Reply




We thank the authors for their letter and for their interest in our study.


Based upon the comments and queries of the authors, we have conducted further analyses. We have conducted an analysis based on grouped maternal age (<20, 20-34, and ≥35 years) and on gestation at birth (<34, 35-36, and ≥37 weeks). This gestation is the birth gestation and, therefore, not necessarily the gestation at which diagnosis was first made or when the eclamptic episode occurred. It can be seen in the Table that early onset preeclampsia rates have actually increased (16.1-22.6%) between the years 2000 through 2008 in this cohort and have not remained steady as the authors speculated. In line with conclusions which both ourselves and the authors have made reference to, rates of preeclampsia at term have fallen over the time period of the study.



Table

Maternal age and gestational age comparisons between women with preeclampsia only and those with preeclampsia and eclampsia






































































Variable Preeclampsia Eclampsia
Year of event Year of event
2000 2008 P value 2000 2008 P value
Maternal age, y
<20 3.3% 2.5% < .001 7.0% 4.7% .85
20-34 76.5% 71.8% .02 76.7% 90.5% .09
≥35 20.2% 25.6% < .001 16.3% 4.8% .08
Gestation at birth, wk
<34 6.3% 8.8% .03 11.1% 14.0% .69
35-36 9.8% 13.8% < .001 13.3% 11.6% .80
≥37 83.9% 77.4% < .001 75.6% 74.4% .89

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

May 11, 2017 | Posted by in GYNECOLOGY | Comments Off on Reply

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access