[1]贺丽人,李玉艳,李元华,等.1 237例胚胎移植术后母儿的围产结局分析[J].第三军医大学学报,2016,38(23):2516-2521.
 He Liren,Li Yuyan,Li Yuanhua,et al.Analysis of perinatal and neonatal outcomes in 1 237 pregnancies through in vitro fertilization[J].J Third Mil Med Univ,2016,38(23):2516-2521.
点击复制

1 237例胚胎移植术后母儿的围产结局分析(/HTML )
分享到:

《第三军医大学学报》[ISSN:1000-5404/CN:51-1095/R]

卷:
38卷
期数:
2016年第23期
页码:
2516-2521
栏目:
临床医学
出版日期:
2016-12-15

文章信息/Info

Title:
Analysis of perinatal and neonatal outcomes in 1 237 pregnancies through in vitro fertilization
作者:
贺丽人李玉艳李元华龙玲夏欢何畏
第三军医大学西南医院妇产科生殖医学中心
Author(s):
He Liren Li Yuyan Li Yuanhua Long Ling Xia Huan He Wei

Reproductive Medicine Center, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, 400038, China

关键词:
体外受精胚胎移植围产期并发症新生儿结局自然妊娠
Keywords:
in vitro fertilization embryo transfer perinatal complications neonatal outcome natural pregnancy
分类号:
R195.1; R714.1; R714.7
文献标志码:
A
摘要:

目的      回顾性分析西南医院生殖医学中心1 237例胚胎移植术后母儿的围产结局。方法     收集整理2011年1月至2014年7月在我中心行体外受精/卵胞浆内单精子显微注射(in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection,IVF/ICSI)助孕技术成功妊娠的孕妇1 237例(助孕组),其中鲜胚移植周期711例,冻融胚胎移植周期(frozen thawed embryo transfer,FET)526例,以同期我院收治的自然妊娠孕妇(5 040例)作为对照,分组比较母亲围产期情况及新生儿出生结局。结果      助孕组年龄为(30.4±4.2)岁,明显高于对照组(P<0.05);助孕组多胎率及剖宫产率较对照组明显升高(P<0.05);助孕组孕周及新生儿平均体质量较对照组明显偏小(P<0.05);助孕组妊娠期高血压(pregnancy-induced hypertension,PIH)、前置胎盘、妊娠期肝内胆汁淤积症(intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy,ICP)、产后出血、母亲入ICU、新生儿住院、低体质量儿、早产以及新生儿入ICU(neonatal ICU,NICU)发生率较对照组明显升高(P<0.05),而胎盘早剥、胎膜早破(premature rupture of fetal membranes,PROM)、先兆子痫、死胎、新生儿死亡及新生儿畸形的发生率两组比较差异无统计学意义。在助孕组内,鲜胚组孕周及新生儿体质量较FET组小(P<0.05),鲜胚组ICP、PROM和产后出血的发生率较FET低,低体质量儿出生率较FET高(P<0.05),而PIH、前置胎盘、先兆子痫、胎盘早剥、母亲入ICU、死胎、新生儿死亡、新生儿住院、新生儿畸形、NICU以及早产的发生率两组间比较差异无统计学意义。 结论       辅助生殖助孕者的PIH、前置胎盘、ICP、产后出血、母亲入ICU、新生儿住院、低体质量儿、早产以及NICU的发生率较自然妊娠孕妇高。

Abstract:

