ArticleObstetrics & gynecology science2024
Fetomaternal outcomes in pregnant women with congenital heart disease: a comparative analysis from an apex institute.
Article in Obstetrics & gynecology science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Divergent Paths: A Survey of Cardiologist and Obstetrician Decision-Making in High-Risk Pregnancies with Cardiovascular Disease.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Neonates at Risk: Understanding the Impact of High-Risk Pregnancies on Neonatal Health.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Nutritional and health factors influencing first antenatal visit among pregnant women in Indonesia.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWith advancements in cardiac surgical interventions during infancy and childhood, the incidence of maternal congenital heart disease (CHD) is increasing. This retrospective study compared fetal and cardiac outcomes in women with and without CHD, along with a sub-analysis between cyanotic versus non-cyanotic defects and operated versus non-operated cases.
methodsA 10-year data were retrospectively collected from pregnant women with CHD and a 1:1 ratio of pregnant women without any heart disease. Adverse fetal and cardiac outcomes were noted in both groups. Statistical significance was set at P<0.05.
resultsA total of 86 pregnant women with CHD were studied, with atrial septal defects (29.06%) being the most common. Out of 86 participants, 27 (31.39%) had cyanotic CHD. Around 55% of cases were already operated on for their cardiac defects. Among cardiovascular complications, 5.8% suffered from heart failure, 7.0% had pulmonary arterial hypertension, 8.1% presented in New York Heart Association functional class IV, 9.3% had a need for intensive care unit admission, and one experienced maternal mortality. Adverse fetal outcomes, including operative vaginal delivery, mean duration of hospital stay, fetal growth restriction, preterm birth (<37 weeks), low birth weight (<2,500 g), 5-minute APGAR score <7, and neonatal intensive care unit admissions, were significantly higher in women with CHD than in women without heart disease.
conclusionWomen with CHD have a higher risk of adverse fetal and cardiac outcomes. The outcome can be improved with proper pre-conceptional optimization of the cardiac condition, good antenatal care, and multidisciplinary team management.
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.