Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40817750›Full record

ReviewFuture cardiology2025

Pregnancy with prosthetic heart valves: navigating risks, anticoagulation, and valve function in a growing population.

Ishani Joshi, Jonathan Buber

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Future cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Ishani JoshiDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Jonathan BuberDepartment of Cardiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pregnancy in patients with prosthetic heart valves presents complex challenges requiring multidisciplinary care and individualized decision-making. While bioprosthetic valves are often preferred in women of childbearing age to avoid anticoagulation-related fetal risks, these valves are susceptible to structural degeneration potentially accelerated by the physiologic demands of pregnancy. Conversely, mechanical valves offer durability but necessitate lifelong anticoagulation, posing substantial risks of valve thrombosis, fetal hemorrhage, and warfarin embryopathy. The Ross operation, which can be considered for individuals with advanced aortic valve disease, is an appealing option yet is offered only in highly specialized centers. In this review, we present contemporary data on maternal and fetal outcomes, valve function, and anticoagulation strategies in pregnant patients with mechanical and bioprosthetic heart valves. We highlight geographical and knowledge gaps regarding type of valve utilization, optimal anticoagulation in pregnancy, durability of modern valve designs, and long-term reoperation risk. Future research priorities include uniform global approach with improved access to contemporary surgical and medical solutions in low- and middle-income countries, safety of direct oral anticoagulants, improved surveillance of valve function during pregnancy, and comparative studies of bioprosthetic valve models. By consolidating evolving evidence, we aim to support informed decision-making and multidisciplinary management for this high-risk patient population.

Indexed as

AnticoagulantsHeart Valve DiseasesHeart Valve ProsthesisPregnancy Complications, CardiovascularBioprosthesisFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeProsthesis DesignRisk FactorsAnticoagulantscardiac imagingcomparative effectivenessmitral stenosispersonalized medicineThrombosisValvular heart disease

Identifiers

PMID40817750
PMCPMC12758166

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.