Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

This study showed that planned early delivery within the PHOENIX trial did not ameliorate maternal systolic and/or diastolic dysfunction at 6 months postpartum in women with pre-eclampsia, compared with expectant management.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Fergus P McCarthy 1,2,*, Jamie O’Driscoll 3,4, Paul Seed 1, Anna Brockbank 1, Alice Cox 5, Carolyn Gill 1, Marcus Green 6, Mike Marber 7, Lucilla Poston 1, Anna Placzek 8, Andrew Shennan 1, Jenie Sparkes 1, Paul Leeson 9,, Basky Thilaganathan 10,, Lucy C Chappell 1,*,

1 Department of Women and Children’s Health, King’s College London, London, UK
2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The INFANT Research Centre, University College Cork, Cork University Maternity Hospital, Cork, Ireland
3 School of Human and Life Science, Canterbury Christ Church University, Kent, UK
4 Department of Cardiology, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
5 Women’s Services, University College London, London, UK
6 Action on Pre-eclampsia, Evesham, UK
7 Cardiovascular Division, King’s College London British Heart Foundation Centre of Excellence, The Rayne Institute, St. Thomas’ Hospital Campus, London, UK
8 National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit (NPEU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
9 Oxford Cardiovascular Clinical Research Facility, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
10 Fetal Medicine Unit, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s University of London, London, UK
* Corresponding author Emails: and

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} . {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.


Responses to this report

No responses have been published.


If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions