4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Prognosis for Live Birth in Women With Recurrent Miscarriage What Is the Best Measure of Success?

Journal

OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
Volume 119, Issue 1, Pages 37-43

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31823c0413

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: To establish a method of estimating the proportion of women with a subsequent live birth after a well-defined time period in an open cohort of women referred to a tertiary recurrent miscarriage clinic. METHODS: We performed a descriptive cohort study with register-based follow-up at a tertiary center for investigation and treatment of recurrent miscarriage in Denmark. All women with primary or secondary recurrent miscarriage referred to the clinic from 1986 to 2008 were included in the study (n=987). Main outcome measures were age-specific and miscarriage-specific proportions of women with a live birth after the first consultation and similar hazard ratios compared with the prognosis in women aged 30-34 years with three miscarriages before the first consultation. RESULTS: Five years after the first consultation, 66.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 63.7-69.7) had achieved a live birth, increasing to 71.1% (95% CI 68.0-74.2) 15 years after the first consultation. There was a significantly decreased chance of at least one subsequent live birth with increasing maternal age (log-rank P<.01) and increasing number of miscarriages (log-rank P<.01) at first consultation. CONCLUSION: Approximately two thirds of women with recurrent miscarriage referred to a tertiary center succeed in having at least one live birth within 5 years after their first consultation. Our study allows for a descriptive overview of the course of live birth outcome in women with recurrent miscarriage, but not for evaluation of the effect of treatment. (Obstet Gynecol 2012;119:37-43) DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31823c0413

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available