Browsing by Author "Grobman, William"
Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Association between aspirin use during pregnancy and cardiovascular risk factors 2-7 years after delivery: The nuMoM2b Heart Health Study(Elsevier, 2022) Theilen, Lauren H.; Greenland, Philip; Varagic, Jasmina; Catov, Janet; Shanks, Anthony L.; Thorsten, Vanessa; Parker, Corette B.; McNeil, Rebecca; Mercer, Brian; Hoffman, Matthew; Wapner, Ronald; Haas, David; Simhan, Hyagriv; Grobman, William; Chung, Judith H.; Levine, Lisa D.; Barnes, Shannon; Merz, Noel Bairey; Saade, George; Silver, Robert M.; Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of MedicineObjectives: To evaluate the association between aspirin use during first pregnancy and later maternal cardiovascular risk. Study design: In this secondary analysis of a prospective cohort, we included participants who carried their first pregnancy to 20 + weeks, had data regarding aspirin use, and attended a study visit 2-7 years following delivery. The exposure was aspirin use during the first pregnancy. We calculated aspirin use propensity scores from logistic regression models including baseline variables associated with aspirin use in pregnancy and cardiovascular risk. Outcomes of interest were incident cardiovascular-related diagnoses 2-7 years following delivery. Robust Poisson regression calculated the risk of outcomes by aspirin exposure, adjusting for the aspirin use propensity score. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was a composite of incident cardiovascular diagnoses at the time of the study visit: cardiovascular events, chronic hypertension, metabolic syndrome, prediabetes or type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and chronic kidney disease. Results: Of 4,480 women included, 84 (1.9%) reported taking aspirin during their first pregnancy. 52.6% of participants in the aspirin-exposed group and 43.0% in the unexposed group had the primary outcome. After adjusting for the aspirin use propensity scores, aspirin use during the first pregnancy was not associated with any of the outcomes. Conclusion: We did not detect an association between aspirin use during the first pregnancy and cardiovascular-related diagnoses 2-7 years later. Our study was only powered to detect a large difference in relative risk, so we cannot rule out a smaller difference that may be clinically meaningful.Item Gestational Weight Gain and Pregnancy Outcomes among Nulliparous Women(Thieme, 2021) Dude, Annie M.; Grobman, William; Haas, David; Mercer, Brian M.; Parry, Samuel; Silver, Robert M.; Wapner, Ronald; Wing, Deborah; Saade, George; Reddy, Uma; Iams, Jay; Kominiarek, Michelle A.; Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of MedicineObjective: To determine the association between total gestational weight gain and perinatal outcomes. Study design: Data from the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-To-Be (NuMoM2b) study were used. Total gestational weight gain was categorized as inadequate, adequate, or excessive based on the 2009 Institute of Medicine guidelines. Outcomes examined included hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, mode of delivery, shoulder dystocia, large for gestational age or small for-gestational age birth weight, and neonatal intensive care unit admission. Results: Among 8,628 women, 1,666 (19.3%) had inadequate, 2,945 (34.1%) had adequate, and 4,017 (46.6%) had excessive gestational weight gain. Excessive gestational weight gain was associated with higher odds of hypertensive disorders (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.78-2.36) Cesarean delivery (aOR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09-1.41), and large for gestational age birth weight (aOR = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.23-1.80), but lower odds of small for gestational age birth weight (aOR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.50-0.71). Conversely, inadequate gestational weight gain was associated with lower odds of hypertensive disorders (aOR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.62-0.92), Cesarean delivery (aOR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.65-0.92), and a large for gestational age birth weight (aOR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.55-0.94), but higher odds of having a small for gestational age birth weight (aOR = 1.64, 95% CI: 1.37-1.96). Conclusion: Both excessive and inadequate gestational weight gain are associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.Item Performance of a Multianalyte 'Rule-Out' Assay in Pregnant Individuals With Suspected Preeclampsia(Wolters Kluwer, 2022) Costantine, Maged M.; Sibai, Baha; Bombard, Allan T.; Sarno, Mark; West, Holly; Haas, David M.; Tita, Alan T.; Paidas, Michael J.; Clark, Erin A. S.; Boggess, Kim; Grotegut, Chad; Grobman, William; Su, Emily