4.7 Article

Coarctation of the aorta: Outcome of pregnancy

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 38, 期 6, 页码 1728-1733

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0735-1097(01)01617-5

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES The study sought to determine the outcome of pregnancy in women with coarctation of the thoracic aorta. BACKGROUND Patients with coarctation of the thoracic aorta are expected to reach childbearing age, but data on the outcome of pregnancy in this population are limited. METHODS The Mayo Clinic database was reviewed for women of childbearing age (greater than or equal to 16 years old) with a diagnosis of aortic coarctation evaluated from 1980 to 2000. Spectrum of cardiovascular disease, surgical history, and obstetrical and neonatal outcomes were determined. RESULTS Fifty women with coarctation had pregnancies: 30 had coarctation repair before pregnancy, 10 had repair after pregnancy, 4 had repair both before and after pregnancy, and 6 had no history of repair. The 50 women had 118 pregnancies resulting in 106 births. There were 11 miscarriages (9%), 4 premature deliveries (3%), and I early neonatal death; 38 deliveries (36%) were by cesarean section. Of the 109 oiffspring, 4 (4%) had congenital heart disease. A patient with Turner syndrome died of a Stanford type A dissection at 36 weeks of pregnancy. Nineteen women (38%) were known to have hemodynamically significant coarctation during pregnancy (gradient greater than or equal to 20 mm Hg). Fifteen women (30%) had hypertension during their pregnancy, 11 of whom (73%) had hemodynamically significant coarctation during that time (8 with native and 3 with residual/recurrent coarctation). CONCLUSIONS Major cardiovascular complications were infrequent but continue to be a source of concern for patients with coarctation who become pregnant. Systemic hypertension during pregnancy was common and related to the presence of a significant coarctation gradient. (C) 2001 by the American College of Cardiology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据