Cardiac outcomes after pregnancy in women with congenital heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Women with congenital heart disease (CHD) are at risk for adverse cardiac events during pregnancy; however, the risk of events late after pregnancy (late cardiac events; LCE) has not been well studied. A study was undertaken to examine the frequency and determinants of LCE in a large cohort of women with CHD. DESIGN: Baseline characteristics and pregnancy were prospectively recorded. LCE (>6months after delivery) were determined by chart review. Survival analysis was used to determine the risk factors for LCE. SETTING: A tertiary care referral hospital. PATIENTS: The outcomes of 405 pregnancies were studied (318 women; median follow-up 2.6 years). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: LCE included cardiac death/arrest, pulmonary oedema, arrhythmia or stroke. RESULTS: LCE occurred after 12% (50/405) of pregnancies. The 5-year rate of LCE was higher in women with adverse cardiac events during pregnancy than in those without (27±9% vs 15±3%, HR 2.2, p=0.02). Women at highest risk for LCE were those with functional limitations/cyanosis (HR 3.9, 95% CI 1.2 to 13.0), subaortic ventricular dysfunction (HR 3.0, 95% CI 1.4 to 6.6), subpulmonary ventricular dysfunction and/or significant pulmonary regurgitation (HR 3.2, 95% CI 1.6 to 6.6), left heart obstruction (HR 2.6, 95% CI 1.2 to 5.2) and cardiac events before or during pregnancy (HR 2.6, 95% CI 1.3 to 4.9). In women with 0, 1 or >1 risk predictors the 5-year rate of LCE was 7±2%, 23±5% and 44±10%, respectively (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In women with CHD, pre-pregnancy maternal characteristics can help to identify women at increased risk for LCE. Adverse cardiac events during pregnancy are important and are associated with an increased risk of LCE.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".