Characterization of cardiac arrhythmias and maternal-fetal outcomes in pregnant women: A prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Cardiovascular disease is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in pregnant women. Arrhythmias are common complications during pregnancy; however, the data are limited. Our goal was to characterize the epidemiology, clinical presentation, and impact of cardiac arrhythmias on maternal-fetal outcomes. METHODS: A prospective cohort study from the Colombian Registry of Pregnancy and Cardiovascular Disease was carried out from 2016 to 2019. All patients with tachyarrhythmia or bradyarrhythmia and a minimum follow-up of six months after delivery were included. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiac events defined as pulmonary edema, symptomatic sustained arrhythmia requiring specific therapy, stroke, cardiac arrest, or maternal death. Secondary outcomes were other cardiac, neonatal, and obstetric events. RESULTS: Arrhythmias were the most common cause of referral to our dedicated cardio-obstetric clinic. A total of 92 patients were included, mean age 27±6 years; 8.7% had previous structural heart disease, and cardiology consultation was delayed in 79.4%. The most common arrhythmias were premature ventricular contractions (33%) and paroxysmal reentrant supraventricular tachycardias (15%); 11 patients (12%) had cardiac implantable electronic devices. Cardiac events occurred in 18.4% of patients, obstetric events occurred in 6.5%, and one caesarean was indicated in the context of symptomatic severe mitral stenosis. Adverse neonatal outcomes were observed in 24.3% of newborns. CONCLUSIONS: Arrhythmias were the most common cause of referral to a dedicated cardio-obstetric clinic; most had a benign course. Adverse maternal cardiovascular outcomes were significant and there was a high rate of obstetric and neonatal adverse events, underlining the importance of multidisciplinary care.

Desenlaces maternos y neonatales en gestantes con cardiopatía con evaluación única vs. evaluación semiestructurada por un equipo cardio-obstétrico / Maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregnant women with heart disease with single evaluation vs. semi-structured evaluation by a cardio-obstetric team

Resumen Introducción: Las enfermedades cardiovasculares en las gestantes son desafiantes, con alta morbimortalidad materna y perinatal, por lo que se recomienda un equipo cardio-obstétrico para su atención. Aun así, pocos datos evalúan el impacto de estos equipos. Por lo tanto, el presente estudio tiene como objetivo comparar los resultados obstétricos, maternos y neonatales del seguimiento semiestructurado (SSE) en una clínica cardio-obstétrica con respecto a un seguimiento usual o seguimiento no estructurado (SNE) en gestantes con enfermedad cardiaca. Métodos: Se realizó un registro prospectivo de gestantes con cardiopatías. Se compararon las pacientes con SSE por un equipo cardio-obstétrico, contra aquellas con evaluación única o SNE. Se calculó el riesgo de eventos según la clasificación de la Organización Mundial de la Salud modificado (OMSm) y la escala del Cardiac Disease in Pregnancy Study II (CARPREG-II) y se evaluaron los desenlaces cardiacos, obstétricos y neonatales. Resultados: Se evaluaron 168 pacientes, 37 con SSE y 131 con evaluación única (SNE). Los principales diagnósticos fueron cardiopatía congénita, arritmias y valvulopatías. La media del CARPREG-II en pacientes de SNE fue 2.48 (DE: 2.3) y en pacientes de SSE fue 3.37 (DE: 2.45; p = 0.041). La media de la OMSm en pacientes de SNE fue 2.1 (DE: 1.6) y con SSE fue 2.65 (DE: 0.95; p = 0.0052). No hubo diferencias significativas en los desenlaces cardiacos primarios (13.8% en SNE vs. 5.4% en SSE; p = 0.134), cardiacos secundarios (5.3 en SNE vs. 2.7 en SSE; p = 0.410), obstétricos (10% en SNE vs. 16.2% en SSE; p = 0.253) y neonatales (35.9% en SNE y 40.5% en SSE; p = 0.486) a pesar de que las pacientes con SSE tenían un riesgo mayor que las pacientes con SNE según las escalas de la OMSm y el CARPREG-II. Conclusiones: En gestantes con cardiopatía, un SSE comparado con un SNE por un equipo cardio-obstétrico no mostró diferencias estadísticamente significativas en los desenlaces cardiovasculares, obstétricos y neonatales, a pesar de que las pacientes con SSE tenían un riesgo significativamente más alto de desenlaces adversos por las escalas de la OMSm y el CARPREG-II. Esto sugiere que el SSE logra al menos equiparar los desenlaces a pesar del mayor riesgo de eventos adversos que tenían las pacientes de este grupo.

