scholarly journals Embryonic growth discordance and early fetal loss: the STORK multiple pregnancy cohort and systematic review

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (10) ◽  
pp. 2621-2627 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. D'Antonio ◽  
A. Khalil ◽  
E. Mantovani ◽  
B. Thilaganathan ◽  
Rosol Hamid ◽  
...  
2013 ◽  
Vol 42 (s1) ◽  
pp. 44-44
Author(s):  
F. D'Antonio ◽  
A. Khalil ◽  
E. Mantovani ◽  
B. Thilaganathan

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 678-684 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. J. Davies ◽  
A. R. Rumbold ◽  
M. J. Whitrow ◽  
K. J. Willson ◽  
W. K. Scheil ◽  
...  

The study of very early pregnancy loss is impractical in the general population, but possible amongst infertility patients receiving carefully monitored treatments. We examined the association between fetal loss and the risk of birth defects in the surviving co-twin in a retrospective cohort study of infertility patients within an infertility clinic in South Australia from January 1986 to December 2002, linked to population registries for births, terminations and birth defects. The study population consisted of a total of 5683 births. Births from singleton pregnancies without loss were compared with survivors from (1) pregnancies with an empty fetal sac at 6–8 weeks after embryo transfer, (2) fetal loss subsequent to 8-week ultrasound and (3) multiple pregnancy continuing to birth. Odds ratios (OR) for birth defects were calculated with adjustment for confounders. Amongst infertility patients, the prevalence of birth defects was 7.9% for all twin pregnancies without fetal loss compared with 14.6% in pregnancies in which there had been an empty sac at ultrasound, and 11.6% for pregnancies with fetal loss after 6–8 weeks. Compared with singleton pregnancies without loss, the presence of an empty sac was associated with an increased risk of any defect (OR=1.90, 95% confidence intervals (CI)=1.09–3.30) and with multiple defects (OR=2.87, 95% CI=1.31–6.28). Twin pregnancies continuing to birth without loss were not associated with an overall increased prevalence of defects. We conclude that the observed loss of a co-twin by 6–8 weeks of pregnancy is related to the risk of major birth defects in the survivor.


Author(s):  
Zahra Hadizadeh-Talasaz ◽  
Ali Taghipour ◽  
Seyede Houra Mousavi-Vahed ◽  
Robab Latifnejad Roudsari

Background: For a woman with bleeding and threatened abortion, ultrasound scan is done to confirm the viability of the fetus; however, 10-15% of the embryos are eventually aborted. Distinguishing between women with good and poor prognosis can be a helpful approach. Objective: This study aimed to review the predictive value of Pregnancy-associated Plasma Protein A (PAPP-A) in relation to the diagnosis of fetal loss. Materials and Methods: The articles published in multiple databases including Web of Science, PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Persian databases such as ISC, Magiran, and IranMedx were searched for articles published until May 2019. MeSH terms was used for searching the databases including fetal loss OR pregnancy loss OR abortion OR miscarriage with the following word using AND; Pregnancy-Associated Plasma Protein- A OR PAPP-A. Two reviewers extracted data and recorded them in a pre-defined form and assessed the quality of articles using the Newcastle-Ottawa tool. Meta-analysis was done using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis/2.0 software and MetaDisc. Results: A total number of 16 studies were eligible for the qualitative data synthesis, out of which 8 studies were included in the meta-analysis. All studies had high and medium quality. The forest plot analysis showed a sensitivity of 57% (95% CI: 53-63%), a specificity of 83% (95% CI: 80-85%), a positive likelihood ratio of 3.52 (95% CI: 2.44- 5.07), a negative likelihood ratio of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.37-0.79), and a diagnostic odds ratio of 6.95 (95% CI: 3.58-13.50). Conclusion: PAPP-A cannot be recommended on a routine basis for predicting fetal loss and still further research with a combination of other biomarkers is required. Key words: Pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A, Fetal loss, Pregnancy, Systematic review.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7_2021 ◽  
pp. 10-18
Author(s):  
Bespalova O.N. Bespalova ◽  
Butenko M.G. Butenko ◽  
Pachulia O.V. Pachulia ◽  
Glotov A.S. Glotov ◽  
Kogan I.Yu. Kogan ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document