Low-dose aspirin has been used during pregnancy, most commonly to prevent or delay the onset of preeclampsia. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued the Hypertension in Pregnancy Task Force Report recommending daily low-dose aspirin beginning in the late first trimester for women with a history of early-onset preeclampsia and preterm delivery at less than 34 0/7 weeks of gestation, or for women with more than one prior pregnancy complicated by preeclampsia. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force published a similar guideline, although the list of indications for low-dose aspirin use was more expansive. Daily low-dose aspirin use in pregnancy is considered safe and is associated with a low likelihood of serious maternal, or fetal complications, or both, related to use. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine support the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guideline criteria for prevention of preeclampsia. Low-dose aspirin (81 mg/day) prophylaxis is recommended in women at high risk of preeclampsia and should be initiated between 12 weeks and 28 weeks of gestation (optimally before 16 weeks) and continued daily until delivery. Low-dose aspirin prophylaxis should be considered for women with more than one of several moderate risk factors for preeclampsia. Women at risk of preeclampsia are defined based on the presence of one or more high-risk factors (history of preeclampsia, multifetal gestation, renal disease, autoimmune disease, type 1 or type 2 diabetes, and chronic hypertension) or more than one of several moderate-risk factors (first pregnancy, maternal age of 35 years or older, a body mass index greater than 30, family history of preeclampsia, sociodemographic characteristics, and personal history factors). In the absence of high risk factors for preeclampsia, current evidence does not support the use of prophylactic low-dose aspirin for the prevention of early pregnancy loss, fetal growth restriction, stillbirth, or preterm birth.

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), gestational hypertension (GH) and pre-eclampsia (PE) are associated with short and long-term health issues for mother and child; prevention of these complications is critically important. This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationships between prenatal exercise and GDM, GH and PE.

Calcium supplementation reduces the risk of pre‐eclampsia, but questions remain about the dosage to prescribe and who would benefit most.

The objective is to provide guidance for pregnant women and obstetric care and exercise professionals on prenatal physical activity. The outcomes evaluated were maternal, fetal or neonatal morbidity, or fetal mortality during and following pregnancy. Literature was retrieved through searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, Education Resources Information Center, SPORTDiscus, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Trip Database from inception up to 6 January 2017. Primary studies of any design were eligible, except case studies. Results were limited to English-language, Spanish-language or French-language materials. Articles related to maternal physical activity during pregnancy reporting on maternal, fetal or neonatal morbidity, or fetal mortality were eligible for inclusion. The quality of evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. The Guidelines Consensus Panel solicited feedback from end users (obstetric care providers, exercise professionals, researchers, policy organisations, and pregnant and postpartum women). The development of these guidelines followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. The benefits of prenatal physical activity are moderate and no harms were identified; therefore, the difference between desirable and undesirable consequences (net benefit) is expected to be moderate. The majority of stakeholders and end users indicated that following these recommendations would be feasible, acceptable and equitable. Following these recommendations is likely to require minimal resources from both individual and health systems perspectives.

Several antihypertensive drugs are used in the treatment of severe hypertension in pregnancy. The present study is a network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of these drugs.Electronic databases were searched for randomized clinical trials comparing drugs used in the treatment of severe hypertension in pregnancy. The number of women achieving the target blood pressure (BP) was the primary outcome. Doses required and time taken for achieving the target BP, failure rate, and incidences of maternal tachycardia, palpitation, hypotension, headache, and neonatal death and stillbirth were the secondary outcomes. Mixed treatment comparison pooled estimates were generated using a random-effects model. Odds ratios for the categorical and mean difference for the numerical outcomes were the effect estimates.Fifty-one studies were included in the systematic review and 46 in the meta-analysis. No significant differences in the number of patients achieving target BP was observed between any of the drugs. Diazoxide [-15 (-20.6, -9.4)], nicardipine [-11.8 (-22.3, -1.2)], nifedipine/celastrol [-19.3 (-27.4, -11.1)], nifedipine/vitamin D [-17.1 (-25.7, -9.7)], nifedipine/resveratrol [-13.9 (-22.6, -5.2)] and glyceryl trinitrate [-33.8 (-36.7, -31)] were observed to achieve the target BP (in minutes) more rapidly than hydralazine. Nifedipine required fewer doses than hydralazine for achieving the target BP. Glyceryl trinitrate and labetalol were associated with fewer incidences of tachycardia and palpitation respectively than hydralazine. Trial sequential analysis concluded adequate evidence for hydralazine and nifedipine compared with labetalol. Moderate quality of evidence was observed for direct comparison estimate between labetalol and hydralazine but was either low or very low for other comparisons.The present evidence suggests similar efficacy between nifedipine, hydralazine and labetalol in the treatment of severe hypertension in pregnancy. Subtle differences may exist in their safety profile. The evidence is inadequate for other drugs.© 2018 The British Pharmacological Society.

