Signs of Preeclampsia but Want Natural Birth - too dangerous?

This section is for discussions with other women who have probably been through the same signs/symptoms that you may be experiencing. Please note, we cannot offer medical advice and encourage members to discuss their concerns with their doctors. New members, come on in and introduce yourself!
jenh
Registered User
Posts: 169
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 03:02 pm

Re: Signs of Preeclampsia but Want Natural Birth - too dangerous?

Postby jenh » Sat Aug 06, 2016 10:50 pm

I also have planned for a completely natural birth, and ended up with three inductions for PE. You should have a serious discussion with your doctor about exactly what signs s/he is seeing, and the benefits and risks of inducing now vs waiting. But even if you decide to move forward with an induction, just because you need some intervention doesn't necessarily mean you need everything. You can ask about things like Foley Bulb induction (a more natural, drug-free method). If that doesn't work and you do need Pitocin, you can follow a slow-induction method, increasing the dose every 30-60 minutes instead of the rapid 15-minute protocol. I had my third pain-med free, so I know it's possible even with Pitocin contractions.
Jen
Wife to Brett 6/30/02
Mom to Ethne Joy 10/12/03, 35 weeks, severe PE
Mom to Catie Grace 12/8/06, 37 weeks, mild PE
Mom to Riley Faith and Gavin Arthur 7/7/09, 36 weeks, PIH 22 weeks, PE 31 weeks, severe post partum PE
Mom to four angels Grace (12/15/05), Ian (7/28/08), Declan (5/23/15), and Lucy (11/24/15)

User avatar
caryn
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10203
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 06:36 am

Re: Signs of Preeclampsia but Want Natural Birth - too dangerous?

Postby caryn » Fri Aug 05, 2016 07:37 pm

Here's a link to the ACOG recommendations: http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publi ... -Pregnancy

"For women with mild gestational hypertension or preeclampsia without severe features at or beyond 37 0/7 weeks of gestation, delivery rather than continued observation is suggested."

The idea is that waiting makes it significantly more likely that you will tip over the diagnostic edge into preeclampsia, whereas in this population - women with mild gestational hypertension, or one reading of either of 140/90, induction after 37 weeks caused no harm to the baby (outcomes in both populations were similar) but significantly lowered risk to the mother. This goes back to the HYPITAT trial: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance ... 4/abstract

Preeclampsia can move incredibly rapidly - I went from 130/80 and trace on a dipstick to multiple organ failure, pulmonary edema, and an ICU stay in under a week - so obstetricians look for ways to minimize your risk of it. Getting the foreign placenta out (in preeclampsia, the mother's body "sees" that foreign organ and responds to it as if it's an invader, instead of ignoring it as in a normotensive pregnancy) is the only way to be sure to avoid that sort of progression. In women with mild gestational hypertension and no other symptoms, it's quite common for postpartum preeclampsia to appear a few days after labor, and being separated from the baby for treatment can be rough on an early nursing relationship, too.

Please keep us posted as you're able!
Science! The articles you don't want to miss:
The Preeclampsia Puzzle (New Yorker) and Silent Struggle: A New Theory of Pregnancy (New York Times)
Looking for recent articles and studies?
A chance to participate in research? For us on Facebook or Twitter?

Caryn, @carynjrogers, who is not a doctor and who talks about science stuff *way* too much
DS Oscar born by emergent C-section at 34 weeks for fetal indicators, due to severe PE
DD Bridget born by C-section after water broke at 39 weeks after a healthy pregnancy

MomTimesThree
Forum Moderator
Posts: 598
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:54 pm

Re: Signs of Preeclampsia but Want Natural Birth - too dangerous?

Postby MomTimesThree » Fri Aug 05, 2016 05:19 am

Welcome.

Even without pre-eclampsia- "just" with gestational hypertension induction is recommended at 37 weeks as the risks to the baby and mother begin to outweigh the benefits. I'm sure someone will chime in with a link to the report and practice recommendations which is what it sounds like your doctor is referring to by recommending induction.

I am not a doctor- and this decision needs to be made between you and your medical team. Speaking as someone who has had preeclampsia twice and has had two inductions due to pre-eclampsia I understand the difficulty you are experiencing letting go of what you anticipated your birth plan would be. Knowing however that preeclampsia, and even hypertension is a dangerous condition for both mother and child- and by dangerous I mean life threatening I would absolutely induce. Even with an induction you are able to make many choices about how your birth takes place. When all is said and done you and your child's health comes first. You may always miss how you imagined your birth to go- however that is small in comparison to something happening to the health of you or your child.

Again- it is between you and your doctor- these are just my 2 cents. Health first- preferences second.

Lauren
2008-Our Baby Girl, PTL born too early at 30w6d, Fought so hard... Forever Loved & Missed
2010- Lil' Bro, Pre-E at 29 weeks... Induced at 36w6d, Born 37w
2012- Lil' Sis, Super-imposed pre-e at 25 weeks, PTL & GD at 35 weeks, Evicted 36w

criistalina
Registered User
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:24 pm

Signs of Preeclampsia but Want Natural Birth - too dangerous?

Postby criistalina » Fri Aug 05, 2016 01:36 am

I am hoping anyone can give me advice on what to do next -- I am 4 days past my due date and this past week was the first time my blood pressure (BP) was high in the doctor's office. They found a BP of 154/90 and "trace amount" of protein in my urine. I was sent to triage where my first BP was similar but all subsequent BPs were right around 125/80's and the triage found no protein in my urine, normal liver enzymes and all other labs normal.

When I went to see my doctor the day before yesterday, my BP was 126/94 and because of the 94 (Diastolic/lower number) she said she wanted to induce me right away. I was sent to the hospital again for triage with the same result, some elevated BP right around 135/90 but clear labs otherwise and only dilated 1/2 cm with a Bishop score of 5.

I went through the Bradley method birth training (natural birth preparation) and want to avoid the pitocin/epidural type of birth for a non-medicated hospital birth. Getting induced is just not what I see for my birth experience. I have been checking my BP the last few days and it hangs right around 136/94. I've tried in the last few days to also do as many natural induction techniques as possible like sex, induction acupuncture, massage, walking, eating dates, pineapple juice, evening primrose oil... the little guy just wants to stay in there.

Am I putting myself and my baby at undue risk by stalling and not complying with my doc's request to induce right away? She also says the baby is big, coming in at 8.5 lbs on the recent ultrasound but I know those can be inaccurate and a big baby (only 4 days overdue) is not a single reason to induce.

I have been feeling some slight headaches, but also feel like the worry of what is currently happening might have to do with it as well. Should I just go ahead and get induced despite wanting to have this baby unmedicated? Any advice helps. Thanks.


Return to “Ask the Experienced”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests