Displaying all 7 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Chee KH, Azman W
    Int J Clin Pract, 2009 May;63(5):722-5.
    PMID: 18028390
    Peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) is an uncommon form of congestive heart failure, afflicting obstetric patients around the time of delivery. The epidemiology of PPCM is infrequently reported. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no report from Asia.
    Matched MeSH terms: Pregnancy Complications, Cardiovascular/epidemiology*
  2. Adinegara LA, Razzak MS
    Med J Malaysia, 2004 Mar;59(1):39-44.
    PMID: 15535334
    A case-control study was carried out in Alor Gajah to determine the socio-economic, dietary and lifestyle factors and the occurrence of pregnancy-induced hypertension. There were a total of 30 cases who were selected from antenatal mothers attending 3 selected health centers in 1998. The control group consisted of 30 antenatal mothers who were matched according to health centre, race and age. The results showed that pregnancy-induced hypertension was significantly associated with obesity (P < 0.05) and being a housewife (P < 0.05).
    Matched MeSH terms: Pregnancy Complications, Cardiovascular/epidemiology
  3. Norsa'adah B
    Med J Malaysia, 2004 Dec;59(5):692; author reply 693-5.
    PMID: 15889579
    Matched MeSH terms: Pregnancy Complications, Cardiovascular/epidemiology*
  4. Ong HC, Puraviappan AP, Sinnathuray TA, Chong CH, Sen DK
    Singapore Med J, 1978 Jun;19(2):93-7.
    PMID: 751193
    Pregnancy was associated with cardiac disease in 0.94% of pregnancies. 0.66% with rheumatic lesions and 0.25'\'0 with congenital lesions. The Malays had a higher incidence than the Chinese and Indians. Most of the cardiac pregnancies were in patients between 20-30 years of age and gravida 1 to 4. Nevertheless. still about 30% of cardiac pregnancies were in patients 30 years and over in age and 20% in patient gravida 5 and above. Rheumatic lesions predominated. involving mainly the mitral valve. of which the major lesion was mitral stenosis. PDA. ASD and VSD were the major congenital lesions. Major antepartum matemal complications included arrhythmias. heart failure, anemia and pre-eclampsia. Of the arrhythmias. atrial fibrillation and sinus tachycardia occurred most commonly. A high incidence of prophylactic forceps and vacuum deliveries
    was evident. There was one matemal death. The majority of infants were bom alive and well.
    Matched MeSH terms: Pregnancy Complications, Cardiovascular/epidemiology*
  5. Perak AM, Ning H, Khan SS, Van Horn LV, Grobman WA, Lloyd-Jones DM
    J Am Heart Assoc, 2020 Feb 18;9(4):e015123.
    PMID: 32063122 DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.119.015123
    Background Pregnancy is a cardiometabolic stressor and thus a critical period to address women's lifetime cardiovascular health (CVH). However, CVH among US pregnant women has not been characterized. Methods and Results We analyzed cross-sectional data from National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 1999 to 2014 for 1117 pregnant and 8200 nonpregnant women, aged 20 to 44 years. We assessed 7 CVH metrics using American Heart Association definitions modified for pregnancy; categorized metrics as ideal, intermediate, or poor; assigned these categories 2, 1, or 0 points, respectively; and summed across the 7 metrics for a total score of 0 to 14 points. Total scores 12 to 14 indicated high CVH; 8 to 11, moderate CVH; and 0 to 7, low CVH. We applied survey weights to generate US population-level estimates of CVH levels and compared pregnant and nonpregnant women using demographic-adjusted polytomous logistic and linear regression. Among pregnant women, the prevalences (95% CIs) of ideal levels of CVH metrics were 0.1% (0%-0.3%) for diet, 27.3% (22.2%-32.3%) for physical activity, 38.9% (33.7%-44.0%) for total cholesterol, 51.1% (46.0%-56.2%) for body mass index, 77.7% (73.3%-82.2%) for smoking, 90.4% (87.5%-93.3%) for blood pressure, and 91.6% (88.3%-94.9%) for fasting glucose. The mean total CVH score was 8.3 (95% CI, 8.0-8.7) of 14, with high CVH in 4.6% (95% CI, 0.5%-8.8%), moderate CVH in 60.6% (95% CI, 52.3%-68.9%), and low CVH in 34.8% (95% CI, 26.4%-43.2%). CVH levels were significantly lower among pregnant versus nonpregnant women; for example, 13.0% (95% CI, 11.0%-15.0%) of nonpregnant women had high CVH (adjusted, comparison P=0.01). Conclusions From 1999 to 2014, <1 in 10 US pregnant women, aged 20 to 44 years, had high CVH.
    Matched MeSH terms: Pregnancy Complications, Cardiovascular/epidemiology*
  6. Zulkifli SN, Paine LL, Greener DL, Subramaniam R
    Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 1991 May;35(1):29-36.
    PMID: 1680072
    Trends in selected pregnancy complications from 1969 to 1987 in a tertiary hospital in Malaysia are presented. Complications reviewed were abortion, ectopic pregnancy, anemia, hypertension, hyperemesis, antepartum and postpartum hemorrhage. Possible explanations for the observed trends were discussed, including the role of improved obstetric care and changes in the characteristics of the childbearing population. The data presented give some indication of maternal morbidity in the childbearing population served by this tertiary center and should lead to improvements in provision of services as well as in health data collection in the future.
    Matched MeSH terms: Pregnancy Complications, Cardiovascular/epidemiology
  7. Moy FM, Ray A, Buckley BS, West HM
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2017 Jun 11;6(6):CD009613.
    PMID: 28602020 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009613.pub3
    BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is recommended as a key component of the management plan for diabetes therapy during pregnancy. No existing systematic reviews consider the benefits/effectiveness of various techniques of blood glucose monitoring on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. The effectiveness of the various monitoring techniques is unclear.

    OBJECTIVES: To compare techniques of blood glucose monitoring and their impact on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.

    SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2016), searched reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors.

    SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing techniques of blood glucose monitoring including SMBG, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or clinic monitoring among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2). Trials investigating timing and frequency of monitoring were also included. RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.

    DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

    MAIN RESULTS: This review update includes at total of 10 trials (538) women (468 women with type 1 diabetes and 70 women with type 2 diabetes). The trials took place in Europe and the USA. Five of the 10 included studies were at moderate risk of bias, four studies were at low to moderate risk of bias, and one study was at high risk of bias. The trials are too small to show differences in important outcomes such as macrosomia, preterm birth, miscarriage or death of baby. Almost all the reported GRADE outcomes were assessed as being very low-quality evidence. This was due to design limitations in the studies, wide confidence intervals, small sample sizes, and few events. In addition, there was high heterogeneity for some outcomes.Various methods of glucose monitoring were compared in the trials. Neither pooled analyses nor individual trial analyses showed any clear advantages of one monitoring technique over another for primary and secondary outcomes. Many important outcomes were not reported.1. Self-monitoring versus standard care (two studies, 43 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.49; one study, 28 women) or glycaemic control (both very low-quality), and not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and neonatal mortality and morbidity composite. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, neurosensory disability, and preterm birth were not reported in either study.2. Self-monitoring versus hospitalisation (one study, 100 women): there was no clear difference for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre-eclampsia and hypertension) (RR 4.26, 95% CI 0.52 to 35.16; very low-quality: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.22; very low-quality). There was no clear difference in caesarean section or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (both very low quality), and the sample size was too small to assess perinatal mortality (very low-quality). Large-for-gestational age, mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.3. Pre-prandial versus post-prandial glucose monitoring (one study, 61 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.28; very low-quality), large-for-gestational age (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.85; very low-quality) or glycaemic control (very low-quality). The results for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: pre-eclampsia and perinatal mortality are not meaningful because these outcomes were too rare to show differences in a small sample (all very low-quality). The study did not report the outcomes mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability or preterm birth.4. Automated telemedicine monitoring versus conventional system (three studies, 84 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.48; one study, 32 women; very low-quality), and mortality or morbidity composite in the one study that reported these outcomes. There were no clear differences for glycaemic control (very low-quality). No studies reported hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), neurosensory disability or preterm birth.5.CGM versus intermittent monitoring (two studies, 225 women): there was no clear difference for pre-eclampsia (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.59; low-quality), caesarean section (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54; I² = 62%; very low-quality) and large-for-gestational age (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.92; I² = 82%; very low-quality). Glycaemic control indicated by mean maternal HbA1c was lower for women in the continuous monitoring group (mean difference (MD) -0.60 %, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.29; one study, 71 women; moderate-quality). There was not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and there were no clear differences for preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (low-quality). Mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.6. Constant CGM versus intermittent CGM (one study, 25 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.79; very low-quality), glycaemic control (mean blood glucose in the 3rd trimester) (MD -0.14 mmol/L, 95% CI -2.00 to 1.72; very low-quality) or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.08 to 15.46; very low-quality). Other primary (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), mortality or morbidity composite, and neurosensory disability) or GRADE outcomes (preterm birth less than 34 weeks' gestation) were not reported.

    AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found no evidence that any glucose monitoring technique is superior to any other technique among pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The evidence base for the effectiveness of monitoring techniques is weak and additional evidence from large well-designed randomised trials is required to inform choices of glucose monitoring techniques.

    Matched MeSH terms: Pregnancy Complications, Cardiovascular/epidemiology
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links