Why the study?
Although pregnancies in women with PAH carry heightened risks, uncomplicated pregnancies are increasingly reported with therapeutic advancements, leading guidelines to recommend an individualized approach rather than generally discouraging pregnancy.
Recent guidelines recommend an individualized approach with shared decision-making for women with pulmonary arterial hypertension contemplating pregnancy, reflecting therapeutic advancements.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support individualized pregnancy counseling in well-controlled PAH; leaves open need for prospective outcome data.
For many years, women diagnosed with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) received advice against pregnancy due to a significant mortality risk [1, 2]. With therapeutic advancements, pregnancies in women with PAH continue to be associated with heightened risks, although uncomplicated pregnancies are increasingly being reported, particularly in women with well-controlled disease [3–6]. The 2022 European pulmonary hypertension guidelines mirror these advancements, no longer generally discouraging pregnancy but recommending an individualized approach with shared decision-making for women with PAH contemplating or experiencing pregnancy [7, 8]. Footnotes This manuscript has recently been accepted for publication in the ERJ Open Research . It is published here in its accepted form prior to copyediting and typesetting by our production team. After these production processes are complete and the authors have approved the resulting proofs, the article will move to the latest issue of the ERJOR online. Please open or download the PDF to view this article. Conflict of interest: Karen M Olsson has received fees for lectures or consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, Ferrer, Janssen, and MSD, all unrelated to the present work. Conflict of interest: Jan Fuge has received fees for consultations from AstraZeneca unrelated to the submitted work. Conflict of interest: Da-Hee Park is supported by PRACTIS – Clinician Scientist Program at Hannover Medical School, funded by the German Research Foundation (DGF, ME 3696/3–1). Conflict of interest: Jan C. Kamp is supported by PRACTIS – Clinician Scientist Program at Hannover Medical School, funded by the German Research Foundation (DGF, ME 3696/3-1). Conflict of interest: Dominik Berliner D.B. received honoraria for lectures/consulting from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Pfizer. He was competitively selected for “CORE100Pilot”, which is an advanced clinician-scientist program co-funded by the Else Kröner Fresenius Foundation and the Ministry for Science and Culture of the State of Lower Saxony. Conflict of interest: Constantin von Kaisenberg has no disclosures. Conflict of interest: Marius M Hoeper has received fees for lectures or consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, AOP Health, Bayer, Ferrer, GossamerBio, Janssen, Keros, and MSD, all unrelated to the present work.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Olsson et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: