Anticoagulation for pregnant women with mechanical heart valves: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims To review maternal and foetal outcomes in women with mechanical heart valves (MHVs) treated with vitamin-K antagonists (VKAs), first-trimester heparin followed by VKAs (sequential treatment), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) during pregnancy, in order to inform practice. Methods and results Medline, Embase and Central were searched from inception until February 2016. Two reviewers independently screened 1786 titles, reviewed 110 full-texts and extracted data and assessed risk-of-bias from 46 articles. Pooled incidence (95% confidence intervals) was calculated for maternal and foetal outcomes. Included studies had a moderate or high risk-of-bias. With VKAs, sequential treatment and LMWH, maternal mortality occurred in 0.9% (0.4–1.4), 2.0% (0.8–3.1) and 2.9% (0.2–5.7), thromboembolic complications in 2.7% (1.4–4.0), 5.8% (3.8–7.7) and 8.7% (3.9–13.4), livebirths in 64.5% (48.8–80.2), 79.9% (74.3–85.6) and 92.0% (86.1–98.0) and anticoagulant-related foetal/neonatal adverse events (embryopathy or foetopathy) in 2.0% (0.3–3.7), 1.4% (0.3–2.5) and 0%, respectively. When UFH is used throughout pregnancy, 11.2% (2.8–19.6) suffered thromboembolic complications. Foetal loss and adverse events occurred with first-trimester warfarin doses ⩽ 5 mg/day, although there were more livebirths [83.6% (75.8–91.4) vs. 43.9% (32.8–55.0)] and fewer foetal anomalies [2.3% (0.7–4.0) vs. 12.4% (3.3–21.6)] with lower doses than with warfarin > 5 mg/day. Conclusions VKAs are associated with fewest maternal complications but also with fewest livebirths. Sequential treatment does not eliminate anticoagulant-related foetal/neonatal adverse events. LMWH is associated with the highest number of livebirths. The safety of UFH throughout pregnancy and first-trimester warfarin  ⩽ 5 mg/day remains unconfirmed.

[1]  Mike Kirby,et al.  Guidelines on the management of cardiovascular diseases during pregnancy The Task Force on the Management of Cardiovascular Diseases during Pregnancy of the European Society of Cardiology ( ESC ) , 2011 .

[2]  Thoralf M Sundt,et al.  2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. , 2014, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[3]  Jennifer G. Robinson,et al.  ACCF/AHA TASK FORCE MEMBERS , 2013 .

[4]  B. Jacobson,et al.  A Prospective Trial Showing the Safety of Adjusted-Dose Enoxaparin for Thromboprophylaxis of Pregnant Women With Mechanical Prosthetic Heart Valves , 2011, Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis.

[5]  S. Siu,et al.  Use of low molecular weight heparin in pregnant women with mechanical heart valves. , 2009, The American journal of cardiology.

[6]  C. McLintock Thromboembolism in pregnancy: challenges and controversies in the prevention of pregnancy-associated venous thromboembolism and management of anticoagulation in women with mechanical prosthetic heart valves. , 2014, Best practice & research. Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology.

[7]  I. Greer,et al.  Anticoagulation with Tinzaparin for women with mechanical valves in pregnancy: a retrospective case series. , 2013, Thrombosis research.

[8]  D. Peebles,et al.  Use of high intensity adjusted dose low molecular weight heparin in women with mechanical heart valves during pregnancy: a single-center experience , 2009, Haematologica.

[9]  Byron C. Wallace,et al.  Closing the Gap between Methodologists and End-Users: R as a Computational Back-End , 2012 .

[10]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. , 2010, International journal of surgery.

[11]  Mike Kirby,et al.  ESC Guidelines on the Management of Cardiovascular Diseases During Pregnancy , 2012 .

[12]  P. Pibarot,et al.  Prosthetic Heart Valves Selection of the Optimal Prosthesis and Long-Term Management , 2009 .

[13]  D. Altman,et al.  Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[14]  I. Olkin,et al.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology - A proposal for reporting , 2000 .

[15]  A. Tveit,et al.  Management of pregnant women with mechanical heart valve prosthesis: thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin. , 2009, Thrombosis research.

[16]  R. Hall,et al.  Pregnancy in Women With a Mechanical Heart Valve: Data of the European Society of Cardiology Registry of Pregnancy and Cardiac Disease (ROPAC). , 2015, Circulation.

[17]  K. Joseph BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth BioMed Central Correspondence The fetuses-at-risk approach: Clarification of semantic and conceptual misapprehension , 2008 .

[18]  R. North,et al.  Maternal complications and pregnancy outcome in women with mechanical prosthetic heart valves treated with enoxaparin , 2009, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[19]  Ahmed Toema,et al.  Limited dose warfarin throughout pregnancy in high-risk patients with mechanical valves: A randomized clinical trial , 2015 .

[20]  J. Ford,et al.  Prosthetic heart valves in pregnancy, outcomes for women and their babies: a systematic review and meta‐analysis , 2015, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[21]  Thoralf M Sundt,et al.  2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. , 2014, Circulation.

[22]  W. Chan,et al.  Anticoagulation of pregnant women with mechanical heart valves: a systematic review of the literature. , 2000, Archives of internal medicine.