Nov 25;311(7017):1401-5
pubmed: 8520275
Circulation. 2009 Oct 20;120(16):1640-5
pubmed: 19805654
Obes Rev. 2013 Jun;14(6):508-21
pubmed: 23530552
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jul;213(1):62.e1-62.e10
pubmed: 25724400
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2019 Jan;27(1):152-160
pubmed: 30461219
Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2017 Jan 1;312(1):R5-R12
pubmed: 27903516
Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Feb;97(2):268-71
pubmed: 11165593
Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2014 Oct;16(10):441
pubmed: 25092577
Epidemiology. 2010 Mar;21(2):243-52
pubmed: 20124904
Front Physiol. 2018 Dec 19;9:1838
pubmed: 30618843
BMC Res Notes. 2014 Mar 05;7:122
pubmed: 24593885
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020 Dec;99(12):1640-1648
pubmed: 32491196
Obes Res Clin Pract. 2019 Mar - Apr;13(2):156-163
pubmed: 30910529
PLoS One. 2019 Nov 27;14(11):e0225716
pubmed: 31774875
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Feb;216(2):110-120.e6
pubmed: 27640943
Eur Heart J. 2007 Apr;28(7):850-6
pubmed: 17403720
Acta Paediatr. 1996 Jul;85(7):843-8
pubmed: 8819552
Exp Gerontol. 2007 Jun;42(6):463-71
pubmed: 17507194
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Mar 07;17(5):
pubmed: 32155988