Perinatal outcome of pregnancies caused by assisted reproduction technique (ART) is substantially worse when compared with pregnancies following natural conception. We investigated the possible risks of non-IVF ART on perinatal health. We conducted a retrospective cohort study with two exposure groups: a study group of pregnancies after controlled ovarian stimulation (COS), with or without artificial insemination (AI), and a naturally conceived comparison group. We used the data from the regional registry of all hospital deliveries in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium during the period from January 1993 until December 2003 to investigate differences in perinatal outcome of singleton and twin pregnancies. 12 021 singleton and 3108 twin births could be selected. Naturally conceived subjects were matched for maternal age, parity, fetal sex and year of birth. The main outcome measures were duration of pregnancy, birth weight, perinatal morbidity and perinatal mortality. Our overall results showed a significantly higher incidence of prematurity (<32 and <37 weeks), low and very low birth weight, transfer to the neonatal intensive care unit and most neonatal morbidity parameters for COS/AI singletons. Twin pregnancies resulting from COS/AI showed an increased rate of neonatal mortality, assisted ventilation and respiratory distress syndrome. After excluding same-sex twin sets, COS/AI twin pregnancies were at increased risk for extreme prematurity and very low birth weight. In conclusion, COS/AI singleton and twin pregnancies are significantly disadvantaged compared to naturally conceived children.
A total of 3974 IVF and 1655 ICSI singleton births and 2901 IVF and 1102 ICSI twin births were evaluated. Pregnancies after both fresh and frozen transfers were included. IVF and ICSI singleton pregnancies were very similar for most obstetric and perinatal variables. The only significant difference was a higher risk for prematurity (< 37 weeks of amenorrhoea) in IVF pregnancies compared with ICSI pregnancies (12.4 versus 9.2%, OR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.15-1.70). For twin pregnancies, differences were not statistically different except for a higher incidence of stillbirths in the ICSI group (2.08 versus 1.03%, OR = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.14-3.64). Intrauterine growth retardation with or without pregnancy-induced hypertension was observed more often in the ICSI group. Regression analysis of the data with correction for parity and female age showed similar results for twins. For singletons, this analysis showed similar results with the exception of low birth weight babies (< 2500 g), which were also observed more often in IVF pregnancies (9.6 versus 7.9%, OR = 0.79, CI = 0.65-0.98, P = 0.03). This large case-comparative retrospective analysis showed that the obstetric outcome and perinatal health of IVF and ICSI pregnancies is comparable.
The aim of this study was to compare the risk of secondary caesarean section in induced versus spontaneous labour in the second delivery of low risk women who had a vaginal delivery in their first pregnancy. The data were retrospective cohort from an existing regional database, comparing term (between 37 and 42 gestational weeks) second deliveries in cephalic position in women who had previously given vaginal birth. Diabetes, hypertension and multiple pregnancy were excluded as were those with a birth weight less than 2500 g or more than 4500 g. The difference was not significant when induction was performed after 41 weeks. The results showed a total number of 29693 deliveries were included, 21243 in spontaneous labour and 8450 after induction of labour. In the spontaneous group 312 (1.5%) underwent secondary caesarean section, as compared to 237 (2.8%) in the induced group, p < 0.001, OR 1.93 (95% confidence interval 1.63-2.29). It was concluded that elective induction of labour in low risk women who have previously given vaginal birth is associated with an almost doubled rate of secondary caesarean section if performed before 41 weeks.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.