تکنیک‌های کمک باروری و پیامدهای پری‌ناتال: مقاله مروری

نوع مقاله: مروری

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری بهداشت باروری، دانشکده پرستاری و مامایی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.

2 دانشیار گروه اطفال، مرکز تحقیقات توانبخشی اعصاب اطفال، دانشگاه علوم بهزیستی و توانبخشی، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

مقدمه: حدود 9% زوجین در سراسر جهان در دوره‌ای از زندگی خود با مشکل ناباروری مواجه می­شوند. روش‌های کمک باروری (ART)، درمان معمول انتخابی برای بسیاری از زوجین نابارور است که علل آن ناشی از عامل مرد یا زن و یا ایدیوپاتیک می­باشد. مروری مطالعه حاضر با هدف مقایسه پیامدهای پری‌ناتال روش­های مختلف ART با یکدیگر و با حاملگی­های خود به خودی انجام شد.
روشکار: این مطالعه مروری با جستجو در پایگاه اطلاعاتی PubMed، Medline، SID، Scopus وThe Cochrane Library از سال 2010 تا 2016 برای یافتن مقالات مرتبط با کلمات کلیدی مناسب مانند: تکنیک­های کمک باروری و پیامدها و بارداری انجام گرفت. مقالات انگلیسی با موضوع تکنیک­های کمک باروری و پیامد پری‌ناتال وارد مطالعه شدند و در صورت عدم دسترسی به متن کامل مقاله و نتایج غیر مرتبط، از مطالعه خارج شدند.
یافته‌ها: بر اساس نتایج مطالعات مختلف، پیامد ضعیف پری‌ناتال در حاملگی ART، از جمله زایمان زودرس، LBW، SGA و مرگ‌و‌میر پری‌ناتال، در مقایسه با حاملگی طبیعی به‌طور قابل توجهی افزایش داشت.
نتیجهگیری: عوامل متعددی ‌نظیر دوقلو یا یک قلو بودن حاملگی‌های ART، نوع ART استفاده شده، پروتکل درمان و علت اصلی ناباروری اولیه، پیامد پری‌ناتال را تحت تأثیر قرار می‌دهند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Assisted Reproduction Technology and Perinatal Outcomes: A Review

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ommolbanin Zare 1
  • Farin Soleimani 2
1 PhD Student in Reproductive Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
2 Associate Professor, Department of Pediatrics, Pediatric Neuro-rehabilitation Research Center, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Introduction: Approximately 9% of couples worldwide face with infertility problem in some period of their life. Assisted reproductive technology (ART) is a common choice of treatment for many infertile couples that its case is male or female factor, or idiopathic. This review article was performed with aim to compare perinatal outcomes in different ART methods with each other and with spontaneous pregnancy.
Methods: This review article was performed by searching in databases of PubMed, Medline, SID, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library from 2010 to 2016 to find the related articles with appropriate keywords such as Assisted reproductive techniques, Outcomes, Pregnancy). The English articles on the subject of assisted reproductive techniques and perinatal outcomes were included in the study and in the case of no access to the full text of the article and the unrelated results were excluded from the study.
Results: According to the results of different studies, poor perinatal outcomes in ART pregnancies, including preterm birth, LBW, SGA and perinatal mortality were significantly higher in ART pregnancies compared with normal pregnancy.
Conclusion: Multiple factors such as singleton or twin ART pregnancies, the type of used ART, treatment protocol, and the main cause of initial infertility affect perinatal outcomes.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Assisted reproductive techniques
  • outcomes
  • pregnancy
  1. Allot L, Payne D, Dann L. Midwifery and assisted reproductive technologies. N Zealand Coll Midwives J 2013; 47:10-3.
  2. Hammadeh ME, Fischer-Hammadeh C, Refaat AK. Assisted hatching in assisted reproduction: a state of the art. J Assist Reprod Genet 2011; 28(2):119–28.
  3. Sljivancanin T, Kontic-Vucinic O. Perinatal outcomes of pregnancies conceived by assisted reproductive technologies. Srp Arh Celok Lek 2015; 143(9-10):632-8.
  4. Declercq E, Luke B, Belanoff C, Cabral H, Diop H, Gopal D, 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.
  5. Andrijasevic S, Dotlic J, Aksam S, Micic J, Terzic M. Impact of conception method on twin pregnancy course and outcome. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2014; 74(10):933–9.
  6. Dunietz GL, Holzman C, McKane P, Li C, Boulet SL, Todem D, et al. Assisted reproductive technology and the risk of preterm birth among primiparas. Fertil Steril 2015; 103(4):974–9.
  7. Sunderam S, Kissin DM, Crawford SB, Folger SG, Jamieson DJ, Warner L, et al. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance – United States, 2012. MMWR Surveill Summ 2015; 64(6):1-29.
  8. Nouri K, Ott J, Stoegbauer L, Pietrowski D, Frantal S, Walch K. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in IVF versus ICSI-conceived pregnancies at a tertiary care center--a pilot study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2013; 11:84.
  9. Lu Y, Wang N, Jin F. Long-term follow –up of children conceived through assisted reproductive technology. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 2013; 14(5):359-71.
  10. Youssef MM, Mantikou E, van Wely M, Van der Veen F, Al-Inany HG, Repping S, et al. Culture media for human pre-implantation embryos in assisted reproductive technology cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 20(11):CD007876.
  11. Kleijkers SH, van Montfoort AP, Smits LJ, Coonen E, Derhaag JG, Evers JL, et al. Age of G-1 PLUS v5 embryo culture medium is inversely associated with birthweight of the newborn. Hum Reprod 2015; 30(6):1352-7.
  12. Yin TL, Zhang Y, Li SJ, Zhao M, Ding JL, Xu WM, Yang J. Culture media influenced laboratory outcomes but not neonatal birth weight in assisted reproductive technology. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technol 2015; 35(6):932-7.
  13. Zandstra H, Van Montfoort AP, Dumoulin JC. Does the type of culture medium used influence birth weight of children born after IVF? Hum Reprod 2014; 30(3):530-42.
  14. Sunderam S, Kissin DM, Crawford SB, Folger SG, Jamieson DJ, Warner L, et al. Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance – United States, 2013. MMWR Surveill Summ 2015; 64(11):1-25.
  15. Roberts S, McGowan L, Hirst W, Brison D, Vail A, Lieberman B. Towards single embryo transfer? Modelling clinical outcomes of potential treatment choices using multiple data sources: predictive models and patient perspectives. Health Technol Assess 2010; 14(38):1-237.
  16. Pourali L, Ayati S, Jelodar S, Zarifian A, Sheikh Andalibi MS. Obstetrics and perinatal outcomes of dichorionic twin pregnancy following ART compared with spontaneous pregnancy. Int J Reprod Biomed (Yazd) 2016; 14(5): 317-22.
  17. Okun N, Sierra S. Pregnancy outcomes after assisted human reproduction. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2014; 36(1):64-83.
  18. Qin J, Wang H, Sheng X, Liang D, Tan H, Xia J. Pregnancy-related complications and adverse pregnancy outcomes in multiple pregnancies resulting from assisted reproductive technology: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Fertil Steril 2015; 103(6):1492-508.e1-7.
  19. Pandey S, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S, Maheshwari A. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2012; 18(5):485-503.
  20. Moini A, Shiva M, Arabipoor A, Hosseini R, Chehrazi M, Sadeghi M. Obstetric and neonatal outcomes of twin pregnancies conceived by assisted reproductive technology compared with twin pregnancies conceived spontaneously: a prospective follow-up study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2012; 165(1):29-32.
