Research Article

The effect of oral micronized progesterone on first trimester screening test markers and neonatal outcome

Volume: 46 Number: 2 June 11, 2019
  • İlknur Col Madendag
  • Yusuf Madendag *
  • Mehmet Ak
  • Erdem Sahin
  • Mefkure Eraslan Sahin

The effect of oral micronized progesterone on first trimester screening test markers and neonatal outcome

Abstract

Objective: It was aimed to investigate whether or not nuchal translucency(NT) thickness, maternal serum free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin(β-hCG) and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A(PAPP-A) levels may affected by the use of oral micronized progesterone(OMP) in first trimester pregnancies. Also we aimed to evaluate pregnancy outcome in pregnant women using OMP.

Method: This study was performed retrospectively including 1192 pregnant women, between January 2015 and August 2017. Body mass index(BMI), maternal and gestational age, levels of maternal serum PAPP-A and free β-hCG, NT measurement and the crown–rump length(CRL), fetal sex, fetal birth weight, Apgar score 5thminute<7 and admission to neonatal intensive care unit(NICU) were evaluated.

Results: Maternal characteristics, ultrasound and biochemical parameters, fetal characteristics and neonatal outcome were evaluated. There was no statistically significant difference for maternal age, BMI, gestational age, PAPP-A, β-hCG, CRL, NT thickness, fetal sex, fetal birth weight, Apgar score 5th minute <7 and the number of admission to NICU during the first 28 days.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that in clinical practice, 1) it seems that using OMP cannot affect on NT, CRL and birth weight. 2) OMP cannot adversely affect on production of PAPP-A and β-hCG in vivo. 3) NT, serum PAPP-A and β-hCG levels and MoM values, which are markers of the first trimester screening test, do not change by using OMP. Therefore using OMP cannot affect reliability of the first trimester screening test in pregnancy with threatened abortion. 4) OMP does not look like adversely affect on poor neonatal outcome.

Keywords

References

  1. 1. Alldred SK, Takwoingi Y, Guo B, et all. First trimester ultrasound tests alone or in combination with first trimester serum tests for Down's syndrome screening. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017: 3.
  2. 2. Nicolaides KH, Spencer K, Avgidou K, Faiola S, Falcon O. Multicenter study of first-trimester screening for trisomy 21 in 75821 pregnancies: results and estimation of the potential impact of individual risk-orientated two-stage first-trimester screening. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 25: 221–6.
  3. 3. Liao AW, Heath V, Kametas N, Spencer K, Nicolaides KH. First-trimester screening for trisomy 21 in singleton pregnancies achieved by assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod. 2001; 16: 501–1504.
  4. 4. Walch KT, Huber JC. Progesterone for recurrent miscarriage: truth and deceptions. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2008; 22: 375-89.
  5. 5. Sotiriadis A, Papatheodorou S, Makrydimas G. Threatened miscarriage: evaluation and management. Brid Med J. 2004; 329: 152.
  6. 6. Czajkowski K, Sienko J, Mogilinski M, et all. Uteroplacental circulation in early pregnancy complicated by threatened abortion supplemented with vaginal micronized progesterone or oral dydrogesterone. Fertil Steril. 2007; 87: 613.
  7. 7. Weiss JL, Malone FD, Vidaver J, et al. Threatened abortion: a risk factor for poor pregnancy outcome, a population-based screening study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 190: 745.
  8. 8. Alp M, Diclehan O. Tekrarlayan spontan abortusları olan çiftlerde genetik araştırmalar. Dicle Tıp Derg. 2006; 33: 71-80.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Health Care Administration

Journal Section

Research Article

Publication Date

June 11, 2019

Submission Date

September 7, 2018

Acceptance Date

January 4, 2019

Published in Issue

Year 2019 Volume: 46 Number: 2

APA
Madendag, İ. C., Madendag, Y., Ak, M., Sahin, E., & Sahin, M. E. (2019). The effect of oral micronized progesterone on first trimester screening test markers and neonatal outcome. Dicle Medical Journal, 46(2), 195-200. https://doi.org/10.5798/dicletip.539903
AMA
1.Madendag İC, Madendag Y, Ak M, Sahin E, Sahin ME. The effect of oral micronized progesterone on first trimester screening test markers and neonatal outcome. Dicle Medical Journal. 2019;46(2):195-200. doi:10.5798/dicletip.539903
Chicago
Madendag, İlknur Col, Yusuf Madendag, Mehmet Ak, Erdem Sahin, and Mefkure Eraslan Sahin. 2019. “The Effect of Oral Micronized Progesterone on First Trimester Screening Test Markers and Neonatal Outcome”. Dicle Medical Journal 46 (2): 195-200. https://doi.org/10.5798/dicletip.539903.
EndNote
Madendag İC, Madendag Y, Ak M, Sahin E, Sahin ME (June 1, 2019) The effect of oral micronized progesterone on first trimester screening test markers and neonatal outcome. Dicle Medical Journal 46 2 195–200.
IEEE
[1]İ. C. Madendag, Y. Madendag, M. Ak, E. Sahin, and M. E. Sahin, “The effect of oral micronized progesterone on first trimester screening test markers and neonatal outcome”, Dicle Medical Journal, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 195–200, June 2019, doi: 10.5798/dicletip.539903.
ISNAD
Madendag, İlknur Col - Madendag, Yusuf - Ak, Mehmet - Sahin, Erdem - Sahin, Mefkure Eraslan. “The Effect of Oral Micronized Progesterone on First Trimester Screening Test Markers and Neonatal Outcome”. Dicle Medical Journal 46/2 (June 1, 2019): 195-200. https://doi.org/10.5798/dicletip.539903.
JAMA
1.Madendag İC, Madendag Y, Ak M, Sahin E, Sahin ME. The effect of oral micronized progesterone on first trimester screening test markers and neonatal outcome. Dicle Medical Journal. 2019;46:195–200.
MLA
Madendag, İlknur Col, et al. “The Effect of Oral Micronized Progesterone on First Trimester Screening Test Markers and Neonatal Outcome”. Dicle Medical Journal, vol. 46, no. 2, June 2019, pp. 195-00, doi:10.5798/dicletip.539903.
Vancouver
1.İlknur Col Madendag, Yusuf Madendag, Mehmet Ak, Erdem Sahin, Mefkure Eraslan Sahin. The effect of oral micronized progesterone on first trimester screening test markers and neonatal outcome. Dicle Medical Journal. 2019 Jun. 1;46(2):195-200. doi:10.5798/dicletip.539903