Evaluation of Pregnancy Results of in Vitro Fertilization Patients: A Tertiary-Center Experience

Year 2021, Volume: 8 Issue: 3, 211 - 214, 28.12.2021

Şeyhmus Tunç , Ilgın Türkçüoğlu Süleyman Cemil Oğlak

https://doi.org/10.47572/muskutd.749649

Abstract

In this study, we aimed to retrospectively evaluate the pregnancy outcomes of in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients. The records of 6369 pregnant women who gave birth between April 2009 and February 2013 were evaluated retrospectively. 151 Patients who were conceived Controlled Ovarian Hyperstimulation-IVF/ICSI were included in the study group. The control group was formed by a systematic sampling of spontaneous pregnant cases (262 cases). The results of both of the groups were evaluated. Multiple pregnancies, preterm delivery, preterm premature rupture of membranes, malpresentation, and gestational diabetes rates were significantly higher in the study group. Mean gestational week at birth and mean birth weight was significantly higher in the control group. There was no statistically significant difference in blood pH values and Apgar score of the 1 and 5 minutes of the newborn in both groups. Neonatal intensive care unit admission and perinatal mortality rates were significantly higher in the study group. Both maternal and fetal risks are increased in pregnancies with assisted reproductive techniques. All these risks require close monitoring of the mother and newborn during pregnancy and the postpartum period. 

Keywords

Multiple Pregnancy, Preterm Birth, Perinatal Death

İn Vitro Fertilizasyon ile Gebe Kalan Hastaların Gebelik Sonuçlarının Değerlendirilmesi: Tersiyer Merkez Deneyimi

Abstract

Bu çalışmada in vitro fertilizasyon (IVF) ile gebe kalan hastaların gebelik sonuçlarının retrospektif olarak değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Nisan 2009 ile Şubat 2013 tarihleri arasında doğum yapan 6369 gebenin kaydı retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Kontrollü Ovaryan Hiperstimulasyon-IVF/ICSI ile gebe kalan 151 olgu ile çalışma grubu oluşturuldu. Kontrol grubu kendiliğinden gebe kalan hastalardan sistematik örnekleme ile seçilerek oluşturuldu (262 olgu). Her iki grubun sonuçları değerlendirildi. Çalışma grubunda çoğul gebelik, preterm doğum, preterm prematür membran rüptürü, malprezentasyon, gestasyonel diyabet oranları daha fazlaydı. Ortalama doğum haftası ve ortalama doğum ağırlığı kontrol grubunda daha fazlaydı. Her iki grupta yenidoğanın kan gazı pH değerleri, 1. ve 5. dakika Apgar skoru açısından istatistiksel farklılık yoktu. Yenidoğan yoğun bakım ünitesine yatış oranı ve perinatal ölüm oranı çalışma grubunda daha fazlaydı. Yardımcı üreme teknikleri ile meydana gelen gebeliklerde maternal ve fetal riskler daha fazladır. Tüm bu riskler gebelik sürecinin ve yenidoğanın yakın takibini gerektirmektedir. 

Keywords

Çoğul Gebelik, Erken Doğum, Perinatal Ölüm

References

• 1. Lei LL, Lan YL, Wang SY, Feng W, Zhai ZJ. Perinatal complications and live-birth outcomes following assisted reproductive technology: a retrospective cohort study. Chin Med J (Engl). 2019;132(20):2408-16.
• 2. Messerlian C, Maclagan L, Basso O. Infertility and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(1);125-37.
• 3. Behram M, Oğlak SC, Başkıran Y, Süzen Çaypınar S, Akgöl S, Tunç Ş, et al. Maternal serum IL-22 concentrations are significantly upregulated in patients with preterm premature rupture of membranes. Ginekol Pol. 2021;92(9):631-6.
• 4. Oğlak SC, Bademkıran MH, Obut M. Predictor variables in the success of slow-release dinoprostone used for cervical ripening in intrauterine growth restriction pregnancies. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2020;49(6):101739.
• 5. Behram M, Oğlak SC, Dağ İ. Circulating levels of Elabela in pregnant women complicated with intrauterine growth restriction. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2021;50(8):102127.
• 6. Behram M, Oğlak SC, Doğan Y. Evaluation of BRD4 levels in patients with early-onset preeclampsia. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2021;50(2):101963.
• 7. Oğlak SC, Obut M. Expression of ADAMTS13 and PCNA in the placentas of gestational diabetic mothers. Int J Morphol. 2021;39(1):38-44.
• 8. Fujimoto A, Morishima K, Harada M, Hirata T, Osuga Y, Fujii T. Elective single-embryo transfer improves cumulative pregnancy outcome in young patients but not in women of advanced reproductive age. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(12):1773-9.
• 9. Dobrosavljevic A, Rakic S, Mihajlovic S. Risk of spontaneous preterm labor in pregnancies achieved by in vitro fertilization and complicated with severe form of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: A case control study. Pak J Med Sci. 2019;35(4):923-8.
• 10. Halliday J. Outcomes of IVF conceptions: are they different? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;21(1):67-81.
• 11. Helmerhorst FM, Perquin DA, Donker D, Keirse MJ: Perinatal outcome of singletons and twins after assisted conception: a systematic review of controlled studies. BMJ. 2004;328:261.
• 12. Dhalwani NN, Boulet SL, Kissin DM, et al. Assisted reproductive technology and perinatal outcomes: conventional versus discordant-sibling design. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(3):710-6.
• 13. Qin JB, Wang H, Sheng X, Xie Q, Gao S. Assisted reproductive technology and risk of adverse obstetric outcomes in dichorionic twin pregnancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(5):1180-92.
• 14. Manoura A, Korakaki E, Hatzidaki E, Bikouovarakis S, Papageorgiou M, Giannakopoulou C: Perinatal outcome of twin pregnancies after in vitro fertilization. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;83:1079-84.
• 15. Kouhkan A, Khamseh ME, Pirjani R, et al. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes of singleton pregnancies conceived via assisted reproductive technology complicated by gestational diabetes mellitus: a prospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Chilbirth. 2018;18(1):495.
• 16. Qin J, Liu X, Sheng X, Wang H, Gao S. Assisted reproductive technology and the risk of pregnancy-related complications and adverse pregnancy outcomes in singleton pregnancies: a meta-analyses of cohort studies. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(1):73-85.
• 17. Neumann K, Cirkel C, Rody A, Beyer DA. Do ART patients face higher C-section rates during their stage of delivery: A German monocenter experience. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;259(2):481-5.
• 18. Declercq E, Luke B, Belanoff C, et al: Perinatal outcomes associated with assisted reproductive technology: the Massachusetts Outcomes Study of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (MOSART). Fertil Steril. 2015;103(4):888-95.
• 19. Sullivan-Pyke CS, Senapati S, Mainigi MA, Barnhart KT. In Vitro fertilization and adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes. Semin Perinatol. 2017;41(6):345-53.
• 20. Klemetti R, Gissler M, Sevón T, Koivurova S, Ritvanen A, Hemminki E. Children born after assisted fertilization have an increased rate of major congenital anomalies. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(5):1300-7.
• 21. Reefhuis J, Honein MA, Schieve LA, Correa A, Hobbs CA, Rasmussen SA; National Birth Defects Prevention Study. Assisted reproductive technology and major structural birth defects in the United States. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:360-6.