Post Reply FAQ Members Login

Aspirin article from 1998

The Preeclampsia Foundation does not necessarily endorse any research or news found in this forum, we just want to share what is out there. Please use your own discretion to evaluate any information you find here.

Aspirin article from 1998

Postby caryn » Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:25 am

by caryn (10124 Posts), Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:25 am

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 044,705095

So, we've known this for a long time.
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? Lectures from researchers?
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
User avatar
caryn
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 10124
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 06:36 am

Re: Aspirin article from 1998

Postby MaisiesMama » Mon Mar 12, 2012 02:24 am

by MaisiesMama (19 Posts), Mon Mar 12, 2012 02:24 am

Wow, I really don't know what to make of the aspirin theory. I had my daughter at 32+4 due to preeclampsia. When we went back and met with my peri for a consult regarding a future pregnancy, he said that his entire practice is on the LDA wagon (my words, not his), and that they would put me on it. I just don't like the idea of putting any medicine in my body while pregnant, and if it isn't even proven to increase likelihood of a positive outcome, then yeah - I don't really want to take it. I am no expert though. It's just hard to know who to believe...
Mommy to Maisie, born 7.5 weeks early due to preeclampsia.
MaisiesMama
Registered User
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 08:13 am

Re: Aspirin article from 1998

Postby caryn » Mon Mar 12, 2012 07:14 pm

by caryn (10124 Posts), Mon Mar 12, 2012 07:14 pm

I would do what your MFM says is appropriate for you. IIRC the current WHO guidelines say to use LDA in women with high recurrence risk, because they know it is unlikely to harm, and there's a slight benefit that keeps popping up in the metaanalyses which might just be a mathematical artifact but might be evidence of a benefit to some set of women we can't identify in advance. Here's a discussion amongst our Experts about LDA that you might want to read - there's still a lot of debate about this, even after two huge multi center randomized trials.
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? Lectures from researchers?
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
User avatar
caryn
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 10124
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 06:36 am

Re: Aspirin article from 1998

Postby MaisiesMama » Wed Mar 14, 2012 02:07 am

by MaisiesMama (19 Posts), Wed Mar 14, 2012 02:07 am

Thanks Caryn. I have read through that thread. Still clear as mud to me! Do you happen to know anything about whether there is some possible long term risk to the baby when mom takes LDA? I thought I remembered something alluding to that on the pregnancy survey I filled out for the Preeclampsia Foundation a few months back, but not sure. I'm not one to eschew medical advice from my doc, but sort of considering getting another opinion. I wonder how often LDA is prescribed to preeclampsia survivors who have no clotting disorders? Eh, who knew planning a pregnancy could be so complicated...
Mommy to Maisie, born 7.5 weeks early due to preeclampsia.
MaisiesMama
Registered User
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 08:13 am

Re: Aspirin article from 1998

Postby eleni » Thu Mar 15, 2012 03:35 pm

by eleni (469 Posts), Thu Mar 15, 2012 03:35 pm

As the author of the "patient perspectives" study, let me clarify that the values statements that were in there were not billed as statements of fact, but as viewpoints that survey takers were asked to respond to with their opinions (perspectives). That said, one issue with LDA is that there is no research (good or bad) that gives us any indication at all about the long term impact on our babies.
Eleni Z. Tsigas
Executive Director
Preeclampsia Foundation

2x PE survivor; 29 week daughter died, 35 week IUGR son made it after 2 weeks of NICU fun; 3rd pregnancy PE-free resulted in strapping 8 pounder son, born at term.
eleni
Site Admin
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 11:14 pm

Re: Aspirin article from 1998

Postby MaisiesMama » Thu Mar 15, 2012 06:33 pm

by MaisiesMama (19 Posts), Thu Mar 15, 2012 06:33 pm

Thank you Eleni. I do remember it being posed as a sort of "what if". It just made me wonder whether or not we do have any evidence, either of LDA being safe for our babes over the long term, or of adverse effects down the line. And you just answered my question perfectly.
Mommy to Maisie, born 7.5 weeks early due to preeclampsia.
MaisiesMama
Registered User
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 08:13 am

Re: Aspirin article from 1998

Postby alviarin » Fri Mar 30, 2012 04:03 pm

by alviarin (1645 Posts), Fri Mar 30, 2012 04:03 pm

My MFM advises all her chronic hypertensive patients to take daily baby aspirin- not to prevent pre-e but for overall heart health.
Hypothyroid mom to Connor and Claire
(severe pre-e at 38 weeks & "mild" pre-e at 37 weeks)
& baby Annabelle
(chronic HTN & GD, superimposed pre-e @34 weeks, induction @37 weeks)
alviarin
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1645
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:56 pm
Location: Texas


Return to Announcements and Preeclampsia in the News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests