Pregnancy in women with pre-existent ischaemic heart disease: a systematic review with individualised patient data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Studies on pregnancy risk in women with ischaemic heart disease (IHD) have mainly excluded pregnancies in women with pre-existent IHD. There is a need for better information about the pregnancy risks in these women and their offspring. METHODS: We performed a systematic review searching the PubMed/MEDLINE public database for pregnancy in women with pre-existent IHD analysing the cardiac, obstetric and fetal/neonatal outcome of pregnancy in women with pre-existing IHD. Individual patient data were requested from large series. The primary outcome endpoints was a composite of ischaemic complications including maternal death, acute coronary syndrome and ventricular tachycardia. RESULTS: 116 women with pre-existent IHD had 124 pregnancies including one twin pregnancy. They had a 21% chance of having an uncomplicated pregnancy (completed pregnancy without cardiovascular, obstetric or fetal/neonatal complications, n=26). Primary (ischaemic) endpoints occurred in 9% (n=11). Women with atherosclerosis had more cardiovascular complications compared with pregnancies in women with other underlying pathology for IHD (50%vs23%, P=0.02) but no significant difference in occurrence of primary endpoints (13% vs 9%, P=0.53). There were two maternal cardiac deaths (2%), one of which occurred in the 18th week of pregnancy and the other postpartum. Obstetric complications occurred in 58% (n=65) of pregnancies and fetal/neonatal complications in 42% (n=47). CONCLUSION: Pregnancies in women with pre-existing IHD are high-risk pregnancies. These women have a high risk of ischaemic cardiovascular complications including 2% maternal mortality. The risk of ischaemic complications is especially high among women with atherosclerotic coronary artery disease.
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 | 0.010 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".