Adverse Fetometernal Outcomes in Women Who Received Various Infertility Treatments before Conception
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70749/ijbr.v3i6.3174Keywords:
Infertility. Assisted Reproductive Technique, Fetomaternal OutcomesAbstract
Background: Growing number of hormonal reproductive technique and assisted reproductive techniques are being employed to couples presenting for infertility. However, the outcomes of these techniques have seldomly been reported from our population and majority of the data comes from international studies, the results of which cannot be generalized. Hence it is important to have knowledge about outcomes in local population. Hence the study has been planned. Results of my study will enable obstetricians in better counselling of the regarding fetomaternal outcomes in patients receiving infertility treatments. Objective: To determine the frequency of various fetomaternal outcomes in patients with infertility treatments and compare hormonal treatment and assisted reproductive technique. Methods: This descriptive study was carried out at the department of Obs and Gynae, KTH, Peshawar during the period from November 2024 to April 2025. Patients aging 20 to 40 years, with gestational age more than 20 weeks with history of hormonal or assisted reproductive technique on medical record were enrolled. Patients were evaluated for fetomaternal outcomes. Results: The mean age of the participants was 30.49±5.528 years and 77 patients (51.3%) were aging more than 30 years. 68 participants (45.3%) had received hormonal treatment and 82 (54.7%) had assisted reproductive techniques. Still birth was recorded in 9 patients (24.3%) with hormonal treatment compared to 28 (75.7%) with ART (p = 0.003). Low Apgar was more common with hormonal treatment (n = 18, 66.7%) compared to 9 (33.3%) with ART (p value 0.014). PPH was more frequent with ART (n = 21, 72.4%) compared to 8 (27.6%) with hormonal treatment (p value 0.033). Conclusion: Fertility treatments including hormonal and ART are associated with a variety of maternal and postnatal problems. Some of the primary reasons for this might be the advanced age of the women who opt for it, the lack of conception history among these individuals, and the associated high-risk variables.
Downloads
References
1. Kushnir VA, Barad DH, Albertini DF, Darmon SK, Gleicher N. Systematic review of worldwide trends in assisted reproductive technology 2004–2013. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2017;15:6-11.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-016-0225-2
2. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S, Racowsky C, De Mouzon J, Sokol R, et al. The international glossary on infertility and fertility care, 2017. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:1786–801.
https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex234
3. Fauser BC. Towards the global coverage of a unified registry of IVF outcomes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2019;38:133–7
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.12.001
4. Qin JB, Sheng XQ, Wang H, Chen GC, Yang J, Yu H, et al. Worldwide prevalence of adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection among multiple births: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on cohort studies. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295:577–97.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4291-2
5. 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;103:1492–508.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.03.018
6. Dimanlig-Cruz S, Corsi DJ, Lanes A, Meng L, Miao Q, Walker M, et al. Perinatal and pediatric outcomes associated with the use of fertility treatment: a population-based retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023;23(1):121-25.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05446-3
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 clinic Exp Med. 2015;8(4):6272.
8. Saccone G, Zullo F, Roman A, Ward A, Maruotti G, Martinelli P, et al. Risk of spontaneous preterm birth in IVF-conceived twin pregnancies. J Mater Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;32(3):369-76.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1378339
9. Luke B, Stern JE, Kotelchuck M, Declercq ER, Anderka M, Diop H. Birth outcomes by infertility treatment: analyses of the population-based cohort Massachusetts outcomes study of assisted. 26. Zhu L, Zhang Y, Liu Y, Zhang R, Wu Y, Huang Y, et al. Maternal and live-birth outcomes of pregnancies following assisted reproductive technology: a retrospective cohort study. Scient Reports. 2016;6:35141.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.07.066
10. Gao L, Yang S. Perinatal outcomes of children born after assisted reproduction technology: A review. Austin J Reprod Med Infertil. 2015;2(5):1025.
11. Jie Z, Yiling D, Ling Y. Association of assisted reproductive technology with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Iranian J Reprod Med. 2015;13(3):169.
12. Wang AY, Safi N, Ali F, Lui K, Li Z, Umstad MP, et al. Neonatal outcomes among twins following assisted reproductive technology: an Australian populationbased retrospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18(1):320.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1949-0
13. McLernon DJ, Harrild K, Bergh C, Davies MJ, De Neubourg D, Dumoulin JC, et al. Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;341:c6945.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6945
14. Daniel Y, Ochshorn Y, Fait G, Geva E, Bar-Am A, Lessing JB. Analysis of 104 twin pregnancies conceived with assisted reproductive technologies and 193 spontaneously conceived twin pregnancies. Fertil Steril. 2000;74(4):683-9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(00)01491-6
15. Pourali L, Ayati S, Jelodar S, Zarifian A, Andalibi MS. Obstetrics and perinatal outcomes of dichorionic twin pregnancy following ART compared with spontaneous pregnancy. Int J Reprod Bio Med. 2016;14(5):317.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Indus Journal of Bioscience Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