Abstract Introduction: Cardiovascular diseases in pregnant women are challenging, with high maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, so a cardio-obstetric team is recommended for their care. Even so, little data evaluates the impact of these teams. Therefore, the present study aims to compare the obstetric, maternal, and neonatal outcomes of semi-structured follow-up (SSF) in a Cardio-obstetric clinic concerning regular or unstructured follow-up (USF) in pregnant women with heart disease. Methods: A prospective registry of pregnant women with heart disease was carried out. Patients with SSF by a cardio-obstetric team were compared with those with single evaluation or USF. The risk of events was calculated according to the modified World Health Organization (mWHO) classification and the CARPREG-II scale, and cardiac, obstetric, and neonatal outcomes were evaluated. Results: One hundred sixty-eight patients were evaluated, 37 with SSF and 131 with single evaluation (USF). The primary diagnoses were congenital heart disease, arrhythmias, and valve disease. The average CARPREG-II in USF patients was 2.48 (SD 2.3); in SSF patients, it was 3.37 (SD 2.45; p = 0.041). The average of the mWHO in patients with USF was 2.1 (SD 1.6), and with SSF, it was 2.65 (SD 0.95; p = 0.0052). There were no significant differences in primary cardiac outcomes (13.8% in USF vs. 5.4% in SSF; p = 0.134), secondary cardiac (5.3% in USF vs. 2.7% in SSF; p = 0.410), obstetric (10% in USF vs. 16.2% in SSF; p = 0.253) and neonatal (35.9% in USF and 40.5% in SSF; p = 0.486) even though patients with SSF had a higher risk than patients with USF according to the mWHO and CARPREG-II scales. Conclusions: In pregnant women with heart disease, an SSF compared with a USF by a cardio-obstetric team did not show statistically significant differences in cardiovascular, obstetric, and neonatal outcomes. However, patients with SSF had a significantly higher risk of adverse outcomes due to the mWHO and CARPREG-II scales. This result suggests that the SSF achieves at least equal outcomes despite the higher risk of adverse events that patients in this group had.

Maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregnant women with heart disease with single evaluation vs. semi-structured evaluation by a cardio-obstetric team.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular diseases in pregnant women are challenging, with high maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, so a cardio-obstetric team is recommended for their care. Even so, little data evaluates the impact of these teams. Therefore, the present study aims to compare the obstetric, maternal, and neonatal outcomes of semi-structured follow-up (SSF) in a Cardio-obstetric clinic concerning regular or unstructured follow-up (USF) in pregnant women with heart disease. METHODS: A prospective registry of pregnant women with heart disease was carried out. Patients with SSF by a cardio-obstetric team were compared with those with single evaluation or USF. The risk of events was calculated according to the modified World Health Organization (mWHO) classification and the CARPREG-II scale, and cardiac, obstetric, and neonatal outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-eight patients were evaluated, 37 with SSF and 131 with single evaluation (USF). The primary diagnoses were congenital heart disease, arrhythmias, and valve disease. The average CARPREG-II in USF patients was 2.48 (SD 2.3); in SSF patients, it was 3.37 (SD 2.45; p = 0.041). The average of the mWHO in patients with USF was 2.1 (SD 1.6), and with SSF, it was 2.65 (SD 0.95; p = 0.0052). There were no significant differences in primary cardiac outcomes (13.8% in USF vs. 5.4% in SSF; p = 0.134), secondary cardiac (5.3% in USF vs. 2.7% in SSF; p = 0.410), obstetric (10% in USF vs. 16.2% in SSF; p = 0.253) and neonatal (35.9% in USF and 40.5% in SSF; p = 0.486) even though patients with SSF had a higher risk than patients with USF according to the mWHO and CARPREG-II scales. CONCLUSIONS: In pregnant women with heart disease, an SSF compared with a USF by a cardio-obstetric team did not show statistically significant differences in cardiovascular, obstetric, and neonatal outcomes. However, patients with SSF had a significantly higher risk of adverse outcomes due to the mWHO and CARPREG-II scales. This result suggests that the SSF achieves at least equal outcomes despite the higher risk of adverse events that patients in this group had.

