What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Cohort. Population: Prosthetic heart valves in pregnancy (n=48). Intervention: Metal prosthetic heart valve vs. Bioprosthetic heart valve. Primary outcome: Maternal and fetal complications.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To assess and compare maternal and fetal outcomes during pregnancy in women with mechanical versus bioprosthetic heart valves.

March 15, 2010Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation

Prosthetic Heart Valve and Pregnancy

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Key result

Pregnancy in women with metal prosthetic valves was associated with more maternal and fetal complications compared to bioprostheses, especially if age >30 or replacement >5 years ago.

Why the study?

Does a bioprosthetic heart valve compared to a metal prosthetic heart valve improve maternal and fetal outcomes in pregnant women?

Population

48 female carriers of prosthetic heart valves with 59 pregnancies

Comparison

Metal prosthetic heart valve vs Bioprosthetic heart valve

Design

Cohort

Authors

RMRoberto MatorrasBanco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (Spain)JRJ.A. RequeUniversidad Autónoma de Madrid JUJ.A. UsandizagaUniversidad Autónoma de Madrid

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

May inform preconception valve selection counseling; leaves open confirmation via randomized trials before practice change.

Key Points

To assess and compare maternal and fetal outcomes during pregnancy in women with mechanical versus bioprosthetic heart valves.
Evaluated 59 pregnancies across 48 women with heart valve prostheses (44 pregnancies with mechanical metal valves and 15 with bioprostheses).
Monitored maternal cardiovascular events, obstetric complications, and fetal development according to valve type and anticoagulation regimen (primarily coumarin for mechanical valves).
Mechanical valve pregnancies experienced significant maternal morbidity, including 1 maternal death, 3 valve thromboses, 2 episodes of heart failure, and 1 puerperal hemorrhage.
Mechanical valves were associated with significantly increased rates of preterm delivery, low birth weight, intrauterine growth retardation, and 2 cases of mild nasal hypoplasia.
Bioprosthetic valves had substantially fewer adverse outcomes, with only 1 case of paroxysmal tachycardia, no fetal complications, and lower risk compared to mechanical valves in patients over 30 years of age or with older replacements.

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=48)

Structured PICO

Does a bioprosthetic heart valve compared to a metal prosthetic heart valve improve maternal and fetal outcomes in pregnant women?

Population

48 pregnant women with prosthetic heart valves (accounting for 59 pregnancies) evaluated for maternal and fetal complications.

Exposure

Metal prosthetic heart valve (mostly with coumarin therapy)

Comparator

Bioprosthetic heart valve (usually without hematologic treatment)

Outcome

Maternal and fetal complicationshard clinical

Pregnancy is better tolerated in women with bioprosthetic heart valves compared to metal valves, which are associated with higher maternal and fetal complications, especially in older women or those with older valves.

Cite This Study

Matorras et al. (2010) conducted a cohort in Prosthetic heart valves in pregnancy (n=48). Metal prosthetic heart valve vs. Bioprosthetic heart valve was evaluated on Maternal and fetal complications. Pregnancy in women with metal prosthetic valves was associated with more maternal and fetal complications compared to bioprostheses, especially if age >30 or replacement >5 years ago.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a9de7e826da45658790cf35 https://doi.org/10.1159/000299004

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Prosthetic Heart Valve and Pregnancy

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Study Design

Structured PICO

Cite This Study

Prosthetic Heart Valve and Pregnancy

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Study Design

Structured PICO

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider