Remote Monitoring of Hypertension Diseases in Pregnancy: A Pilot Study

• Main Authors: Lanssens, Dorien, Vandenberk, Thijs, Smeets, Christophe JP, De Cannière, Hélène, Molenberghs, Geert, Van Moerbeke, Anne, van den Hoogen, Anne, Robijns, Tiziana, Vonck, Sharona, Staelens, Anneleen, Storms, Valerie, Thijs, Inge M, Grieten, Lars, Gyselaers, Wilfried
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: JMIR Publications 2017-03-01
• Series: JMIR mHealth and uHealth
• Online Access: http://mhealth.jmir.org/2017/3/e25/

BackgroundAlthough remote monitoring (RM) has proven its added value in various health care domains, little is known about the remote follow-up of pregnant women diagnosed with a gestational hypertensive disorders (GHD). ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the added value of a remote follow-up program for pregnant women diagnosed with GHD. MethodsA 1-year retrospective study was performed in the outpatient clinic of a 2nd level prenatal center where pregnant women with GHD received RM or conventional care (CC). Primary study endpoints include number of prenatal visits and admissions to the prenatal observation ward. Secondary outcomes include gestational outcome, mode of delivery, neonatal outcome, and admission to neonatal intensive care (NIC). Differences in continuous and categorical variables in maternal demographics and characteristics were tested using Unpaired Student’s two sampled t test or Mann-Whitney U test and the chi-square test. Both a univariate and multivariate analysis were performed for analyzing prenatal follow-up and gestational outcomes. All statistical analyses were done at nominal level, Cronbach alpha=.05. ResultsOf the 166 patients diagnosed with GHD, 53 received RM and 113 CC. After excluding 5 patients in the RM group and 15 in the CC group because of the missing data, 48 patients in RM group and 98 in CC group were taken into final analysis. The RM group had more women diagnosed with gestational hypertension, but less with preeclampsia when compared with CC (81.25% vs 42.86% and 14.58% vs 43.87%). Compared with CC, univariate analysis in RM showed less induction, more spontaneous labors, and less maternal and neonatal hospitalizations (48.98% vs 25.00%; 31.63% vs 60.42%; 74.49% vs 56.25%; and 27.55% vs 10.42%). This was also true in multivariate analysis, except for hospitalizations. ConclusionsAn RM follow-up of women with GHD is a promising tool in the prenatal care. It opens the perspectives to reverse the current evolution of antenatal interventions leading to more interventions and as such to ever increasing medicalized antenatal care.