4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Risk factors for adverse outcomes in spontaneous versus assisted conception twin pregnancies

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 81, 期 2, 页码 315-319

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.07.012

关键词

assisted conception; twin pregnancy; risk factors; perinatal outcomes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate risk factors for adverse outcomes in spontaneous vs. assisted conception twin pregnancies. Design: Historical cohort study. Setting: Four academic tertiary medical centers. Patient(s): Women with twin pregnancies, including 2,143 spontaneous and 424 assisted conception; 2,492 nonreduced and 75 reduced. Intervention(s): None (observational). Main Outcome Measure(s): Preeclampsia, preterm premature rupture of membranes, birth <32 weeks and <30 weeks, low birth weight, very low birth weight, and slowed midgestation fetal growth (<10th percentile between 20 and 28 weeks). Result(s): Among nonreduced pregnancies, assisted conception was not significantly associated with any adverse outcomes; among nulliparas, the risk for preeclampsia was increased regardless of method of conception; among spontaneous conceptions, the risks for preterm premature rupture of membranes, low birth weight, very low birth weight, and slowed midgestation fetal growth were increased. Among all pregnancies, fetal reduction increased risks for birth <32 weeks and <30 weeks, low birth weight, very low birth weight, and slowed midgestation fetal growth. Among nulliparas with assisted conceptions, fetal reduction increased the risks for birth <30 weeks, very low birth weight, and slowed midgestation fetal growth. Conclusion(s): These findings indicate that in twin pregnancies, assisted conception is not a risk factor for adverse outcomes, but rather specific factors that are more common among these pregnancies, such as nulliparity and fetal reduction, increase risks. (C) 2004 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

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