Preconception counselling in women of reproductive age attending cardiology clinics in Scotland.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) recommend preconception risk stratification and counselling in all women of childbearing age. We assessed the provision of preconception counselling (PCC) among women of reproductive age attending general cardiology outpatient clinics over a 12-month period in two large health boards in Scotland. METHODS AND RESULTS: Electronic health records were reviewed and data on patient demographics, cardiac diagnoses, medication use and the content of documented discussions regarding PCC were recorded. Women were classified according to the modified WHO (mWHO) risk stratification system. Among 1650 women with a cardiac diagnosis included (1 January 2016-31 December 2016), the mean age was 32.7±8.6 years, and 1574 (95.4%) attended a consultant-led clinic. A quarter (402, 24.4%) were prescribed at least one potentially fetotoxic cardiovascular medication. PCC was documented in 10.3% of women who were not pregnant or were unable to conceive at the time of review (159/1548). The distribution of mWHO classification, and proportion of patients within each mWHO category who received any form of PCC, was 15.0% and 6.0% in mWHO class I, 20.2% and 8.7% in mWHO class II, 22.6% and 10.6% in mWHO class II-III, 9.5% and 15.7% in mWHO class III and 3.9% and 19.7% in mWHO class IV. CONCLUSION: PCC is documented infrequently in women of reproductive age with CVD in the general outpatient setting. Education relating to the risks of cardiac disease in pregnancy for clinicians and patients, and tools to support healthcare providers in delivering PCC, is important.

Type 1 diabetes mellitus and coronary revascularization.

Over the last three decades, trials of coronary revascularization have taken into account whether populations did or did not have diabetes. What has not been considered is whether or not patients with diabetes in these studies have type 1 or type 2 diabetes. 'Diabetes' appears to be largely used as a synonym for type 2 diabetes. The number of patients with type 1 diabetes has not been reported in most trials. Many questions remain unanswered. Do patients with type 1 diabetes have the same response to various modes of revascularization as those with type 2 diabetes? We know type 2 diabetes affects coronary endothelial function and the coronary artery wall but to what extent does type 1 diabetes affect these? Any response to revascularization does not just depend on the coronary artery but also on the myocardium. How does type 1 diabetes affect the myocardium? To what extent do patients with type 1 diabetes have viable or ischaemic myocardium or scar? What does 'diabetic cardiomyopathy' refer to in the context of type 1 diabetes? This manuscript reviews the evidence for revascularization in type 1 diabetes. We conclude that there has been a near absence of investigation of the pros and cons of revascularization in this population. Investigations to establish both the nature and extent of coronary and myocardial disease in these populations are necessary. Clinical trials of the pros and cons of revascularization in type 1 diabetes are necessary; many will declare that these will be too challenging to perform.