ArticleEuropean heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging2019
Number of pregnancies and subsequent phenotype in a cross-sectional cohort of women with arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy.
Article in European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging, 2019. 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, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sailing Across Contraception, Pregnancy, and Breastfeeding: The Complex Journey of Women with Cardiomyopathies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Disease features and management of cardiomyopathies in women.Heart failure reviews · 2024Review
- Pregnancy in Women with Arrhythmogenic Left Ventricular Cardiomyopathy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Pregnancy and Progression of Cardiomyopathy in Women With LMNA Genotype-Positive.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Article
- Pregnancy in arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy.Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2021Review
- Arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy: pathogenesis, pro-arrhythmic remodelling, and novel approaches for risk stratification and therapy.Cardiovascular research · 2020Review
- Cardiomyopathy and pregnancy.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: We aimed to assess the relation between number of pregnancies and cardiac structure, function, and arrhythmic events in women with arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (AC). Methods and results: We included female AC patients in a cross-sectional study. Number of pregnancies and pregnancy related symptoms were recorded. Ventricular arrhythmias were defined as aborted cardiac arrest, sustained ventricular tachycardia, or appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy. Right and left ventricular dimensions and function, including strain analyses, were assessed by echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging. We created a new AC severity score to grade the severity of AC disease. We included 77 women (age 47 ± 16, 43 probands and 34 AC mutation positive female relatives), 19 ± 14 years after last pregnancy. Median number of pregnancies was 2 (0-4); 19 had no previous pregnancies, 16 had 1 pregnancy, 30 had 2, and 12 had ≥3 pregnancies. Presence of a definite AC diagnosis (P = 0.36), severity of AC disease (P = 0.53), and arrhythmic events (P = 0.25) did not differ between groups of pregnancies. Number of pregnancies was related to increased right ventricular outflow tract diameter in single variable analyses [odds ratio (OR) 1.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-2.87; P = 0.02], but not when adjusted for body surface area and age (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.91-2.66; P = 0.11). The number of pregnancies was not associated with any other measures of cardiac structure and function. Conclusion: Higher number of pregnancies did not seem to relate to a worse phenotype in women with AC.
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.