Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers in Pregnancy: A Case Report and Systematic Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the case of a woman exposed to angiotensin-II receptor blockers (ARBs) in the preconceptional period and to systematically review the literature on the safety of these drugs when used by pregnant women. METHODS: The case was identified at the Korean Motherisk Program (Seoul). For the systematic review, we searched the PubMed for case reports, case series, and post-marketing surveys. RESULTS: A hypertensive woman was exposed to irbesartan prior to conception. The embryo had delayed development of upper and lower extremities and decreased digital groove. A karyotype identified a 45,XO Turner syndrome. The patient had a spontaneous abortion. Including the case reported here, 64 published cases were identified in total; 57.8% had favorable and 42.2% had unfavorable outcomes. Duration of treatment during pregnancy among women who had adverse fetal outcomes was 26.3 +/- 10.5 weeks (mean +/- SD), compared with 17.3 +/- 11.6 weeks in those who had favorable outcomes (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to ARBs for a period longer than the first trimester of pregnancy appears to be associated with a high risk for adverse fetal outcomes.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".