  21. Fan C, Sun Y, Yang J, Ye J, Wang S. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in dichorionic twin pregnancies following IVF treatment: a hospital-based comparative study. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2013; 6(10):2199-207.
  22. Geisler ME, O'Mahony A, Meaney S, Waterstone JJ, O'Donoghue K. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes of twin pregnancies conceived following IVF/ICSI treatment compared with spontaneously conceived twin pregnancies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014; 181:78-83.
  23. Anbazhagan A, Hunter A, Breathnach FM, Mcauliffe FM, Geary MP, Daly S, et al. Comparison of outcomes of twins conceived spontaneously and by artificial reproductive therapy. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2014; 27(5):458-62.
  24. Hediger ML, Bell EM, Druschel CM, Buck Louis GM. Assisted reproductive technologies and children's neurodevelopmental outcomes. Fertil Steril 2013; 99(2):311-7.
  25. Vulliemoz NR, McVeigh E, Kurinczuk J. In vitro fertilisation: perinatal risks and early childhood outcomes. Hum Fertil 2012; 15(2):62-8.
  26. Kissin DM, Kulkarni AD, Mneimneh A, Warner L, Boulet SL, Crawford S, et al. Embryo transfer practices and multiple births resulting from assisted reproductive technology: an opportunity for prevention. Fertil Steril 2015; 103(4):954-61.
  27. Wennberg AL, Opdahl S, Bergh C, Aaris Henningsen AK, Gissler M, Romundstad LB, et al. Effect of maternal age on maternal and neonatal outcomes after assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 2016; 106(5):1142-9.
  28. Pinborg A ,Wennerholm UB, Romundstad LB, Loft A, AittomakiK, Soderstrom-Anttila V, et al. Why do singletons conceived after assisted reproduction technology have adverse perinatal outcome? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2013; 19(2):87-104.
  29. Swain JE, Carrell D, Cobo A, Meseguer M, Rubio C, Smith GD. Optimizing the culture environment and embryo manipulation to help maintain embryo developmental potential. Fertil Steril 2016; 105(3):571–87.
  30. Henningsen AK, Pinborg A, Lidegaard Q, Vestergaard C, Forman JL, Andersen AN. Perinatal outcome of singleton siblings born after assisted reproductive technology and spontaneous conception: Danish national sibling-cohort study. Fertil Steril 2010; 95(3):959-63.
  31. Barnhart KT. Assisted reproductive technologies and perinatal morbidity: interrogating the association. Fertil Steril 2013; 99(2):299–302.
  32. Wisborg K, Ingerslev HJ, Henriksen TB. In vitro fertilization and preterm delivery, low birth weight, and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit: a prospective follow-up study. Fertil Steril 2010; 94(6):2102-6.
  33. Dar S, Librach CL, Gunby J, Bissonnette F, Cowan L. Increased risk of preterm birth in singleton pregnancies after blastocyst versus Day 3 embryo transfer: Canadian ART Register (CARTR) analysis. Hum Reprod 2012; 28(4):924-8.
  34. Ginström Ernstad E, Bergh C, Khatibi A, Källén KB, Westlander G, Nilsson S, et al. Neonatal and maternal outcome after blastocyst transfer: a population-based registry study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 214(3):378.e1-10.
  35. Maheshwari A, Kalampokas T, Davidson J, Bhattacharya S. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from the transfer of blastocyst-stage versus cleavage-stage embryos generated through in vitro fertilization treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2013; 100(6):1615-21.e1-10.
  36. Luke B, Brown MB, Stern JE. Factors associated with monozygosity in assisted reproductive technology pregnancies and risk of recurrence using linked cycles. Fertil Steril 2014; 101(3):683–9.
  37. Papanikolaou EG, Fatemi H, Venetis C, Donoso P, Kolibianakis E, Tournaye H, et al. Monozygotic twinning is not increased after single blastocyst transfer compared with single cleavage-stage embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2010; 93(2):592-7.
  38. Sun L, Zou G, Wei X, Chen Y, Zhang J, Okun N, et al. Clinical outcomes after assisted reproductive technology in twin pregnancies: chorionicity-based comparison.Sci Rep 2016; 6:26869.
  39. Caserta D, Bordi G, Stegagno M, Filippini F, Podagrosi M, Roselli D, et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes in spontaneous versus assisted conception twin pregnancies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014; 174:64-9.
  40. Grady R, Alavi N, Vale R, Khandwala M, McDonald SD. Elective single embryo transfer and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2012; 97(2):324-31.
  41. Wennerholm UB, Henningsen AK, Romundstad LB, Bergh C, Pinborg A, Skjaerven R, et al. Perinatal outcomes of children born after frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a Nordic cohort study from the CoNARTaS group. Hum Reprod 2013; 28(9):2545-53.
  42. Luke S, Sappenfield WM, Kirby RS, McKane P, Bernson D, Zhang Y, et al. The impact of ART on live birth outcomes: differing experiences across three states. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2016; 30(3):209-16.
  43. Maarofizade S, Omani SR, Amini P. Relationship between assisted reproductive technology and the risk of preterm labor among singleton live-birth in Tehran Province, Iran. Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil 2016; 19(33):1-6. (Persian).
  44. Savage T, Peek J, Hofman PL, Cutfield WS. Childhood outcomes of assisted reproductive technology. Hum Reprod 2011; 26(9):2392-400.
  45. Swain JE. Optimal human embryo culture. Semin Reprod Med 2015; 33(2):103-17.
  46. Vergouw GC, Kostelijk EH, Doejaaren E, Hompes PG, Lambalk CB, Schats R. The influence of the type of embryo culture medium on neonatal birthweight after single embryo transfer in IVF. Hum Reprod 2012; 27(9):2619-26.
  47. Lin S, Li M, Lian Y, Chen L, Liu P. No effect of embryo culture media on birth weight and length of newborns. Hum Reprod 2013; 28(7):1762-7.
  48. Kondapalli LA, Perales-Puchalt A. Low birth weight: is it related to assisted reproductive technology or underlying infertility? Fertil Steril 2013; 99(2):303–10.