4.5 Article

Neonatal condition at birth of twins conceived by medically assisted reproductive technology compared to those conceived spontaneously: A retrospective study

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.14787

关键词

Apgar score; cord artery pH; in vitro fertilization; medically assisted reproduction; twins

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined neonatal outcomes at birth among twins conceived spontaneously or by medically assisted reproduction (MAR). The results showed that the neonatal condition of twin pregnancies at birth among MAR subgroups is similar to spontaneously conceived twins.
Objective: To examine neonatal outcomes at birth among twins conceived spontaneously or by medically assisted reproduction (MAR). Methods: A retrospective study was conducted at a single university teaching hospital on data collected between January 1995 and September 2019. Live twin deliveries at more than 24 weeks of pregnancy were included. The study group consisted of women who conceived by MAR and the controls were spontaneously conceived twins. The study group was further divided into two groups: in vitro fertilization (IVF) and ovulation induction (OI) groups. The primary outcomes were umbilical artery pH less than 7.1 and/or Apgar score less than 7 of any twin 5 min after birth. Results: Overall, 2235 eligible twin gestations were included, corresponding to a total of 4470 live neonates; 1009 (45.1%) conceived by MAR (762 [75.5%] IVF and 247 [24.5%] OI) and 1226 (54.9%) conceived spontaneously. Incidence of the primary outcome was 5.3% and 5.1% in the study and control groups, respectively (P = 0.71). The primary outcome was comparable among the IVF (5%), OI (6.2%), and control (5.1%) groups. The results did not change even after adjusting for demographic and obstetric variables, including mode of delivery, which differed between the groups. Conclusion: Neonatal condition of twin pregnancies at birth among MAR subgroups is similar to spontaneously conceived twins.

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

4.5
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