Closing of a 2-decade's toxic debate concerning the cause of preeclampsia in multiparas

What is it about?

At first the scientific dogma during the 19th and until the very end of the 20th century (the year 2000): PREECLAMPSIA IS A DISEASE OF PRIMIPARAE (FIRST PREGNANCY) 1) In 1993 and 1994 (publication in the Lancet) emerged a new evidence: preeclampsia may also be a disease of multiparae in the case of new father for that index pregnancy "primipaternity". A major broadening of the so far doxa: YES PREECLAMPSIA IS INDEED A DISEASE OF FIRST PREGNANCY, BUT AT THE LEVEL OF A COUPLE AND NOT ONLY ON THE MOTHER'S SIDE 2) In 2002, major counter-attack in the New-England Journal of Medicine NO, IN MULTIPARAE PREECLAMPSIA IS NOT DUE TO A PRIMIPATERNITY, IT IS SIMPLY EXPLAINABLE BY A LONGER INTERVAL BETWEEN PREGNANCIES

Featured Image

Why is it important?

1) Primipaternity induced automatically an emerging interest towards preeclampsia being indeed a paternal-maternal conflict (a kind of partial rejection of this strange obligatory "9-month long foetal hemi-allograft" 2) The longer birth interval's theory conforted the end of the 20th century's believes: preeclampsia is simply a pure vascular disease. The longer the intervals between pregnancies, the higher are the risks in multiparae. We may synthetze this as a kind of "rusted pipe theory": with a 10-year delay the "pipes" (maternal vessels) are much more " rusted" than after a 3-year delay.

Perspectives