We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Predictive accuracy of three clinical risk assessment systems for cardiac complications among Chinese pregnant women with congenital heart disease.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the predictive accuracy of three risk assessment systems for cardiac complications among pregnant women with congenital heart disease (CHD).
METHODS: In a retrospective study, data were assessed from women with CHD at more than 20weeks of pregnancy who attended Shanghai Obstetrical Cardiology Intensive Care Center, China, between January 1, 1993 and December 31, 2014. CARPREG and ZAHARA risk scores, and modified WHO (mWHO) risk classification were applied retrospectively. Predictive accuracy was compared by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 730 women were included. The frequency of expected versus observed cardiac events was, respectively, 5.0% versus 7.8%, 27.0% versus 47.1%, and 75.0% versus 75.0% among patients with CARPREG scores of 0, 1, and >1; and 2.9% versus 5.8%, 7.5% versus 36.5%, 17.5% versus 30.8%, 43.1% versus 50.0%, and 70.0% versus 17.6% among those with ZAHARA scores of 0-0.50, 0.51-1.50, 1.51-2.50, 2.51-3.50, and 3.51 or more. For mWHO risk classifications I-IV, the cardiac event rate was 0%, 8.2%, 26.7%, 18.4%, and 15.4%, respectively. The area under the curve was 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.76; P<0.001) for mWHO, 0.68 (95% CI 0.60-0.75; P<0.001) for ZAHARA, and 0.63 (95% CI 0.57-0.71; P=0.001) for CARPREG.
CONCLUSION: The mWHO risk classification was the best system for predicting cardiac complications among Chinese pregnant women with CHD.
METHODS: In a retrospective study, data were assessed from women with CHD at more than 20weeks of pregnancy who attended Shanghai Obstetrical Cardiology Intensive Care Center, China, between January 1, 1993 and December 31, 2014. CARPREG and ZAHARA risk scores, and modified WHO (mWHO) risk classification were applied retrospectively. Predictive accuracy was compared by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 730 women were included. The frequency of expected versus observed cardiac events was, respectively, 5.0% versus 7.8%, 27.0% versus 47.1%, and 75.0% versus 75.0% among patients with CARPREG scores of 0, 1, and >1; and 2.9% versus 5.8%, 7.5% versus 36.5%, 17.5% versus 30.8%, 43.1% versus 50.0%, and 70.0% versus 17.6% among those with ZAHARA scores of 0-0.50, 0.51-1.50, 1.51-2.50, 2.51-3.50, and 3.51 or more. For mWHO risk classifications I-IV, the cardiac event rate was 0%, 8.2%, 26.7%, 18.4%, and 15.4%, respectively. The area under the curve was 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.76; P<0.001) for mWHO, 0.68 (95% CI 0.60-0.75; P<0.001) for ZAHARA, and 0.63 (95% CI 0.57-0.71; P=0.001) for CARPREG.
CONCLUSION: The mWHO risk classification was the best system for predicting cardiac complications among Chinese pregnant women with CHD.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app