Pregnancy with a prosthetic heart valve, thrombosis, and bleeding: the ESC EORP Registry of Pregnancy and Cardiac disease III
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pregnancy in women with a prosthetic heart valve is considered high risk, primarily due to the need for effective anticoagulation. However, data on the relationship between anticoagulation practices and pregnancy outcomes are very limited. METHODS: The Registry of Pregnancy and Cardiac disease is a global registry that prospectively enrolled pregnancies in women with a prosthetic heart valve between January 2018 and April 2023. Detailed data on anticoagulation, including dosage and monitoring, and cardiovascular, pregnancy, and perinatal outcomes were collected. RESULTS: In total, 613 pregnancies were included of which 411 pregnancies were in women with a mechanical valve and 202 were in women with a biological valve. The chance of an uncomplicated pregnancy with a live birth in women with a mechanical valve was 54%, compared with 79% in women with a biological valve (P < .001). Thromboembolic and haemorrhagic complications most frequently occurred when low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH)-based regimens were used. Valve thrombosis occurred in 24 (6%) women, and a prosthetic valve in mitral position was associated with valve thrombosis (odds ratio 3.3; 95% confidence interval 1.9-8.0). A thromboembolic event occurred in 12 (10%) women with anti-Xa monitoring and in 9 (21%) women without (P = .060). Foetal death occurred in 20% of all pregnancies. CONCLUSIONS: More favourable outcomes were found in women with a biological valve compared with a mechanical valve. In women with a mechanical valve, the use of LMWH was associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic complications. A mitral prosthetic valve was identified as a predictor for valve thrombosis. The benefit could not be confirmed nor refuted, in terms of reduced thromboembolic events, from using anti-Xa level monitoring in women on LMWH.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".