# Assessment of Roll-Over Test in Preeclamptic and Healthy Pregnant Women Using Arterial Stiffness Measurements—Prospective Case–Control Study

## TL;DR

This study compared arterial stiffness measurements in healthy and preeclamptic pregnant women during a roll-over test to detect hemodynamic changes.

## Contribution

This is the first study to combine a roll-over test with arterial stiffness measurements in preeclamptic and healthy pregnant women.

## Key findings

- Preeclamptic women had higher blood pressure and pulse pressure values compared to healthy controls.
- The augmentation index was significantly higher in preeclamptic women.
- Combining the roll-over test with arterial stiffness measurements did not improve sensitivity for detecting hemodynamic changes.

## Abstract

Background: The early recognition of systemic hemodynamic changes resulting from uteroplacental circulation disturbance in preeclampsia (PE) is of great importance for its appropriate treatment and prevention. The aim of the present study was to assess the hemodynamic changes during a roll-over test in healthy normotensive and preeclamptic pregnant women using applanation tonometry. Patients and methods: Healthy pregnant and PE women in their third trimester were studied. First, applanation tonometry was performed in a resting state on the right radial artery of each subject. In the second phase, the measurements were repeated in the left-lateral position and 5 min after turning each patient into a supine position (roll-over test = ROT). The systolic and diastolic central and peripheral blood pressures, pulse pressures, and augmentation index (AIx75) values were registered for all phases. Results: A total of 21 PE and 14 healthy pregnant women entered this study. At rest, the PE patients had higher systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressures; the preeclamptic patients had higher peripheral and central blood pressure and pulse pressure values compared to the healthy controls. A statistically significant difference was found between the augmentation index (AIX-75) values for the preeclamptic and healthy pregnant women (healthy pregnant: 9.0 ± 2.4 vs. preeclamptic: 18.9 ± 6.0; p = 0.019). During the ROT, no significant differences could be detected in the applanation tonometry parameters within the groups. The differences between the PE and healthy pregnant women continued to exist in the left-lateral and supine positions during the roll-over test. Conclusions: This is the first study combining a roll-over test and arterial stiffness measurements in healthy pregnant females and in those with PE. Although we can confirm that arterial stiffness measurements can be used to detect hemodynamic changes in pregnant women with PE, combining it with a roll-over test is unsuitable for improving the method’s sensitivity.