\n For hypertensive women in CHIPS (Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy Study), we assessed whether the maternal benefits of tight control could be achieved, while minimizing any potentially negative effect on fetal growth, by delaying initiation of antihypertensive therapy until later in pregnancy. For the 981 women with nonsevere, chronic or gestational hypertension randomized to less-tight (target diastolic blood pressure, 100 mm Hg), or tight (target, 85 mm Hg) control, we used mixed-effects logistic regression to examine whether the effect of less-tight (versus tight) control on major outcomes was dependent on gestational age at randomization, adjusting for baseline factors as in the primary analysis and including an interaction term between gestational age at randomization and treatment allocation. Gestational age was considered categorically (quartiles) and continuously (linear or quadratic form), and the optimal functional form selected to provide the best fit to the data based on the Akaike information criterion. Randomization before (but not after) 24 weeks to less-tight (versus tight) control was associated with fewer babies with birth weight <10th centile (\n P\n interaction\n =0.005), but more preterm birth (\n P\n interaction\n =0.043), and no effect on perinatal death or high-level neonatal care >48 hours (\n P\n interaction\n =0.354). For the mother, less-tight (versus tight) control was associated with more severe hypertension at all gestational ages but particularly so before 28 weeks (\n P\n interaction\n =0.076). In women with nonsevere, chronic, or gestational hypertension, there seems to be no gestational age at which less-tight (versus tight) control is the preferred management strategy to optimize maternal or perinatal outcomes.\n

Robust evidence to direct management of pregnant women with mild hypertensive disease at term is scarce. We investigated whether induction of labour in women with a singleton pregnancy complicated by gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia reduces severe maternal morbidity.We undertook a multicentre, parallel, open-label randomised controlled trial in six academic and 32 non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands between October, 2005, and March, 2008. We enrolled patients with a singleton pregnancy at 36-41 weeks' gestation, and who had gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia. Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio by block randomisation with a web-based application system to receive either induction of labour or expectant monitoring. Masking of intervention allocation was not possible. The primary outcome was a composite measure of poor maternal outcome--maternal mortality, maternal morbidity (eclampsia, HELLP syndrome, pulmonary oedema, thromboembolic disease, and placental abruption), progression to severe hypertension or proteinuria, and major post-partum haemorrhage (>1000 mL blood loss). Analysis was by intention to treat and treatment effect is presented as relative risk. This study is registered, number ISRCTN08132825.756 patients were allocated to receive induction of labour (n=377 patients) or expectant monitoring (n=379). 397 patients refused randomisation but authorised use of their medical records. Of women who were randomised, 117 (31%) allocated to induction of labour developed poor maternal outcome compared with 166 (44%) allocated to expectant monitoring (relative risk 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.86, p<0.0001). No cases of maternal or neonatal death or eclampsia were recorded.Induction of labour is associated with improved maternal outcome and should be advised for women with mild hypertensive disease beyond 37 weeks' gestation.ZonMw.

Women with a history of certain pregnancy complications are at higher risk for cardiovascular (CVD) disease. However, most clinical guidelines only recommend postpartum follow-up of those with a history of preeclampsia, gestational diabetes mellitus, or preterm birth. This systematic review was undertaken to determine if there is an association between a broader array of pregnancy complications and the future risk of CVD.We systematically searched PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE (via Ovid), CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from inception to September 22, 2017, for observational studies of the association between the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, placental abruption, preterm birth, gestational diabetes mellitus, low birth weight, small-for-gestational-age birth, stillbirth, and miscarriage and subsequent CVD. Likelihood ratio meta-analyses were performed to generate pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% intrinsic confidence intervals (ICI).Our systematic review included 84 studies (28 993 438 patients). Sample sizes varied from 250 to 2 000 000, with a median follow-up of 7.5 years postpartum. The risk of CVD was highest in women with gestational hypertension (OR 1.7; 95% ICI, 1.3-2.2), preeclampsia (OR 2.7; 95% ICI, 2.5-3.0), placental abruption (OR 1.8; 95% ICI, 1.4-2.3), preterm birth (OR 1.6; 95% ICI, 1.4-1.9), gestational diabetes mellitus (OR 1.7; 95% ICI, 1.1-2.5), and stillbirth (OR 1.5; 95% ICI, 1.1-2.1). A consistent trend was seen for low birth weight and small-for-gestational-age birth weight but not for miscarriage.Women with a broader array of pregnancy complications, including placental abruption and stillbirth, are at increased risk of future CVD. The findings support the need for assessment and risk factor management beyond the postpartum period.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in women. Because women generally present with more atypical symptoms of CVD than do men and because underlying CVD risk factors are often present for years before the onset of CVD, it is important to use innovative ways to identify women who should undergo CVD risk screening at a younger age. Pregnancy and the postpartum period afford us that opportunity, given that the development of certain pregnancy complications (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, gestational diabetes, preterm birth, delivery of a neonate with fetal growth restriction, and significant placental abruption) can reliably identify women with underlying, often unrecognized, CVD risk factors. Women with one or more of these pregnancy complications should be identified at the time of delivery and referred for regular follow-up. This would ideally take the form of a multidisciplinary clinic including clinicians and allied health specialists to carry out physical and biochemical screening and counseling regarding lifestyle modification and possible therapeutic interventions. Longer-term follow-up and recommendations should be individualized based on findings and risks. There is also an opportunity for future pregnancy counseling and discussion about the importance of weight loss between pregnancies, initiation of a routine involving physical activity, use of preconception folic acid, and the potential initiation of low-dose aspirin for those women at risk for future preeclampsia and fetal growth restriction or the use of progesterone for women at risk for preterm labor. The link between pregnancy complications and future CVD affords us with the earliest opportunity for CVD risk assessment for health preservation and disease prevention.

Breastfeeding has maternal, infant, and societal benefits. However, many parents experience obstacles to achieving their breastfeeding goals, leading to reduced rates of breastfeeding initiation and continuation. Despite efforts to increase rates of breastfeeding initiation and continuation, inequities still persist. The factors that influence an individual’s desire and ability to breastfeed are varied and include individual parent considerations; practitioner influences; hospital barriers; societal factors, such as workplace and parental leave policies; access to lactation support; and social support of their breastfeeding goals. A multidisciplinary approach that involves community, family, parents, and health care professionals will strengthen the support for parents and help them achieve their breastfeeding goals.

Luis Alcocer (Mexico), Christina Antza (Greece), Mustafa Arici (Turkey), Eduardo Barbosa (Brazil), Adel Berbari (Lebanon), Luís Bronze (Portugal), John Chalmers (Australia), Tine De Backer (Belgium), Alejandro de la Sierra (Spain), Kyriakos Dimitriadis (Greece), Dorota Drozdz (Poland), Béatrice Duly-Bouhanick (France), Brent M. Egan (USA), Serap Erdine (Turkey), Claudio Ferri (Italy), Slavomira Filipova (Slovak Republic), Anthony Heagerty (UK), Michael Hecht Olsen (Denmark), Dagmara Hering (Poland), Sang Hyun Ihm (South Korea), Uday Jadhav (India), Manolis Kallistratos (Greece), Kazuomi Kario (Japan), Vasilios Kotsis (Greece), Adi Leiba (Israel), Patricio López-Jaramillo (Colombia), Hans-Peter Marti (Norway), Terry McCormack (UK), Paolo Mulatero (Italy), Dike B. Ojji (Nigeria), Sungha Park (South Korea), Priit Pauklin (Estonia), Sabine Perl (Austria), Arman Postadzhian (Bulgaria), Aleksander Prejbisz (Poland), Venkata Ram (India), Ramiro Sanchez (Argentina), Markus Schlaich (Australia), Alta Schutte (Australia), Cristina Sierra (Spain), Sekib Sokolovic (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Jonas Spaak (Sweden), Dimitrios Terentes-Printzios (Greece), Bruno Trimarco (Italy), Thomas Unger (The Netherlands), Bert-Jan van den Born (The Netherlands), Anna Vachulova (Slovak Republic), Agostino Virdis (Italy), Jiguang Wang (China), Ulrich Wenzel (Germany), Paul Whelton (USA), Jiri Widimsky (Czech Republic), Jacek Wolf (Poland), Grégoire Wuerzner (Switzerland), Eugene Yang (USA), Yuqing Zhang (China).