4.7 Article

Perinatal outcomes in 375 children born after oocyte donation: a Danish national cohort study

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 99, 期 6, 页码 1637-+

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.01.128

关键词

Assisted reproduction; egg donation; low birth weight; obstetric outcome; oocyte donation; perinatal outcome; preeclampsia; preterm birth

资金

  1. Merck Serono
  2. Ferring Pharmaceutical
  3. MSD

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To describe perinatal outcomes in children born after oocyte donation (OD) compared with in vitro fertilization (IVF), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), and spontaneous conception (SC). Design: National cohort study. Setting: Fertility clinics. Patient(s): Three hundred seventy-five children born after OD during the period 1995-2010. Intervention(s): None. Main Outcome Measure(s): Mean birth weight, mean gestational age, risks of low birth weight (LBW), preterm birth (PTB), congenital malformations, cesarean delivery, preeclampsia, and admittance to neonatal intensive care unit. Result(s): We found an increased risk of PTB in OD pregnancies. The adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of PTB in OD singletons was 1.8 (95% CI, 1.2-2.69), 2.5 (95% CI, 1.7-3.6), and 3.4 (95% CI, 2.3-4.9) compared with IVF, ICSI, and SC, respectively. The risk of LBW was also increased. The AOR of LBW was 1.4 (95% CI, 0.9-2.2), 1.8 (95% CI, 1.2-2.8), and 2.6 (95% CI, 1.7-4.0) compared with IVF, ICSI, and SC. The risk of preeclampsia was increased in OD pregnancies with an AOR of 2.9 (95% CI, 1.8-4.6), 2.8 (95% CI, 1.7-4.5), and 3.1 (95% CI, 1.9-4.9) compared with IVF, ICSI, and SC. After additional adjustment for preeclampsia, perinatal outcome improved. Among the twins, the difference between the groups was less pronounced. Conclusion(s): Pregnancies after OD have a poorer perinatal outcome than those after standard IVF and ICSI mainly because of the high prevalence of preeclampsia. (C) 2013 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