4.5 Article

Obstetric and neonatal risk of pregnancies after assisted reproductive technology:: a matched control study

期刊

出版社

BLACKWELL MUNKSGAARD
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2003.00225.x

关键词

assisted reproduction; perinatal outcome; matched control study

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The aim of the study was to evaluate the obstetric and neonatal outcome of pregnancies after assisted reproduction technology (ART) in comparison with matched controls from spontaneous pregnancies. Methods. A total of 12 920 deliveries at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Szeged, from 1 January 1995 to 31 December 2001 were subjected to retrospective analysis. Two hundred and eighty-four singleton, 75 twin and 17 triplet pregnancies after ovulation induction (n = 114; 30.3%), intrauterine insemination (n = 33; 8.8%) and in vitro fertilization (n = 229; 60.9%) were evaluated. The pregnancy outcome of the singleton and twin pregnancies was compared with that for controls matched with regard to age, gravidity and parity and previous obstetric outcome after spontaneous pregnancies. Results. Twenty-four percent of the assisted reproductive pregnancies were multiple pregnancies. The incidences of singleton intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR) and preterm birth were reasonably similar to those among the controls (IUGR: 6.3% vs. 4.2%; preterm births: 13.0% vs. 9.9%, for the cases and the controls, respectively). As compared with the controls, there was an increased incidence of cesarean section among the singleton (41.2% vs. 34.5%, p = 0.12; OR 1.33; 95% CI 0.95-1.87) and twin assisted reproduction pregnancies (66.7% vs. 60.0%), but without significant differences. Conclusions. Increased obstetric risk could be observed concerning threatened preterm delivery and cesarean section rate in the study group. The perinatal outcome of singleton and twin pregnancies following assisted reproductive techniques is comparable with that of spontaneously conceived, matched pregnancies.

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