Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37425470›Full record

ArticleJTCVS open2023

Pregnancy outcomes in women with a mitral valve prosthesis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Pepijn Grashuis, Shanti D M Khargi, Kevin Veen, Azzeddine El Osrouti, Shirin Bemelmans-Lalezari, Jérôme M J Cornette, Jolien W Roos-Hesselink, Johanna J M Takkenberg, Mostafa M Mokhles

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JTCVS open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Maternal, Valvular and Foetal Outcomes of Pregnancy Following Aortic Valve Replacement.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Pepijn GrashuisDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Shanti D M KhargiDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Kevin VeenDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Azzeddine El OsroutiDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Shirin Bemelmans-LalezariDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jérôme M J CornetteDepartment of Obstetrics and Fetal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jolien W Roos-HesselinkDepartment of Cardiology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Johanna J M TakkenbergDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Mostafa M MokhlesDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the ongoing debate concerning the choice of valve prosthesis for women requiring mitral valve replacement (MVR) and who wish to conceive. Bioprostheses are associated with risk of early structural valve deterioration. Mechanical prostheses require lifelong anticoagulation and carry maternal and fetal risks. Also, the optimal anticoagulation regimen during pregnancy after MVR remains unclear. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of studies reporting on pregnancy after MVR. Valve- and anticoagulation-related maternal and fetal risks during pregnancy and 30 days' postpartum were analyzed. Results: Fifteen studies reporting 722 pregnancies were included. In total, 87.2% of pregnant women had a mechanical prosthesis and 12.5% a bioprosthesis. Maternal mortality risk was 1.33% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-2.56), any hemorrhage risk 6.90% (95% CI, 3.70-12.88). Valve thrombosis risk was 4.71% (95% CI, 3.06-7.26) in patients with mechanical prostheses. 3.23% (95% CI, 1.34-7.75) of the patients with bioprostheses experienced early structural valve deterioration. Of these, the mortality was 40%. Pregnancy loss risk was 29.29% (95% CI, 19.74-43.47) with mechanical prostheses versus 13.50% (95% CI, 4.31-42.30) for bioprostheses. Switching to heparin during the first trimester demonstrated a bleeding risk of 7.78% (95% CI, 3.71-16.31) versus 4.08% (95% CI, 1.17-14.28) for women on oral anticoagulants throughout pregnancy and a valve thrombosis risk of 6.99% (95% CI, 2.08-23.51) versus 2.89% (95% CI, 1.40-5.94). Administration of anticoagulant dosages greater than 5 mg resulted in a risk of fetal adverse events of 74.24% (95% CI, 56.11-98.23) versus 8.85% (95% CI, 2.70-28.99) in ≤5 mg. Conclusions: A bioprosthesis seems the best option for women of childbearing age who are interested in future pregnancy after MVR. If mechanical valve replacement is preferred, the favorable anticoagulation regimen is continuous low-dose oral anticoagulants. Shared decision-making remains priority when choosing a prosthetic valve for young women.

Indexed as

bioprosthesismechanical valvemitral valve replacementoral anticoagulantpregnancy

Identifiers

PMID37425470
PMCPMC10328972
OpenAlexW4382195526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.