ArticleDie Anaesthesiologie2026
[Monocentric cohort analysis of anaesthesiological management of pregnant women with congenital heart disease].
Article in Die Anaesthesiologie, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe number of pregnant women with adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) is increasing, posing growing challenges for obstetric anaesthesia. This study analysed anaesthetic strategies and postoperative care in ACHD patients treated at a tertiary care centre.
methodsThis retrospective single-centre study included ACHD patients who received anaesthesia for delivery, caesarean section or obstetric surgery between 2004 and 2023. A comparison group of obstetric patients without congenital heart disease was selected based on baseline characteristics.
resultsA total of 391 cases were included (131 ACHD, 260 comparison group). Most patients were classified as mWHO I (44.2%) or II (23.8%), with 20.5% mWHO II-III and 11.5% mWHO III and IV. Spinal and epidural anaesthesia were used more frequently in lower mWHO classes (p = 0.017). All mWHO IV patients required general anaesthesia provided by ACHD-experienced anaesthetists. ACHD patients more frequently required postoperative ICU or IMCU care (6.6% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.02; 13.9% vs. 3.7%, p < 0.001). Anaesthesiologic complication rates were low in both groups.
conclusionObstetric anaesthesia was feasible with low complication rates, even in severe ACHD, when management was individualised and interdisciplinary. All anaesthetic procedures proved to be feasible when adapted to the risk profile.
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.