Sarah Rae Easter1, Caroline E Rouse2, Valeria Duarte3, Jenna S Hynes3, Michael N Singh3, Michael J Landzberg3, Anne Marie Valente3, Katherine E Economy2. 1. Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Electronic address: seaster@bwh.harvard.edu. 2. Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 3. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Cardiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although consensus guidelines on the management of cardiovascular disease in pregnancy reserve cesarean delivery for obstetric indications, there is a paucity of data to support this approach. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to compare cardiovascular and obstetric morbidity in women with cardiovascular disease according to the plan for vaginal birth or cesarean delivery. STUDY DESIGN: We assembled a prospective cohort of women delivering at an academic tertiary care center with a protocolized multidisciplinary approach to management of cardiovascular disease between September 2011 and December 2016. Our practice is to encourage vaginal birth in women with cardiovascular disease unless there is an obstetric indication for cesarean delivery. We allow women attempting vaginal birth a trial of Valsalva in the second stage with the ability to provide operative vaginal delivery if pushing leads to changes in hemodynamics or symptoms. Women were classified according to planned mode of delivery: either vaginal birth or cesarean delivery. We then used univariate analysis to compare adverse outcomes according to planned mode of delivery. The primary composite cardiac outcome of interest included sustained arrhythmia, heart failure, cardiac arrest, cerebral vascular accident, need for cardiac surgery or intervention, or death. Secondary obstetric and neonatal outcomes were also considered. RESULTS: We included 276 consenting women with congenital heart disease (68.5%), arrhythmias (11.2%), connective tissue disease (9.1%), cardiomyopathy (8.0%), valvular disease (1.4%), or vascular heart disease (1.8%) at or beyond 24 weeks' gestation. Seventy-six percent (n = 210) planned vaginal birth and 24% (n = 66) planned cesarean delivery. Women planning vaginal birth had lower rates of left ventricular outflow tract obstruction, multiparity, and preterm delivery. All women attempting vaginal birth were allowed Valsalva. Among planned vaginal deliveries 86.2% (n = 181) were successful, with a 9.5% operative vaginal delivery rate. Five women underwent operative vaginal delivery for the indication of cardiovascular disease without another obstetric indication at the discretion of the delivering provider. Four of these patients tolerated trials of Valsalva ranging from 15 to 75 minutes prior to delivery. Adverse cardiac outcomes were similar between planned vaginal birth and cesarean delivery groups (4.3% vs 3.0%, P = 1.00). Rates of postpartum hemorrhage (1.9% vs 10.6%, P < .01) and transfusion (1.9% vs 9.1%, P = .01) were lower in the planned vaginal birth group. There were no differences in adverse cardiac, obstetric, or neonatal outcomes in the cohort overall or the subset of women with high-risk cardiovascular disease or a high burden of obstetric comorbidity. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that cesarean delivery does not reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes and lend support to a planned vaginal birth for the majority of women with cardiovascular disease including those with high-risk disease.
BACKGROUND: Although consensus guidelines on the management of cardiovascular disease in pregnancy reserve cesarean delivery for obstetric indications, there is a paucity of data to support this approach. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to compare cardiovascular and obstetric morbidity in women with cardiovascular disease according to the plan for vaginal birth or cesarean delivery. STUDY DESIGN: We assembled a prospective cohort of women delivering at an academic tertiary care center with a protocolized multidisciplinary approach to management of cardiovascular disease between September 2011 and December 2016. Our practice is to encourage vaginal birth in women with cardiovascular disease unless there is an obstetric indication for cesarean delivery. We allow women attempting vaginal birth a trial of Valsalva in the second stage with the ability to provide operative vaginal delivery if pushing leads to changes in hemodynamics or symptoms. Women were classified according to planned mode of delivery: either vaginal birth or cesarean delivery. We then used univariate analysis to compare adverse outcomes according to planned mode of delivery. The primary composite cardiac outcome of interest included sustained arrhythmia, heart failure, cardiac arrest, cerebral vascular accident, need for cardiac surgery or intervention, or death. Secondary obstetric and neonatal outcomes were also considered. RESULTS: We included 276 consenting women with congenital heart disease (68.5%), arrhythmias (11.2%), connective tissue disease (9.1%), cardiomyopathy (8.0%), valvular disease (1.4%), or vascular heart disease (1.8%) at or beyond 24 weeks' gestation. Seventy-six percent (n = 210) planned vaginal birth and 24% (n = 66) planned cesarean delivery. Women planning vaginal birth had lower rates of left ventricular outflow tract obstruction, multiparity, and preterm delivery. All women attempting vaginal birth were allowed Valsalva. Among planned vaginal deliveries 86.2% (n = 181) were successful, with a 9.5% operative vaginal delivery rate. Five women underwent operative vaginal delivery for the indication of cardiovascular disease without another obstetric indication at the discretion of the delivering provider. Four of these patients tolerated trials of Valsalva ranging from 15 to 75 minutes prior to delivery. Adverse cardiac outcomes were similar between planned vaginal birth and cesarean delivery groups (4.3% vs 3.0%, P = 1.00). Rates of postpartum hemorrhage (1.9% vs 10.6%, P < .01) and transfusion (1.9% vs 9.1%, P = .01) were lower in the planned vaginal birth group. There were no differences in adverse cardiac, obstetric, or neonatal outcomes in the cohort overall or the subset of women with high-risk cardiovascular disease or a high burden of obstetric comorbidity. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that cesarean delivery does not reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes and lend support to a planned vaginal birth for the majority of women with cardiovascular disease including those with high-risk disease.
Authors: Titia P E Ruys; Jolien W Roos-Hesselink; Roger Hall; Maria T Subirana-Domènech; Jennifer Grando-Ting; Mette Estensen; Roberto Crepaz; Vlasta Fesslova; Michelle Gurvitz; Julie De Backer; Mark R Johnson; Petronella G Pieper Journal: Heart Date: 2013-11-29 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Melinda B Davis; Katherine Arendt; Natalie A Bello; Haywood Brown; Joan Briller; Kelly Epps; Lisa Hollier; Elizabeth Langen; Ki Park; Mary Norine Walsh; Dominique Williams; Malissa Wood; Candice K Silversides; Kathryn J Lindley Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 24.094