Why the study?
To assess the performance of risk stratification schemes in predicting adverse cardiac outcomes in pregnant women with congenital heart disease and compare them to clinical factors alone.
Does the ZAHARA score predict adverse cardiovascular outcomes better than the CARPREG I score in pregnant women with congenital heart disease?
Cohort (n=178)
No
Does the ZAHARA score predict adverse cardiovascular outcomes better than the CARPREG I score in pregnant women with congenital heart disease?
Effect estimate: AUC 0.80 vs 0.72
Absolute Event Rate: 0.8% vs 0.72%
p-value: p=0.03
Established risk prediction tools like CARPREG I and ZAHARA may underestimate risk in low-risk pregnancies for women with congenital heart disease, while tailored clinical variables provide comparable predictive value.
OBJECTIVE: To assess performance of risk stratification schemes in predicting adverse cardiac outcomes in pregnant women with congenital heart disease (CHD) and to compare these schemes to clinical factors alone. DESIGN: Single-center retrospective study. SETTING: Tertiary care academic hospital. PATIENTS: Women ≥18 years with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes indicating CHD who delivered between 1998 and 2014. CARPREG I and ZAHARA risk scores and modified World Health Organization (WHO) criteria were applied to each woman. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was defined by ≥1 of the following: arrhythmia, heart failure/pulmonary edema, transient ischemic attack, stroke, dissection, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, death during gestation and up to 6 months postpartum. RESULTS: Of 178 women, the most common CHD lesions were congenital aortic stenosis (15.2%), ventricular septal defect (13.5%), atrial septal defect (12.9%), and tetralogy of Fallot (12.9%). Thirty-five women (19.7%) sustained 39 cardiac events. Observed vs expected event rates were 9.9% vs 5% (P = .02) for CARPREG I score 0 and 26.1% vs 7.5% (P < .001) for ZAHARA scores 0.51-1.5. ZAHARA outperformed CARPREG I at predicting adverse cardiovascular outcomes (AUC 0.80 vs 0.72, P = .03) but was not significantly better than modified WHO. Clinical predictors of adverse cardiac event were symptoms (P = .002), systemic ventricular dysfunction (P < .001), and subpulmonary ventricular dysfunction (P = .03) with an AUC 0.83 comparable to ZAHARA (P = .66). CONCLUSIONS: CARPREG I and ZAHARA scores underestimate cardiac risk for lower risk pregnancies in these women. Of the three risk schemes, CARPREG I performed least well in predictive capacity. Clinical factors specific to the population studied are comparable to stratification schemes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Pregnancy with congenital heart disease (n=178). ZAHARA risk score vs. CARPREG I risk score was evaluated on Adverse cardiovascular outcome (composite of arrhythmia, heart failure/pulmonary edema, transient ischemic attack, stroke, dissection, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or death) (AUC 0.80 vs 0.72, p=0.03).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: