4.7 Article

Perinatal outcomes of twin births conceived using assisted reproduction technology: a population-based study

期刊

HUMAN REPRODUCTION
卷 23, 期 8, 页码 1941-1948

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/den169

关键词

assisted reproduction technology; infant; low birthweight; premature birth

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Approximately 18% of multiple births in the USA result from assisted reproduction technology (ART). Although many studies comparing ART and naturally conceived twins report no difference in risks for perinatal outcomes, others report slight to moderate positive or protective associations. METHODS: We selected twin deliveries with and without indication of ART from Massachusetts live birth-infant death records from 1997 to 2000 linked to the US ART surveillance system. The sample was restricted to deliveries by mothers with increased socioeconomic status, private health insurance and intermediate/plus prenatal care use. Our final sample included 1446 and 2729 ART and non-ART twin deliveries, respectively. Odds ratios (OR) for associations between ART and perinatal outcomes were adjusted for maternal demographic factors, smoking, prenatal care and hospital care level. RESULTS: ART twin deliveries were less likely than non-ART to be very preterm (adjusted OR 0.75; 95% confidence interval 0.58-0.97) or include a very low birthweight (< 1500 g) infant (0.75; 0.58-0.95) or infant death (0.55; 0.35-0.88). In stratified analyses, these findings were observed among primiparous deliveries, but there were no risk differences among multiparous ART and non-ART twin deliveries. CONCLUSIONS:ART treatment was not a risk factor for adverse perinatal outcome, and risks for several outcomes were somewhat lower among ART twin deliveries. Nonetheless, ART is strongly associated with twinning and twins remain a high-risk group, relative to singletons. Promoting singleton gestation in assisted conception is an important strategy for reducing adverse outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据