Beta-Blocker Use during Pregnancy Correlates with Less Aortic Root Dilatation in Patients with Marfan's Syndrome.
Journal
Aorta (Stamford, Conn.)
ISSN: 2325-4637
Titre abrégé: Aorta (Stamford)
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101655549
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2023
Apr 2023
Historique:
medline:
14
4
2023
pubmed:
14
4
2023
entrez:
13
4
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Pregnant patients with Marfan's syndrome (MFS) are at an increased risk for adverse aortic outcomes. While beta-blockers are used to slow aortic root dilatation in nonpregnant MFS patients, the benefit of such therapy in pregnant MFS patients remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of beta-blockers on aortic root dilatation during pregnancy in MFS patients. This was a longitudinal single-center retrospective cohort study of females with MFS who completed a pregnancy between 2004 and 2020. Clinical, fetal, and echocardiographic data were compared in patients on- versus off-beta-blockers during pregnancy. A total of 20 pregnancies completed by 19 patients were evaluated. Beta-blocker therapy was initiated or continued in 13 (65%) of the 20 pregnancies. Pregnancies on-beta-blocker therapy experienced less aortic growth compared with those off-beta-blockers (0.10 [interquartile range, IQR: 0.10-0.20] vs. 0.30 cm [IQR: 0.25-0.35]; This is the first study that we are aware of to evaluate changes in aortic dimensions in MFS pregnancies stratified by beta-blocker use. Beta-blocker therapy was found to be associated with less aortic root growth during pregnancy in MFS patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Pregnant patients with Marfan's syndrome (MFS) are at an increased risk for adverse aortic outcomes. While beta-blockers are used to slow aortic root dilatation in nonpregnant MFS patients, the benefit of such therapy in pregnant MFS patients remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of beta-blockers on aortic root dilatation during pregnancy in MFS patients.
METHODS
METHODS
This was a longitudinal single-center retrospective cohort study of females with MFS who completed a pregnancy between 2004 and 2020. Clinical, fetal, and echocardiographic data were compared in patients on- versus off-beta-blockers during pregnancy.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 20 pregnancies completed by 19 patients were evaluated. Beta-blocker therapy was initiated or continued in 13 (65%) of the 20 pregnancies. Pregnancies on-beta-blocker therapy experienced less aortic growth compared with those off-beta-blockers (0.10 [interquartile range, IQR: 0.10-0.20] vs. 0.30 cm [IQR: 0.25-0.35];
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first study that we are aware of to evaluate changes in aortic dimensions in MFS pregnancies stratified by beta-blocker use. Beta-blocker therapy was found to be associated with less aortic root growth during pregnancy in MFS patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37055016
doi: 10.1055/a-2072-0469
pmc: PMC10232026
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
63-70Informations de copyright
The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this article.
Références
Lancet. 1998 Nov 28;352(9142):1722-3
pubmed: 9848345
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Jul 17;60(3):224-9
pubmed: 22789886
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2014 Jan 03;16:1
pubmed: 24387349
Am J Cardiol. 2007 Feb 1;99(3):406-9
pubmed: 17261408
Eur Heart J. 2005 May;26(9):914-20
pubmed: 15681576
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001 Sep;98(1):28-35
pubmed: 11516796
Nature. 1991 Jul 25;352(6333):337-9
pubmed: 1852208
BJOG. 2014 Aug;121(9):1090-6
pubmed: 24628701
N Engl J Med. 2014 Nov 27;371(22):2061-71
pubmed: 25405392
Eur Heart J. 2018 Sep 7;39(34):3165-3241
pubmed: 30165544
Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2010 Jun 01;6:363-72
pubmed: 20539838
Circ Res. 1970 Jul;27(1):121-7
pubmed: 5424561
N Engl J Med. 1994 May 12;330(19):1335-41
pubmed: 8152445
J Med Genet. 2010 Jul;47(7):476-85
pubmed: 20591885
Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2022 Jul;75(7):552-558
pubmed: 34481752
Cardiol Young. 2016 Oct;26(7):1274-81
pubmed: 26521836
J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Aug 11;5(8):
pubmed: 27515814
Int J Cardiol. 2006 Jan 13;106(2):177-82
pubmed: 16321689
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013 Sep;122(3):219-23
pubmed: 23810486
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Aug 31;78(9):870-879
pubmed: 34446158
Semin Vasc Surg. 2022 Mar;35(1):9-15
pubmed: 35501047
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Jan;28(1):1-39.e14
pubmed: 25559473
Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2017 Nov;6(6):625-632
pubmed: 29270374
Circulation. 2016 Aug 16;134(7):527-33
pubmed: 27492904
Am J Cardiol. 2017 Jan 1;119(1):132-137
pubmed: 27788933