INTRODUCCIÓN: Las enfermedades cardiovasculares en las gestantes son desafiantes, con alta morbimortalidad materna y perinatal, por lo que se recomienda un equipo cardio-obstétrico para su atención. Aun así, pocos datos evalúan el impacto de estos equipos. Por lo tanto, el presente estudio tiene como objetivo comparar los resultados obstétricos, maternos y neonatales del seguimiento semiestructurado (SSE) en una clínica cardio-obstétrica con respecto a un seguimiento usual o seguimiento no estructurado (SNE) en gestantes con enfermedad cardiaca. MÉTODOS: Se realizó un registro prospectivo de gestantes con cardiopatías. Se compararon las pacientes con SSE por un equipo cardio-obstétrico, contra aquellas con evaluación única o SNE. Se calculó el riesgo de eventos según la clasificación de la Organización Mundial de la Salud modificado (OMSm) y la escala del Cardiac Disease in Pregnancy Study II (CARPREG-II) y se evaluaron los desenlaces cardiacos, obstétricos y neonatales. RESULTADOS: Se evaluaron 168 pacientes, 37 con SSE y 131 con evaluación única (SNE). Los principales diagnósticos fueron cardiopatía congénita, arritmias y valvulopatías. La media del CARPREG-II en pacientes de SNE fue 2.48 (DE: 2.3) y en pacientes de SSE fue 3.37 (DE: 2.45; p = 0.041). La media de la OMSm en pacientes de SNE fue 2.1 (DE: 1.6) y con SSE fue 2.65 (DE: 0.95; p = 0.0052). No hubo diferencias significativas en los desenlaces cardiacos primarios (13.8% en SNE vs. 5.4% en SSE; p = 0.134), cardiacos secundarios (5.3 en SNE vs. 2.7 en SSE; p = 0.410), obstétricos (10% en SNE vs. 16.2% en SSE; p = 0.253) y neonatales (35.9% en SNE y 40.5% en SSE; p = 0.486) a pesar de que las pacientes con SSE tenían un riesgo mayor que las pacientes con SNE según las escalas de la OMSm y el CARPREG-II. CONCLUSIONES: En gestantes con cardiopatía, un SSE comparado con un SNE por un equipo cardio-obstétrico no mostró diferencias estadísticamente significativas en los desenlaces cardiovasculares, obstétricos y neonatales, a pesar de que las pacientes con SSE tenían un riesgo significativamente más alto de desenlaces adversos por las escalas de la OMSm y el CARPREG-II. Esto sugiere que el SSE logra al menos equiparar los desenlaces a pesar del mayor riesgo de eventos adversos que tenían las pacientes de este grupo.

Cirugía no obstétrica durante el embarazo: [revisión] / Nonobstetric surgery during pregnancy: [review]

Introducción. La incidencia de cirugía no obstétrica durante el embarazo es del 1,5 % al 2 %. Actualmente, el anestesiólogo se encuentra ante nuevas técnicas diagnósticas y terapéuticas quegeneran muchos interrogantes tanto en las pacientes, como en el grupo tratante. Objetivo. Abordar los aspectos más importantes para el anestesiólogo al tratar a una paciente embarazada que presenta comorbilidad, y cuyo manejo es quirúrgico. Metodología. Revisión no sistemática de la literatura indexada y referenciada en PUBMED, desdeel año 2001 y hasta la fecha. Conclusiones. La evaluación y el abordaje de la paciente embarazada que será sometida a unacirugía no obstétrica serán hechos por un grupo interdisciplinario, para garantizar el bienestar de la madre y del feto.

Introduction: The incidence of non-obstetric surgery during pregnancy is from 1.5 % to 2.0 %. Currently the anesthesiologist faces new diagnostictechniques and therapeutics procedureswhich generate many issues both to patients as well as the medical personnel responsible. Objective. To discuss the most important aspectsfor the anesthesiologist when caring for a pregnant patient with comorbidities that requires surgical management.Methodology. Nonsystematic review of of the indexed literature available at PUBMED from year 2001 through 2011.Conclusions. The assessment and approach to a pregnant patient that will be subject to a nonobstetric surgery should be made by an multidisciplinarygroup to guarantee the well-being of themother and fetus.