Abstract
The data about pregnancy while having a low ejection fraction are scarce, since pregnancy is not recommended for women with an ejection fraction of less than 30%. There is an increased risk of obstetrical complications and adverse maternal-fetal outcomes. Pregnancy is a rough journey for this group of patients. However, a successful pregnancy can be achieved when cardiac complications are managed during pregnancy. The early recognition of women at risk of cardiovascular events and early referral can optimize the maternal and neonatal outcomes with close collaboration between the maternal-fetal medicine specialist and the cardiologist. The study's aim was to assess the experience of our tertiary center with regard to the adverse maternal outcome for women with an ejection fraction ≤ 30% compared to those with an EF > 30% in our tertiary center. The fetal and obstetric outcome for pregnancies with an EF ≤ 30% was compared to that for pregnancies with an EF > 30%. Methodology: After receiving the approval of the local Ethical Board Review, a retrospective study was conducted at King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center (KFSHRC) in the city of Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Our study population included women with cardiomyopathy (acquired or congenital) who were followed up or delivered in KFSHRC from the period of January 2004 till March 2020. Cases were identified by reviewing the database from the Cardiac Center Echocardiograph and maternal fetal medicine unit. The data on the maternal and fetal outcome were gathered from the hospital medical records. An adverse maternal outcome included: death, hospitalization due to decompensated heart failure, and worsening cardiovascular status during pregnancy. Adverse fetal outcomes included: miscarriages, termination of pregnancy, FGR, and placental insufficiency. Obstetrics complications included: complications related to the mode of delivery, antepartum hemorrhage, postpartum hemorrhage, or preeclampsia. Results: Our study included 44 subjects, examining the differences between those with an ejection fraction greater than 30 (n = 21 subjects) and those with an ejection fraction less than or equal to 30 (n = 23) with respect to demographics, co-morbidities, and outcomes (maternal, pregnancy, fetal, ultrasound, and baby). There was no evidence of any differences in the demographics. From among the co-morbidities, there was a statistically higher rate of dilated cardiomyopathy and lower rate of rheumatic heart disease in those with a lower ejection fraction. Also, women with a lower ejection fraction tended to deliver through a means other than simple vaginal delivery. There was a significant association (p = 0.0296) indicating that individuals with a lower ejection fraction tended to have a lower gestational age at delivery. The information on whether the pregnancy resulted in a live birth was available for all but one of the mothers. Across all the mothers, 32 (74%) resulted in a live birth and 11 did not. The percentage of pregnancies resulting in a live birth in the group for which the ejection fraction was greater than 30 was 90% and that in the group for which the ejection fraction was less than or equal to 30 was 59% (p = 0.0339). From among the ultrasound and baby outcomes, only the rate of the babies being discharged alive differed statistically between the two ejection fraction groups, with those mothers having a lower ejection fraction experiencing fewer babies being discharged alive (p = 0.0310). Conclusions: In conclusion, women with a low ejection fraction are at an increased risk of maternal-fetal complications. In our study, the lower the EF (≤30) the worse were the fetal and neonatal outcomes; however, in terms of the maternal outcomes, it was the same whether the EF was low or ultra-low. Yet, these groups of patients need to be counseled about the facts of poor obstetrical outcomes with an emphasis on preconceptual counseling.