4.7 Article

Impact of induced pregnancies in the obstetrical outcome of twin pregnancies

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 101, 期 1, 页码 172-177

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.026

关键词

Twins; induced reproduction; obstetrical outcomes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare obstetric outcomes of induced twins with those spontaneously conceived. Design: A prospective observational study was conducted in twin pregnancies delivered over 16 years. Setting: A tertiary obstetric center with differentiated perinatal support. Patient(s): A total of 180 induced twins and 698 spontaneously conceived were included. Intervention(s): None. Main Outcome Measure(s): Comparison of demographic factors, obstetrical complications, gestational age at delivery, mode of delivery, birth weight, and immediate newborn outcome. Result(s): First-trimester bleeding was higher in the induced group (6.0% vs. 12.2%), as were gestational diabetes (4.4% vs. 8.3%) and discordant intrauterine growth (4.3% vs. 11.1%). Preterm premature rupture of membranes was less frequent (23.9% vs. 12.8%) as was preterm delivery <= 32 weeks (22.5% vs. 14.0%). Cesarean section rate was higher (50.6% vs. 63.9%). Other obstetrical complications, newborn data, and puerperal complications were not statistically different. Except for first-trimester bleeding (significantly associated with monochorionicity), these results were independent from chorionicity. Regarding the induced method (ovulation induction, IVF, or ICSI), IVF is a predictor for first-trimester bleeding and IVF or ICSI a predictor for cesarean section. Conclusion(s): The higher rates found with induced twins of first-trimester bleeding, gestational diabetes, and discordant growth do not contribute to different neonatal immediate outcomes and do not contribute to higher rates of prematurity, low birth weight, or other major perinatal complications. (Fertil Steril (R) 2014; 101: 172-7. (C) 2014 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