4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Peripartum cardiomyopathy: prognostic factors for long-term maternal outcome

Journal

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.06.087

Keywords

cardiac transplant; echocardiography; peripartum cardiomyopathy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess the prognostic value of ejection fraction (EF) at index and subsequent pregnancy on long-term outcome in patients with peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM). STUDY DESIGN: Seventy PPCM patients met inclusion criteria. Patients had echocardiography evaluations at the index pregnancy, at interval follow-up (F/U) or at the beginning of a subsequent pregnancy and the last F/U study available. Outcome data were echocardiographic parameters and the subsequent need for cardiac transplant. RESULTS: Patients were categorized on the basis of their initial EF into EF of 25% or less and EF greater than 25% and stratified on the basis of their pregnancy into the following groups: group 1 (n = 33), no subsequent pregnancy; group 2 (n = 16), subsequent pregnancy with early termination; and group 3 (n = 21), successful subsequent pregnancy. F/U from index pregnancy to final F/U was 3.4 +/- 1.9 (range, 1-6 years). Groups 1 and 2 had persistent left ventricular dysfunction at all echocardiographic evaluations. In group 3, despite a mean EF greater than 40% at a subsequent pregnancy, 29% had worsening cardiac symptoms. Among 28 patients with EF of 25% or less, 16 (57%) had end-stage cardiac disease. One had a transplant and 15 were on a transplant list. All 16 had a baseline EF 25% or less at index pregnancy: 4 had improved (EF greater than 40%) at interval F/U and 3 at last F/U available. CONCLUSION: Women with a history of PPCM had a higher rate of progression of symptoms of heart failure in a subsequent pregnancy. A baseline left ventricular EF 25% or less at index pregnancy is associated with a higher rate of cardiac transplant.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available