Combined OCPs Should NOT Be Prescribed to This Patient
A 22-year-old woman with a history of pre-eclampsia 2 years ago should not receive combined oral contraceptive pills due to substantially elevated cardiovascular risks—specifically a 2-fold or greater increased risk of stroke and ischemic heart disease, and a 4-fold increased risk of heart failure associated with her pre-eclampsia history, which is further compounded by the 1.5-1.9-fold increased stroke and ischemic heart disease risk from COCs themselves. 1
Why Combined OCPs Are Contraindicated
Cardiovascular Risk from Pre-eclampsia History
Pre-eclampsia alone confers major long-term cardiovascular risks: Women with a history of pre-eclampsia have a 2-fold or greater increased risk of both ischemic heart disease and stroke, and a 4-fold increased risk of heart failure compared to women without this history. 1
These risks persist years after the pregnancy and represent permanent vascular endothelial dysfunction that does not resolve. 1
Additive Risk from Combined OCPs
Current use of combined oral contraceptives independently increases cardiovascular risk: COCs are associated with a 1.5-1.9-fold increased risk of both ischemic stroke and ischemic heart disease. 1
The relative risk of myocardial infarction with COC use is 1.6-1.7, and for ischemic stroke is 1.7-1.9. 1
These risks are multiplicative, not simply additive: When a woman with pre-eclampsia history uses COCs, she faces compounded thrombotic risk from both her underlying vascular pathology and the prothrombotic effects of exogenous estrogen. 2, 3
Venous Thromboembolism Risk
COCs increase venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk approximately 4-fold overall, with the highest risk (OR 4.17) occurring in the first year of use. 2
Second-generation COCs (containing levonorgestrel or norethisterone) have lower VTE risk than third-generation formulations (containing desogestrel, gestodene) or fourth-generation formulations (containing drospirenone), with pooled risk ratios of 1.5-2.0 comparing newer progestogens to levonorgestrel. 4, 5
Recommended Alternative: Progestogen-Only Contraceptives
Progestogen-only contraceptives (POCs) are the appropriate choice for this patient and should be strongly recommended. 2, 3
Why POCs Are Safe in This Population
No increased cardiovascular risk: Progestogen-only contraceptives show no association with myocardial infarction or stroke, with risk ratios of 0.98-1.02 (essentially no increased risk). 1, 6
No significant VTE risk increase: POCs do not significantly increase venous thromboembolism risk, unlike combined formulations. 2, 4
No blood pressure elevation: POCs do not significantly affect blood pressure, avoiding the hypertensive effects sometimes seen with estrogen-containing formulations. 6
Specific POC Options
Progestogen-only pills (POPs): Daily oral pills containing only progestogen (desogestrel 75 mcg or norethindrone 0.35 mg). 6
Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs): Levonorgestrel IUD, etonogestrel implant, or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate injection—all progestogen-only methods with superior efficacy and no estrogen-related cardiovascular risk. 2
Critical Clinical Pitfalls to Avoid
Do not assume that 2 years post-pregnancy makes COCs safe: The cardiovascular risk from pre-eclampsia persists indefinitely and does not diminish significantly with time since the affected pregnancy. 1
Do not prescribe COCs even if the patient has no other risk factors: Pre-eclampsia history alone is sufficient to contraindicate estrogen-containing contraception due to the multiplicative thrombotic risk. 2, 3
Do not use "low-dose" COCs as a compromise: Even low-dose formulations (≤35 mcg ethinyl estradiol) carry the same relative cardiovascular risk increases in women with pre-eclampsia history. 2, 5
Blood pressure must be monitored: If the patient has residual hypertension from her pre-eclampsia (which occurs in some cases), this would further amplify COC-related cardiovascular risk by approximately 3-fold for MI and ischemic stroke. 2
Counseling Points for This Patient
Explain that her pre-eclampsia history indicates underlying vascular changes that permanently increase her cardiovascular risk, making estrogen-containing contraception unsafe. 1
Emphasize that progestogen-only methods provide equally effective contraception without the cardiovascular risks of combined methods. 2
Discuss that LARCs offer superior typical-use efficacy (>99%) compared to daily pills and eliminate adherence concerns. 2
Counsel that condoms should be used consistently for STI protection regardless of hormonal contraceptive choice. 7