Objective      To retrospectively analyze the perinatal and neonatal outcomes in 1 237 pregnancies through in vitro fertilization (IVF).  Methods      A total of 1 237 women who were pregnant in our center through IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) assisted pregnancy technologies (APT)  from January 2011 to July 2014 were enrolled in this study. They were assigned as APT group, including 711 cases of fresh embryo transfer cycles and 526 cases of frozen thawed embryo transfer cycle (FET). And another 5 040 cases of natural pregnancy in our hospital during the same period served as the control group. The perinatal and neonatal outcomes were compared among these groups. Results      The average age was 30.4±4.2 in the APT group, obviously older than that of the control group (P<0.05). The APT group had significantly higher rates of multiple pregnancy and cesarean section than the control group (P<0.05), but remarkably shorter average gestational age and lower average body weight of the neonates (P<0.05), and obviously higher incidences of pregnancy hypertension (PIH), placenta previa, pregnancy intrahepatic cholestasis (ICP), postpartum hemorrhage, mother in ICU, hospitalized neonates, low birth weight infants, preterm delivery and neonatal ICU rate (NICU) (P<0.05). There were no significant difference in the incidences of placental abruption, preeclampsia, premature rupture of membranes (PROM), stillbirth, neonatal death and neonatal malformation between the APT and natural pregnancy groups. In the APT group, the fresh embryo group had significantly shorter gestational age and lower weight of newborn than the FET group (P<0.05), but there was no difference in the incidences of PIH, placenta previa, pre eclampsia, placental abruption, mother into ICU, stillbirth, neonatal death, hospitalized neonates, neonatal malformations, NICU and preterm delivery between them (P>0.05). Conclusion      The incidences of PIH, placenta previa, ICP, postpartum hemorrhage, mother into ICU, hospitalized neonates, low birth weight infants, premature birth and NICU are higher in the APT group than the natural pregnancy group.

参考文献/References:

