Bleeding and thrombotic risk in pregnant women with Fontan physiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Pregnancy may potentiate the inherent hypercoagulability of the Fontan circulation, thereby amplifying adverse events. This study sought to evaluate thrombosis and bleeding risk in pregnant women with a Fontan. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational cohort study across 13 international centres and recorded data on thrombotic and bleeding events, antithrombotic therapies and pre-pregnancy thrombotic risk factors. RESULTS: We analysed 84 women with Fontan physiology undergoing 108 pregnancies, average gestation 33±5 weeks. The most common antithrombotic therapy in pregnancy was aspirin (ASA, 47 pregnancies (43.5%)). Heparin (unfractionated (UFH) or low molecular weight (LMWH)) was prescribed in 32 pregnancies (30%) and vitamin K antagonist (VKA) in 10 pregnancies (9%). Three pregnancies were complicated by thrombotic events (2.8%). Thirty-eight pregnancies (35%) were complicated by bleeding, of which 5 (13%) were severe. Most bleeds were obstetric, occurring antepartum (45%) and postpartum (42%). The use of therapeutic heparin (OR 15.6, 95% CI 1.88 to 129, p=0.006), VKA (OR 11.7, 95% CI 1.06 to 130, p=0.032) or any combination of anticoagulation medication (OR 13.0, 95% CI 1.13 to 150, p=0.032) were significantly associated with bleeding events, while ASA (OR 5.41, 95% CI 0.73 to 40.4, p=0.067) and prophylactic heparin were not (OR 4.68, 95% CI 0.488 to 44.9, p=0.096). CONCLUSIONS: Current antithrombotic strategies appear effective at attenuating thrombotic risk in pregnant women with a Fontan. However, this comes with high (>30%) bleeding risk, of which 13% are life threatening. Achieving haemostatic balance is challenging in pregnant women with a Fontan, necessitating individualised risk-adjusted counselling and therapeutic approaches that are monitored during the course of pregnancy.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".