FAQ Members Login

Partner change, birth interval and risk of PE

Post a reply

:
In an effort to prevent automatic submissions, we require that you enter both of the words displayed into the text field underneath.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Expand view Topic review: Partner change, birth interval and risk of PE

Re : Partner change, birth interval and risk of PE

Post by caryn » Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:17 am

I think the "waiting five years" part is what ups your chances, not staying with the same partner. But partner change lowers your risk.

And honestly, it's taken them years to turn up much suggesting a real role for the partner's genes, so whatever effect there is from the father is likely to be small I would think. It's more the mom's genes, and hence vasculature, than the father's.

That said, I do tend to point some fingers at my DH's genes as well as at my own. One of my sisters has had severe PE at term, and his brother has fathered a child born with profound IUGR. So we'd be playing with a stacked deck, kwim?

Re : Partner change, birth interval and risk of PE

Post by hhbeachgurl » Wed Aug 15, 2007 01:02 am

Caryn-
so if you wait 5 years or so and get pregnant with the same partner and his genes contributed (my doc thinks so as he has had high bp since he was in highschool...is now 35) then would that just up your chances more? Is that what the study is saying? Thanks

Re : Partner change, birth interval and risk of PE

Post by jenndola » Thu Aug 09, 2007 01:24 am

I'm just going to use this as an excuse to upgrade to a newer model. [;)]

Re : Partner change, birth interval and risk of PE

Post by jamilyn » Sat Aug 04, 2007 12:09 am

This is all very good to hear.!!!! It gives me a little hope that I could possibly have a preeclampsia free pregnancy! not that any of my pregnancies will be normal but one that ended at me having my c-section on the scheduled date at 37 weeks and not getting PE would be WONDERFUL.!!!!!
Thanks Caryn for sharing

Re : Partner change, birth interval and risk of PE

Post by caryn » Fri Aug 03, 2007 09:25 am

Ha!

I'm not sure I understand it correctly, but I guess the idea is that the baby inherits placenta growth genes (for lack of a better term) from both mother and father, but only the father's are switched on. They call it "imprinting" -- and it might be better explained by saying that the mother's genes are switched off, by the father's, in order to drive the growth of the placenta.

This means, too, that any of a male PE baby's offspring could have the father's genes (i.e. the ones involved in the preeclamptic pregnancy when that baby's father was in utero) *or* the mother's genes... which might explain why not all PE babies go on to father PE pregnancies...

*head explode*

Re : Partner change, birth interval and risk of PE

Post by leftcoastgirl » Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:21 am

Interesting Caryn...I had no idea the males genes were responsible for growth of the placenta. I just sat here and told my hubby this, and he said I know! I said "how did you know?" He told me he beat me to reading this thread, lol.

Re : Partner change, birth interval and risk of PE

Post by allyson2 » Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:00 am

Yes it makes sense.Hopefully luck will be on my side.Like I said there really aren't any anserws for me I've been tested while preg and 6wks pp with everything coming back ok.My bp was normal by 6wks.pp and has actually been lower than ever before.Keep the good articles coming!!!

Re : Partner change, birth interval and risk of PE

Post by caryn » Wed Aug 01, 2007 08:39 am

Not necessarily. At least three different things contribute here:

1) your new partner may not have the genetics to make a particularly invasive placenta, or he may, but the odds of "not" are better

2) the uterine arteries are stretched out after a first pregnancy, so it's easier for a subsequent placenta to implant properly

3) as you've aged a bit, you may have progressed farther towards chronic hypertension or developed some sort of underlying condition that can predispose a pregnancy to go preeclamptic

The hard thing about PE research is that it's multifactorial and heterogeneous, two big words that pretty much mean there are lots of ways to get it. You can get it because you've got clotting problems, or because your family has a strong history of chronic hypertension and you're going to develop it later, or because the placenta doesn't implant properly because of the immune system, or because of a freak accident in which half the placenta abrupts because you fall down the stairs or something, or because this particular placenta decides to develop trisomy 13 in just some of the lobes...

This is just one of the possible factors.

One of the top researchers on this says it's like blindness research was 100 years ago, when they just knew people stopped being able to see. Macular degeneration and retinopathy of prematurity both cause blindness, but for completely different reasons. PE is much the same way.

Does that make any sense?

Re : Partner change, birth interval and risk of PE

Post by allyson2 » Wed Aug 01, 2007 05:19 am

SO if you try for number two with the new partner will your body be better adjusted. Thanks for anserwing my questions

Re : Partner change, birth interval and risk of PE

Post by caryn » Wed Aug 01, 2007 04:25 am

What they're looking at here is two different variables that are intertwined -- if you get PE in your first pregnancy, then change partners, then get pregnant again, *usually* there is more time between pregnancies than there would be if you stayed with the original partner.

So, for a while they thought changing partners was associated with an increased risk. Then they thought that maybe the increased risk was all from the increased time between pregnancies. Now they're arguing that maybe changing partners is *protective* against PE. But increased time between pregnancies is still bad.

Basically, they're trying to figure out if the father's genes are implicated at all, at least in some cases, and they're leaning towards the answer that yes, they are.

And since the father's genes are generally in charge of growing the placenta as I understand things, this makes sense to me. Some of us (particularly those with no underlying disorders) could just be making babies with guys who grow particularly bossy placentae.

("Honey! It's *your* fault!")

Top