Volume 16, Issue 2 (February 2018)
IJRM 2018, 16(2): 77-82 |
Back to browse issues page
Merita Vuniqi-Krasniqi1 
, Myrvete Paçarada1 , Qëndresë Daka * 2, Zeqir Dervishi1 , Astrit Bimbashi3 , Kushtrim Dakaj4
, Myrvete Paçarada1 , Qëndresë Daka * 2, Zeqir Dervishi1 , Astrit Bimbashi3 , Kushtrim Dakaj4
1- Department of Gynecology, University Clinical Center of Kosova, Medical Faculty, University of Pristine, Prishtine, Kosovo
2- Department of Pathophysiology, University Clinical Center of Kosova, Medical Faculty, University of Pristine, Pristine, Kosovo , qendrese.daka@uni-pr.edu
3- University Hospital of Obstetrics and Gynecology Koço Gliozheni, University of Medicine, Tirana, Albania
4- Dentistry School, Medical Faculty, University of Pristine, Pristine, Kosovo
2- Department of Pathophysiology, University Clinical Center of Kosova, Medical Faculty, University of Pristine, Pristine, Kosovo , qendrese.daka@uni-pr.edu
3- University Hospital of Obstetrics and Gynecology Koço Gliozheni, University of Medicine, Tirana, Albania
4- Dentistry School, Medical Faculty, University of Pristine, Pristine, Kosovo
Abstract: (3313 Views)
Background: Relationships between in-vitro fertilization (IVF), gestational hypertension, and pregnancy outcomes are demonstrated in a number of studies. However, it is still debated if IVF treatment or specific characteristics of infertile patients are responsible for worse obstetrical and neonatal outcomes.
Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate maternal characteristics associated with hypertensive disorders (HD) in IVF conceived pregnancies and to assess the obstetrical and neonatal outcomes.
Materials and Methods: In this observational, cross-sectional study, 207 pregnant women who underwent IVF treatment were consecutively divided into two groups: a group that had no HD during pregnancy (IVF group) and a group that had HD during pregnancy (IVF+HD group). Maternal, obstetrical and neonatal data of the two groups were compared.
Results: Some maternal characteristics were significantly higher in IVF+HD compared to IVF group such as: older age (p=0.0001), primiparity (p=0.038), obesity (p=0.0001), and cigarette smoking (p=0.0001). There were no significant differences between the groups in regard to obstetrical outcomes besides premature rupture of membranes time that was significantly higher in IVF+HD group compared to IVF group (p=0.036). In regard to neonatal outcomes, the only statistically significant difference was in the 5th min Apgar score, which was higher in IVF+HD group compared to IVF group without HD (p=0.002).
Conclusion: With regard to significantly higher differences in maternal characteristics of IVF conceived pregnancies complicated with HD, compared to uncomplicated ones, development of a specific national prevention measure for HD of IVF conceived pregnancies in Kosovo is strongly suggested. In addition, setting up of a national registry is recommended in order to evaluate the outcomes of IVF treatments properly.
Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate maternal characteristics associated with hypertensive disorders (HD) in IVF conceived pregnancies and to assess the obstetrical and neonatal outcomes.
Materials and Methods: In this observational, cross-sectional study, 207 pregnant women who underwent IVF treatment were consecutively divided into two groups: a group that had no HD during pregnancy (IVF group) and a group that had HD during pregnancy (IVF+HD group). Maternal, obstetrical and neonatal data of the two groups were compared.
Results: Some maternal characteristics were significantly higher in IVF+HD compared to IVF group such as: older age (p=0.0001), primiparity (p=0.038), obesity (p=0.0001), and cigarette smoking (p=0.0001). There were no significant differences between the groups in regard to obstetrical outcomes besides premature rupture of membranes time that was significantly higher in IVF+HD group compared to IVF group (p=0.036). In regard to neonatal outcomes, the only statistically significant difference was in the 5th min Apgar score, which was higher in IVF+HD group compared to IVF group without HD (p=0.002).
Conclusion: With regard to significantly higher differences in maternal characteristics of IVF conceived pregnancies complicated with HD, compared to uncomplicated ones, development of a specific national prevention measure for HD of IVF conceived pregnancies in Kosovo is strongly suggested. In addition, setting up of a national registry is recommended in order to evaluate the outcomes of IVF treatments properly.
Type of Study: Original Article |
References
1. Marianowski P, Dąbrowski FA, Zyguła A, Wielgoś M, Szymusik I. Do we pay enough attention to culture conditions in context of perinatal outcome after in vitro fertilization? Up-to-date literature review. Biomed Res Int 2016; 2016: 3285179. [DOI:10.1155/2016/3285179]
2. van Loendersloot L, Repping S, Bossuyt PM, van der Veen F, van Wely M. Prediction models in in vitro fertilization; where are we? A mini review. J Adv Res 2014; 5: 295-301. [DOI:10.1016/j.jare.2013.05.002]
3. Mukhopadhaya N, Arulkumaran S. Reproductive outcomes after in-vitro fertilization. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2007; 19: 113-119. [DOI:10.1097/GCO.0b013e32807fb199]
4. Romundstad LB, Romundstad PR, Sunde A, von Düring V, Skjaerven R, Vatten LJ. Increased risk of placenta previa in pregnancies following IVF/ICSI; a comparison of ART and non-ART pregnancies in the same mother. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 2353-2358. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/del153]
5. De Sutter P, Veldeman L, Kok P, Szymczak N, Van der Elst J, Dhont M. Comparison of outcome of pregnancy after intra-uterine insemination (IUI) and IVF. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 1642-1646. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/deh807]
6. Poikkeus P, Gissler M, Unkila-Kallio L, Hyden-Granskog C, Tiitinen A. Obstetric and neonatal outcome after single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 1073-1079. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/del492]
7. Göçmen A, Güven Ş, Bağci S, Çekmez Y, Şanlıkan F. Comparison of maternal and fetal outcomes of IVF and spontaneously conceived twin pregnancies: three year experience of a tertiary hospital. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015; 8: 6272-6276.
8. National High Blood Pressure Education Program Working Group on High Blood Pressure in Pregnancy. Report of the national high blood pressure education program working group on high blood pressure in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183: S1-S22. [DOI:10.1067/mob.2000.107928]
9. Magee LA, Helewa M, Rey E, Hypertension guideline committee; strategic training initiative in research in the reproductive health sciences (stirrhs) scholars. Diagnosis, evaluation, and management of the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2008; 30 (Suppl.): S1-S48. [DOI:10.1016/S1701-2163(16)32776-1]
10. American college of obstetricians and gynecologists, task force on hypertension in pregnancy. Hypertension in pregnancy. Report of the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists' task force on hypertension in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122: 1122-1131.
11. Tebeu PM, Foumane P, Mbu R, Fosso G, Biyaga PT, Fomulu JN. Risk factors for hypertensive disorders in pregnancy: a report from the maroua regional hospital, cameroon. J Reprod Infertil 2011; 12: 227-234.
12. Raymond D, Peterson E. A critical review of early-onset and late-onset preeclampsia. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2011; 66: 497-506. [DOI:10.1097/OGX.0b013e3182331028]
13. Thomopoulos C, Tsioufis C, Michalopoulou H, Makris T, Papademetriou V, Stefanadis C. Assisted reproductive technology and pregnancy-related hypertensive complications: a systematic review. J Hum Hypertens 2013; 27: 148-157. [DOI:10.1038/jhh.2012.13]
14. American college of obstetricians and gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no. 125: chronic hypertension in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 119: 396-407. [DOI:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318249ff06]
15. Bramham K, Parnell B, Nelson-Piercy C, Seed PT, Poston L, Chappell LC. Chronic hypertension and pregnancy outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2014; 348: g2301. [DOI:10.1136/bmj.g2301]
16. Backes CH, Markham K, Moorehead P, Cordero L, Nankervis CA, Giannone PJ. Maternal preeclampsia and neonatal outcomes. J Pregnancy 2011; 2011: 214365. [DOI:10.1155/2011/214365]
17. Watanabe N, Fujiwara T, Suzuki T, Jwa SC, Taniguchi K, Yamanobe Y, et al. Is in vitro fertilization associated with preeclampsia? A propensity score matched study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014; 14: 69. [DOI:10.1186/1471-2393-14-69]
18. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP; STROBE Initiative. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (strobe) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 344-349. [DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008]
19. Poon LC, Kametas NA, Chelemen T, Leal A, Nicolaides KH. Maternal risk factors for hypertensive disorders in pregnancy: a multivariate approach. J Hum Hypertens 2010; 24: 104-110. [DOI:10.1038/jhh.2009.45]
20. Kosovo Unemployment Rate 2001-2016. Trading Economics. Available at: http://www.trading economics.com/kosovo/unemployment-rate.
21. Davalos ME, Sattar S, Simler K, Bidani B, Reva A, Tsirunyan S, Orlando MB. Kosovo - Gender gaps in
22. 82 International Journal of Reproductive BioMedicine Vol. 16. No. 2. pp: 77-82, February 2018
23. Sullivan EA, Chapman MG, Wang YA, Adamson GD. Population-based study of cesarean section after in vitro fertilization in Australia. Birth 2010; 37: 184-191. [DOI:10.1111/j.1523-536X.2010.00405.x]
24. Gillet E, Martens E, Martens G, Cammu H. Prelabour caesarean section following IVF/ICSI in older-term nulliparous women: too precious to push? J Pregnancy 2011; 2011: 362518.
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |