利用辅助生殖技术受孕的新生儿出生体重偏低。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Eva Waldaufova, Anna Stastna, Tomas Fait
{"title":"利用辅助生殖技术受孕的新生儿出生体重偏低。","authors":"Eva Waldaufova, Anna Stastna, Tomas Fait","doi":"10.4149/BLL_2024_023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Couples are increasingly using assisted reproduction technology (ART) to facilitate having children. This raises the question of whether using ART leads to the same health outcomes as spontaneous conception.One of the major health outcome factors concerns the weight of the newborn. Many foreign studies have proved that newborns conceived via ART evince lower birth weights than newborns that were conceived spontaneously. The purpose of this study is to determine whether the risk of low birth weight differs according to the ART method selected (in-vitro fertilisation with fresh embryo transfer, frozen embryo transfer, oocyte receipt), and which of these methods is associated with the lowest risk of a low birth weight. Anonymised individual data on all deliveries that took place in Czechia between 2013 and 2018 was used for the analysis. The dataset was obtained from the National Registry of Reproduction Health (administered by IHIS CR).The binary logistic regression revealed that concerning many of the covariates controlled, women who underwent IVF had a higher risk (30 %) of giving birth to a child with a low birth weight than women who received frozen embryo transfer treatment (CI 1.15-1.48). Women who underwent oocyte receipt treatment were found to have an even higher (52 %, CI 1.17-1.97) risk than women who received frozen embryo transfer. This study supports existing international knowledge of the specifics of the health outcomes of women who use ART (Tab. 1, Fig. 3, Ref. 32). Keywords: Low birth weight, assisted reproduction technology, in-vitro fertilisation, frozen embryo transfer, oocyte receipt.</p>","PeriodicalId":55328,"journal":{"name":"Bratislava Medical Journal-Bratislavske Lekarske Listy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The low birth weights of newborns conceived using assisted reproduction technology.\",\"authors\":\"Eva Waldaufova, Anna Stastna, Tomas Fait\",\"doi\":\"10.4149/BLL_2024_023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Couples are increasingly using assisted reproduction technology (ART) to facilitate having children. This raises the question of whether using ART leads to the same health outcomes as spontaneous conception.One of the major health outcome factors concerns the weight of the newborn. Many foreign studies have proved that newborns conceived via ART evince lower birth weights than newborns that were conceived spontaneously. The purpose of this study is to determine whether the risk of low birth weight differs according to the ART method selected (in-vitro fertilisation with fresh embryo transfer, frozen embryo transfer, oocyte receipt), and which of these methods is associated with the lowest risk of a low birth weight. Anonymised individual data on all deliveries that took place in Czechia between 2013 and 2018 was used for the analysis. The dataset was obtained from the National Registry of Reproduction Health (administered by IHIS CR).The binary logistic regression revealed that concerning many of the covariates controlled, women who underwent IVF had a higher risk (30 %) of giving birth to a child with a low birth weight than women who received frozen embryo transfer treatment (CI 1.15-1.48). Women who underwent oocyte receipt treatment were found to have an even higher (52 %, CI 1.17-1.97) risk than women who received frozen embryo transfer. This study supports existing international knowledge of the specifics of the health outcomes of women who use ART (Tab. 1, Fig. 3, Ref. 32). Keywords: Low birth weight, assisted reproduction technology, in-vitro fertilisation, frozen embryo transfer, oocyte receipt.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55328,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bratislava Medical Journal-Bratislavske Lekarske Listy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bratislava Medical Journal-Bratislavske Lekarske Listy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4149/BLL_2024_023\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bratislava Medical Journal-Bratislavske Lekarske Listy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4149/BLL_2024_023","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

越来越多的夫妇使用辅助生殖技术(ART)来生儿育女。这就提出了一个问题:使用 ART 是否会带来与自然受孕相同的健康结果。许多国外研究证明,通过 ART 受孕的新生儿出生体重低于自然受孕的新生儿。本研究的目的是确定新生儿体重过轻的风险是否因所选择的 ART 方法(体外受精与新鲜胚胎移植、冷冻胚胎移植、卵母细胞接收)而有所不同,以及哪种方法与新生儿体重过轻的最低风险相关。分析使用的是 2013 年至 2018 年期间在捷克进行的所有分娩的匿名个人数据。数据集来自国家生殖健康登记处(由IHIS CR管理)。二元逻辑回归结果显示,在控制了许多协变量的情况下,接受试管婴儿的妇女比接受冷冻胚胎移植治疗的妇女生育低出生体重儿的风险更高(30%)(CI为1.15-1.48)。接受卵细胞接收治疗的妇女比接受冷冻胚胎移植的妇女生育低体重儿的风险更高(52%,CI 1.17-1.97)。这项研究支持了国际上对使用抗逆转录病毒疗法的妇女的健康结果的具体情况的现有认识(表 1,图 3,参考文献 32)。关键词低出生体重、辅助生殖技术、体外受精、冷冻胚胎移植、卵母细胞接收。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The low birth weights of newborns conceived using assisted reproduction technology.

Couples are increasingly using assisted reproduction technology (ART) to facilitate having children. This raises the question of whether using ART leads to the same health outcomes as spontaneous conception.One of the major health outcome factors concerns the weight of the newborn. Many foreign studies have proved that newborns conceived via ART evince lower birth weights than newborns that were conceived spontaneously. The purpose of this study is to determine whether the risk of low birth weight differs according to the ART method selected (in-vitro fertilisation with fresh embryo transfer, frozen embryo transfer, oocyte receipt), and which of these methods is associated with the lowest risk of a low birth weight. Anonymised individual data on all deliveries that took place in Czechia between 2013 and 2018 was used for the analysis. The dataset was obtained from the National Registry of Reproduction Health (administered by IHIS CR).The binary logistic regression revealed that concerning many of the covariates controlled, women who underwent IVF had a higher risk (30 %) of giving birth to a child with a low birth weight than women who received frozen embryo transfer treatment (CI 1.15-1.48). Women who underwent oocyte receipt treatment were found to have an even higher (52 %, CI 1.17-1.97) risk than women who received frozen embryo transfer. This study supports existing international knowledge of the specifics of the health outcomes of women who use ART (Tab. 1, Fig. 3, Ref. 32). Keywords: Low birth weight, assisted reproduction technology, in-vitro fertilisation, frozen embryo transfer, oocyte receipt.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
185
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The international biomedical journal - Bratislava Medical Journal – Bratislavske lekarske listy (Bratisl Lek Listy/Bratisl Med J) publishes peer-reviewed articles on all aspects of biomedical sciences, including experimental investigations with clear clinical relevance, original clinical studies and review articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信