Back

Risk of diabetes and cardiovascular diseases in women with pregnancies complicated by vaginal bleeding: Danish population-based cohort study

Dudukina, E.; Horvath-Puho, E.; Sorensen, H. T.; Ehrenstein, V.

2022-03-18 epidemiology
10.1101/2022.03.18.22272466 medRxiv
Show abstract

ImportanceThe risk of cardiovascular outcomes following a pregnancy complicated by vaginal bleeding (VB) not ending in a miscarriage is not fully understood. ObjectiveTo study an association between pregnancy affected by VB and womens subsequent risks of diabetes and cardiovascular outcomes. Design, Setting and ParticipantsWe conducted a population-based cohort study set in Denmark, 1994-2018. Using Danish nationwide registries, we identified 1,901,725 pregnancies among 903,327 women. Of these, 39,265 were affected by VB and ended in childbirth; 1,389,285 were unaffected by VB and ended in childbirth; 333,785 ended in termination, and 139,390 ended in a miscarriage. Exposure(s)Pregnancy affected by vaginal bleeding before 20 gestational weeks. Main outcome measuresThe outcomes were diabetes types 1 and 2, hypertension, ischaemic heart disease (including myocardial infarction), atrial fibrillation or flutter, heart failure, ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke. We computed absolute risks and hazard ratios (aHRs) with robust 95% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for age, calendar year, reproductive history, comorbidities, and socioeconomic factors using Cox proportional hazards regression. ResultsAt the end of the follow-up, among women with VB-affected vs VB-unaffected pregnancies, the cumulative risks of the outcome events were 1.7% vs 1.4% for diabetes type 1; 6.9% vs 5.6% for diabetes type 2; 11.1% vs 9.0% for hypertension; 3.6% vs 2.7% for ischaemic heart disease, including 1.1% vs 0.8% for myocardial infarction; 1.3% vs 1.0% for atrial fibrillation or flutter; 0.5% vs 0.5% for heart failure; 2.0% vs 1.3% for ischaemic stroke; and 0.8% vs 0.6% for haemorrhagic stroke and aHRs were 1.2 to 1.3-fold increased for diabetes types 1 and 2, hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation or flutter, and heart failure. The aHRs were 1.4 and 1.5-fold increased for ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke, respectively. For comparisons of women with VB-affected pregnancy vs termination, aHRs were up to 1.3-fold increased for diabetes and hypertension. Analyses contrasting VB-affected pregnancy with miscarriage resulted in aHRs below or close to the null value. ConclusionsWomens risks of diabetes and cardiovascular outcomes were increased following VB-affected pregnancy when compared with VB-unaffected pregnancy or termination, but not when compared with miscarriage. Key pointsO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSIs having a pregnancy affected by vaginal bleeding and not ending in miscarriage associated with the increased risk of diabetes and cardiovascular outcomes in women? FindingsThis nationwide registry-based cohort study of 1,901,725 pregnancies among 903,327 women showed that in contrast with having a pregnancy without vaginal bleeding, having a pregnancy with vaginal bleeding before 20 gestational weeks was associated with womans increased risks of diabetes types 1 and 2, hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, including myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation or flutter, heart failure, ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke. The cardiovascular risks were increased when investigating a womans first pregnancy with vaginal bleeding before 20 gestational vs without vaginal bleeding during pregnancy; the associations remained when we additionally adjusted for smoking and body-mass index in a sensitivity analysis. MeaningThe results of this study support current clinical practice on cardiovascular prevention in women with pregnancy complications and add to the body of evidence on a common pregnancy complication, vaginal bleeding, and its association with long-term risks of diabetes and cardiovascular conditions.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.