4.5 Article

Obstetrical and perinatal complications of twin pregnancies: is there a link with the type of infertility treatment?

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13135

关键词

Assisted reproductive technology; infertility treatment; intracytoplasmic sperm injection; intrauterine insemination; in vitro fertilization; ovulation induction; twin pregnancy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction. The aim of this study was to compare the maternal and perinatal data from spontaneous twin pregnancies with twin pregnancies conceived via assisted reproductive technology, and to evaluate the outcomes depending on the type of treatment. Material and methods. A historical cohort of all twin live births between 1997 and 2014 was used to create two groups: spontaneous pregnancies and pregnancies after infertility treatment (ovulation induction, intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilization, and intracytoplasmic sperm injection). The population characteristics and pregnancy, childbirth, and neonatal complications were compared, and the data were adjusted for age, parity, chorionicity, and the mother's body mass index to assess only the impact of the infertility treatments. Results. In total, 1580 twin pregnancies were included, with 575 requiring assisted conception. We did not observe any differences between the assisted conception pregnancies and the spontaneous twin pregnancies with regard to the obstetric and childbirth complications and neonatal outcomes. In addition, there were no statistically significant differences between the types of infertility treatment. Conclusion. After adjusting for the maternal parameters and chorionicity, the twin pregnancies conceived via assisted reproductive technology were not at an increased risk of obstetric and neonatal complications. Moreover, the type of treatment did not alter the obstetric and neonatal complications. Therefore, the higher complication rate was related to the patient's medical specifics, rather than to the infertility treatment.

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