J.; Burd, Irina; Saade, George; Chavez, Martin R.; Paglia, Michael J.; Merriam, Audrey; Torres, Carlos; Habli, Mounira; Macones, Georges; Wen, Tony; Bofill, James; Palatnik, Anna; Edwards, Rodney K.; Haeri, Sina; Oberoi, Pankaj; Mazloom, Amin; Cooper, Matthew; Lockton, Steven; Hankins, Gary D.; Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of MedicineBackground: The ability to diagnose preeclampsia clinically is suboptimal. Our objective was to validate a novel multianalyte assay and characterize its performance, when intended for use as an aid to rule-out preeclampsia. Methods: Prospective, multicenter cohort study of pregnant individuals presenting between 280/7 and 366/7 weeks' with preeclampsia-associated signs and symptoms. Individuals not diagnosed with preeclampsia after baseline evaluation were enrolled in the study cohort, with those who later developed preeclampsia, classified as cases and compared with a negative control group who did not develop preeclampsia. Individuals with assay values at time of enrollment ≥0.0325, determined using a previously developed algorithm, considered at risk. The primary analysis was the time to develop preeclampsia assessed using a multivariate Cox regression model. Results: One thousand thirty-six pregnant individuals were enrolled in the study cohort with an incidence of preeclampsia of 30.3% (27.6%-33.2%). The time to develop preeclampsia was shorter for those with an at-risk compared with negative assay result (log-rank P<0.0001; adjusted hazard ratio of 4.81 [3.69-6.27, P<0.0001]). The performance metrics for the assay to rule-out preeclampsia within 7 days of enrollment showed a sensitivity 76.4% (67.5%-83.5%), negative predictive value 95.0% (92.8%-96.6%), and negative likelihood ratio 0.46 (0.32-0.65). Assay performance improved if delivery occurred <37 weeks and for individuals enrolled between 28 and 35 weeks. Conclusions: We confirmed that a novel multianalyte assay was associated with the time to develop preeclampsia and has a moderate sensitivity and negative likelihood ratio but high negative predictive value when assessed as an aid to rule out preeclampsia within 7 days of enrollment.Item Prospective parents’ perspectives on antenatal decision making for the anticipated birth of a periviable infant(Taylor & Francis, 2018) Edmonds, Brownsyne Tucker; Savage, Teresa A.; Kimura, Robert E.; Kilpatrick, Sarah J.; Kuppermann, Miriam; Grobman, William; Kavanaugh, Karen; Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of MedicineObjective: To examine prospective parents’ perceptions of management options and outcomes in the context of threatened periviable delivery, and the values they apply in making antenatal decisions during this period. Study design: Qualitative analysis of 46 antenatal interviews conducted at three tertiary-care hospitals with 54 prospective parents (40 pregnant women, 14 partners) who had received counseling for threatened periviable delivery (40 cases). Results: Participants most often recalled being involved in resuscitation, cerclage, and delivery mode decisions. Over half (63.0%) desired a shared decision-making role. Most (85.2%) recalled hearing about morbidity and mortality, with many reiterating terms like “brain damage”, “disability”, and “handicap”. The potential for disability influenced decision making to variable degrees. In describing what mattered most, participant spoke of giving their child a “fighting chance”; others voiced concerns about “best interest”, a “healthy baby”, “pain and suffering”, and religious faith. Conclusions: Our findings underscore the importance of presenting clear information on disability and eliciting the factors that parents deem most important in making decisions about periviable birth.Item The association between personal weight gain goals, provider recommendations, and appropriate gestational weight gain(Elsevier, 2020) Dude, Annie M.; Plunkett, Beth; Grobman, William; Scifres, Christina M.; Mercer, Brian M.; Parry, Samuel; Silver, Robert M.; Wapner, Ronald; Wing, Deborah A.; Saade, George; Reddy, Uma; Iams, Jay; Simhan, Hyagriv; Kominiarek, Michelle A.; Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of MedicineBackground: Nearly half of all women exceed the 2009 Institute of Medicine guidelines for gestational weight gain. Excess gestational weight gain is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Objective: Our objective was to determine whether having a personal gestational weight gain goal consistent with the Institute of Medicine's recommendations for appropriate gestational weight gain and whether having a discussion with one's obstetrical provider regarding that goal were associated with appropriate gestational weight gain. Study design: This is a secondary analysis of the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-To-Be study, a prospective cohort study of nulliparous women. We asked women at their first study visit (between 6 and 13 weeks' gestation) whether they had a gestational weight gain goal and what that goal was. Furthermore, we asked whether their provider discussed a gestational weight gain goal and what that goal was. We classified personal and provider-recommended gestational weight gain goals as consistent or inconsistent with the Institute of Medicine guidelines, taking into account a woman's initial body mass index category (underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obese). We included women with live singleton term deliveries (between 37 and 43 weeks' gestation) in this analysis. We classified the primary outcome, which was gestational weight gain (defined as the difference between first visit weight and final weight before delivery), as inadequate, appropriate, or excessive, based on the Institute of Medicine guidelines and initial body mass index category. We used Student t, Wilcoxon rank-sum, and chi-square tests for bivariable analyses, and multinomial logistic regression was performed to control for confounding variables. Results: Of 6727 eligible women, 3799 (56.5% of all eligible women) stated they had a gestational weight gain goal. Of the 3799 women with a stated goal, 2589 (38.5% of all women) had a goal consistent with the Institute of Medicine's recommendations. In addition, of the 6727 eligible women, 2188 (32.5%) reported that they discussed gestational weight gain with their provider, and 1548 of these (23.0% of all women) recalled that their provider gave a gestational weight gain goal in accordance with the Institute of Medicine guidelines. Although having any gestational weight gain goal was not associated with appropriate gestational weight gain, having a gestational weight gain goal that was consistent with the Institute of Medicine's recommendations was associated with a reduced risk of excessive (adjusted relative risk ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.92) and inadequate weight gain (adjusted relative risk ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.82). Conversely, discussing gestational weight gain goals with a provider was not associated with either inadequate or excessive gestational weight gain even if the provider's recommendations for gestational weight gain were consistent with the guidelines. Conclusion: Nulliparas who delivered singleton pregnancies at term who had a personal gestational weight gain goal consistent with the Institute of Medicine's recommendations were less likely to have excessive or inadequate gestational weight gain. Further study is required to evaluate the most effective way to communicate this information to patients.Item Weight gain in early, mid, and late pregnancy and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy(Elsevier, 2020-04) Dude, Annie M.; Kominiarek, Michelle A.; Haas, David M.; Iams, Jay; Mercer, Brian M.; Parry, Samuel; Reddy, Uma M.; Saade, George; Silver, Robert M.; Simhan, Hyagriv; Wapner, Ronald; Wing, Deborah; Grobman, William; Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of MedicineObjective: To examine the relationship of weight change during early, mid, and late pregnancy with the development of a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (HDP). Study design: These data are from a prospective cohort study of nulliparous women with live singleton pregnancies. "Early" weight change was defined as the difference between self-reported pre-pregnancy weight and weight at the first visit (between 6 and 13 weeks' gestation); "mid" weight change was defined as the weight change between the first and second visits (between 16 and 21 weeks' gestation); "late" weight change was defined as the weight change between the second and third visits (between 22 and 29 weeks' gestation). Weight change in each time period was further characterized as inadequate, adequate, or excessive based on the Institute of Medicine's (IOM's) trimester-specific weekly weight gain goals based on pre-pregnancy body mass index. Multivariable Poisson regression was performed to adjust for potential confounders. Main outcome measure: Development of any hypertensive disorder of pregnancy. Results: Of 8296 women, 1564 (18.9%) developed a HDP. Weight gain in excess of the IOM recommendations during the latter two time periods was significantly associated with HDP. Specifically, trimester-specific excessive weight gain in the mid period (aIRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.01-1.35) as well as in the late period (aIRR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.02-1.40) was associated with increased risk of developing HDP. The weight gain preceded the onset of clinically apparent disease. Conclusions: Excessive weight gain as early as the early second trimester was associated with increased risks of development of HDP.