ArticleJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2014
Mode of delivery in pregnancies complicated by major fetal congenital heart disease: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of major congenital anomalies on obstetric outcomes in the United Arab Emirates: the Mutaba'ah Study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Fetal major anomalies and related maternal, obstetrical, and neonatal outcomes.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
- Maternal and neonatal factors associated with cesarean delivery in a cohort of pregnancies complicated by prenatally diagnosed congenital heart disease.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2024Article
- Fetal congenital heart disease - mode of delivery and obstetrical complications.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
- Delivery Outcome of Fetuses with Congenital Heart Disease-Is It Influenced by Prenatal Diagnosis?Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Neonatal and maternal outcomes of pregnancies with a fetal diagnosis of congenital heart disease using a standardized delivery room management protocol.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2020Article
- The Impact of Fetal Anomalies on Contemporary Labor Patterns.American journal of perinatology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the mode of delivery in pregnancies complicated by complex fetal congenital heart disease (CHD). STUDY
designFive-year retrospective cohort study at a tertiary fetal medicine center (2007 to 2011). Cases of complex fetal CHD (n=126) were compared with 45 069 non-anomalous singleton infants ⩾500 g to determine rates of emergency intrapartum cesarean section (CS), preterm delivery and induction of labor.
resultIntrapartum CS is significantly higher in fetal CHD than non-anomalous controls (21% vs 13.5%, odds ratio (OR) 1.7, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.0 to 2.7; P=0.035), predominantly related to CS for non-reassuring fetal status (OR 2.2, 95% CI: 1.1 to 4.1; P=0.022). Although fetal CHD did not increase emergency CS rates in nulliparous women, CS was significantly increased in multiparous pregnancies (OR 2.4, 95% CI: 1.8 to 4.6; P=0.014). Rates of preterm delivery (OR 3.4, 95% CI: 2.0 to 5.4; P<0.0001) and induction of labor (OR 1.9, 95% CI: 1.3 to 2.9; P=0.001) were higher in the CHD cases.
conclusionEmergency CS is increased in fetal CHD, attributed to a higher rate of CS for non-reassuring fetal status and seen mostly in multiparous women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.