[1]Jie L,  Jing Y,  Xu W M, et al. Comparison of the Perinatal Outcome of Twins Conceived After Assisted Reproductive Technologies Versus Those Conceived Naturally[J]. J Reprod Med, 2015, 60(1/2): 37-42.
[2]Sun L,  Zou G,  Wei X, et al.Clinical outcomes after assisted reproductive technology in twin pregnancies:  chorionicitybased comparison[J]. Sci Rep, 2016, 6: 26869. DOI:  10.1038/srep26869
[3]Sljivananin T,  Kontic'-Vuinic'  O.  Perinatal outcomes of pregnancies conceived by assisted reproductive technologies[J]. Srp Arh Celok Lek, 2015,  143(9/10): 632-638.
[4]Kaveh M,  Ghajarzadeh M,  Davari Tanha F,  et al.Pregnancy Complications and Neonatal Outcomes in Multiple Pregnancies:  A Comparison between Assisted Reproductive Techniques and Spontaneous Conception[J]. Int J Fertil Steril, 2015, 8(4): 367-72.
[5]Farhi A, Reichman B,  Boyko V,  et  al. Maternal and neonatal health outcomes following assisted reproduction[J]. Reprod Biomed Online, 2013,  26(5): 454-461. DOI:  10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.01.014
[6]Qin J,  Wang H,  Sheng X,  et al.Pregnancy-related complications and adverse pregnancy outcomes in multiple pregnancies resulting from assisted reproductive technology:  a metaanalysis of cohort studies[J]. Fertil Steril, 2015, 103(6): 1492-1508.DOI:  10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.03.018
[7]Wennberg A L,  Opdahl S,  Bergh C, et al.Effect of maternal age on maternal and neonatal outcomes after assisted reproductive technology[J]. Fertil Steril,  2016, 106(5): 1142-1149.DOI:  10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.06.021
[8]Fan C,  Sun Y,  Yang J,  et al. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in dichorionic twin pregnancies following IVF treatment:  a hospitalbased comparative study[J]. Int J Clin Exp Pathol,  2013, 6(10):  2199-2207.
[9]Bensdorp A J,  Hukkelhoven C W,  van der Veen F, et al. Dizygotic twin pregnancies after medically assisted reproduction and after natural conception:  maternal and perinatal outcomes[J]. Fertil Steril, 2016, 106(2): 371-377.DOI:  10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.03.042
[10]Simoes  T,  Queirós A, Marujo A T, et al.Outcome of monochorionic twins conceived by assisted reproduction[J]. Fertil Steril,  2015, 104(3):  629-632.DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.06.002
[11]Yang X,  Li Y,  Li C, et al. Current overview of pregnancy complications and livebirth outcome of assisted reproductive technology in mainland China[J]. Fertil Steril. 2014, 101(2): 385-391. DOI:  10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.10.017
[12]Moini A,  Shiva M,  Arabipoor A, et al. Obstetric and neonatal outcomes of twin pregnancies conceived by assisted reproductive technology compared with twin pregnancies conceived spontaneously:  a prospective follow-up study[J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol,  2012, 165(1): 29-32.DOI:  10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.07.008
[13]Caserta D,  Bordi G,  Stegagno M,  et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes in spontaneous versus assisted conception twin pregnancies[J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2014, 174: 64-9. DOI:  10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.12.011
[14]Vahanian S A,  Lavery J A,  Ananth C V, et al.Placental implantation abnormalities and risk of preterm delivery:  a systematic review and metaanalysis[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2015, 213(4 Suppl): S78-S90. DOI:  10.1016/j.ajog.2015.05.058
[15]侯丽,  郑剑兰, 汪文雁. IVF-ET后双胎与自然受孕双胎的临床结局分析[J]. 实用医学杂志,  2015, 31(14):  2343-2345.DOI: l0.3969/j.issn.10065725.2015.14.032
[16]Ramoˇglu M,  Kavuncuoˇglu S,  Aldemir E, et al. Neurodevelopment of preterm infants born after in vitro fertilization and spontaneous multiple pregnancy[J]. Pediatr Int, 2016. [Epub ahead of print]. DOI:  10.1111/ped.13012
[17]Henningsen A A,  Wennerholm U B,  Gissler M, et al.Risk of stillbirth and infant deaths after assisted reproductive technology:  a Nordic study from the CoNARTaS group[J]. Hum Reprod, 2014, 29(5): 1090-1096. DOI:  10.1093/humrep/deu031
[18]Qin J,  Sheng X,  Wang H,  et al. Assisted reproductive technology and risk of congenital malformations:  a metaanalysis based on cohort studies[J]. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2015, 292(4): 777-798.DOI:  10.1007/s00404-015-3707-0
[19]Dhalwani N N,  Boulet S L,  Kissin D M,  et al. Assisted reproductive technology and perinatal outcomes:  conventional versus discordantsibling design[J]. Fertil Steril, 2016, 106(3): 710-716.DOI:  10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.04.038
[20]Xu X K,  Wang Y A,  Li Z,  et al. Risk factors associated with preterm birth among singletons following assisted reproductive technology in Australia 2007-2009: a population-based retrospective study[J]. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 2014, 14: 406. DOI:  10.1186/s12884-014-0406-y
[21]van Heesch M M,  Evers J L,  van der Hoeven M A, et al. Hospital costs during the first 5 years of life for multiples compared with singletons born after IVF or ICSI[J]. Hum Reprod. 2015, 30(6): 1481-1490.DOI:  10.1093/humrep/dev059
[22]Pourali L,  Ayati S,  Jelodar S, et al. Obstetrics and perinatal outcomes of dichorionic twin pregnancy following ART compared with spontaneous pregnancy[J]. Int J Reprod Biomed (Yazd),  2016, 14(5): 317-322.
[23]王倩倩, 朱依敏, 吴明远, 体外受精母亲与子代健康状况分析[J].浙江大学学报: 医学版, 2009, 38(5): 515-520. DOI: 10.3785/j.issn.10089292.2009.05.014
[24]Henningsen A A,  Gissler M,  Skjaerven R, et al. Trends in perinatal health after assisted reproduction:  a Nordic study from the CoNARTaS group[J]. Hum Reprod,  2015, 30(3): 710-716.DOI:  10.1093/humrep/deu345
[25]Pelkonen S,  Koivunen R,  Gissler M,  et al. Perinatal outcome of children born after frozen and fresh embryo transfer:  the Finnish cohort study 1995-2006[J]. Hum Reprod, 2010, 25(4): 914-923. DOI:  10.1093/humrep/dep477
[26]Belva F,  Bonduelle M,  Roelants M,  et al. Neonatal health including congenital malformation risk of 1072 children born after vitrified embryo transfer[J].Hum Reprod, 2016, 31(7): 1610-1620. DOI:  10.1093/humrep/dew103

相似文献/References:

[1]王凤英,李玉艳,俞炽阳,等.对IVF超促排卵周期结局的分析[J].第三军医大学学报,2005,27(12):1272.
[2]邓志华,王钦,杨华,等.早期胚胎原核形态与优胚的关系及原核评分对胚胎选择的临床意义[J].第三军医大学学报,2010,32(16):1801.
[3]颜建华,姚宏,章容,等.体外授精/胚胎移植2例成功分娩[J].第三军医大学学报,1999,21(04):0.[doi:10.16016/j.1000-5404.1999.04.031 ]

更新日期/Last Update: 2016-12-05