PubMed · 15069746
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Christopher Humm, Marie John, Moyra Baldwin, Stephen Weeks. Time for bed?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15069746/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Bed rest or restriction of activity, with or without hospitalisation, have been advocated for women with hypertension during pregnancy to improve pregnancy outcome. However, benefits need to be demonstrated before such interventions can be recommended since restricted activity may be disruptive to women's lives, expensive, and increase the risk of thromboembolism. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on the mother and the baby of different degrees of bed rest, compared with each other, and with routine activity, in hospital or at home, for primary treatment of hypertension during pregnancy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (April 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2005), and EMBASE (January 2002 to December 2004). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials evaluating bed rest for women with hypertension in pregnancy were selected. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trials for inclusion independently, and extracted data. Data were entered into RevMan software and double-checked. MAIN RESULTS: Four small trials (449 women) were included. Three were of good quality. Two trials (145 women) compared strict bed rest with some rest, in hospital, for women with proteinuric hypertension. There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate any differences between the groups for reported outcomes. Two trials (304 women) compared some bed rest in hospital with routine activity at home for non-proteinuric hypertension. There was reduced risk of severe hypertension (1 trial, 218 women; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.89) and a borderline reduction in risk of preterm birth (1 trial, 218 women; RR 0.53, CI 0.29 to 0.99) with some rest compared to normal activity. More women in the bed rest group opted not to have the same management in future pregnancies, if the choice were given (1 trial, 86 women; RR 3.00, 95% CI 1.43 to 6.31). There were no significant differences for any other outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Few randomised trials have evaluated rest for women with hypertension during pregnancy, and important information on side-effects and cost implication is missing from available trials. Although one small trial suggests that some bed rest may be associated with reduced risk of severe hypertension and preterm birth, these findings need to be confirmed in larger trials. At present, there is insufficient evidence to provide clear guidance for clinical practice. Therefore, bed rest should not be recommended routinely for hypertension in pregnancy, especially since more women appear to prefer unrestricted activity, if the choice were given.
The present study evaluated the effect of 35 days of experimental horizontal bed-rest on exercise and immersion thermoregulatory function. Fifteen healthy male volunteers were assigned to either a Control (n = 5) or Bed-rest (n = 10) group. Thermoregulatory function was evaluated during a 30-min bout of submaximal exercise on a cycle ergometer, followed immediately by a 100-min immersion in 28 degrees C water. For the Bed-rest group, exercise and immersion thermoregulatory responses observed post-bed-rest were compared with those after a 5 week supervised active recovery period. In both trials, the absolute work load during the exercise portion of the test was identical. During the exercise and immersion, we recorded skin temperature, rectal temperature, the difference in temperature between the forearm and third digit of the right hand (DeltaT(forearm-fingertip))--an index of skin blood flow, sweating rate from the forehead, oxygen uptake and heart rate at minute intervals. Subjects provided ratings of temperature perception and thermal comfort at 5-min intervals. Exercise thermoregulatory responses after bed-rest and recovery were similar. Subjective ratings of temperature perception and thermal comfort during immersion indicated that subjects perceived similar combinations of Tsk and Tre to be warmer and thermally less uncomfortable after bed-rest. The average (SD) exercise-induced increase in Tre relative to resting values was not significantly different between the Post-bed-rest (0.4 (0.2) degrees C) and Recovery (0.5 (0.2) degrees C) trials. During the post-exercise immersion, the decrease in Tre, relative to resting values, was significantly (P < 0.05) greater in the Post-bed-rest trial (0.9 (0.5) degrees C) than after recovery (0.4 (0.3) degrees C). DeltaT(forearm-fingertip) was 5.2 (0.9) degrees C and 5.8 (1.0) degrees C at the end of the post-bed-rest and recovery immersions, respectively. The gain of the shivering response (increase in VO(2) relative to the decrease in Tre; VO(2)/Tre) was 1.19 l min(-1) degrees C(-1) in the Recovery trial, and was significantly attenuated to 0.51 l min(-1) degrees C(-1) in the Post-bed-rest trial. The greater cooling rate observed in the post-bed-rest trial is attributed to the greater heat loss and reduced heat production. The former is the result of attenuated cold-induced vasoconstriction and enhanced sweating rate, and the latter a result of a lower shivering VO(2) response.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.