alexa Natural Pregnancy vs. After Assisted Reproduction treatment Pregnancy, is there a Difference in the Results of the First Quarter Prenatal Screen? | Open Access Journals
ISSN: 2161-038X
Reproductive System & Sexual Disorders: Current Research
Like us on:
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on
Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

Natural Pregnancy vs. After Assisted Reproduction treatment Pregnancy, is there a Difference in the Results of the First Quarter Prenatal Screen?

M Mercedes Calero Ruiz*, Fernando Hernández Pacho and Marta Rico Rodriguez

UGC, Clinical Analysis, H.U. Puerta Del Mar, Cádiz, Spain

*Corresponding Author:
Ruiz MMC
UGC. Clinical Analysis, H.U. Puerta Del Mar. Cádiz, Spain
Tel: +34636797997
E-mail: [email protected]

Received date: May 24, 2017; Accepted date: August 04, 2017; Published date: August 14, 2017

Citation: Ruiz MMC, Pacho FH, Rodriguez MR (2017) Natural Pregnancy vs. After Assisted Reproduction treatment Pregnancy, is there a Difference in the Results of the First Quarter Prenatal Screen?. Reprod Syst Sex Disord 6:210. doi: 10.4172/2161-038X.1000210

Copyright: © 2017 Ruiz MMC, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Reproductive System & Sexual Disorders: Current Research

Introduction

In the present obstetric care, prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal anomalies is a priority. Separate mention deserves the pregnancies obtained after the application of techniques of assisted reproduction (IVF / ICSI), with the controversy as to if these they carry an increase of malformations, chromosomic abnormalities, etc [1-3].

Objective

Objective

Material and method

The results of all prenatal screening performed during the year 2016 are collected in our Unit through an Omnium consultation assistant.

The levels of free B-hcg and Pappa are performed between the 8-10 week of gestation while the measurement of nuchal translucency (TN) is carried out at week 12-13 of pregnancy. The biochemical markers were performed by electrochemiluminescence on the cobas 6000 analyzer from Roche Diagnostics while the calculation of multiples of the median (MoMs) and risk is performed with the SdWLab program (cutoff point 1/270).

The following demographic data were collected: age, smoking, weight, diabetes mellitus and IVF / ICSI gestation.

The statistical study was performed with SPSS 15.0 package for Windows.

As we can not assume normality of the sample for the MoMs variables (according to Kolmogorov-Smimov test), hypothesis test is performed to compare means (Mann-Whitney U) and Fisher's test for comparison of screening results.

Results

A total of 1382 prenatal screening tests were performed, corresponding to 84 (6.1%) to IVF / ICSI gestations and 1298 (93.9%) to natural gestations.

The results obtained are described in the Tables 1-3:

Variables Natural pregnancies n=1298 FIV/ICSI pregnancies n=84
Weight 
Mean 67,32 ± 14,39 68,14 ± 14,77
Interval al 95% 66,53-68,10 64,94-71,35
Smoking 
Nº cases 257(19,79%) 16(19,05%)
Diabetes
Nº cases 11(0,85%) 1(1,19%)

Table 1: Variables weight, smoking and diabetes in natural gestations and gestations after IVF / ICSI.

  Natural pregnancies n=1298 FIV/ICSI pregnancies N=84
MoMs B-hcglibre
Mean 1,14 ± 0,741           2,15 ± 7,70 
Interval 95%                              1,10-1,19                  0,46-3,85
p >0.05 -
MoMsPappa
Mean 1,00 ± 0,682 2,30 ± 8,721                     
Interval 95%                                1,16-1,26 0,38-4,21
p >0.05 -
MoMs TN
Mean 1,01 ± 0,383 1,22 ± 2,117
Interval 95%  0,99-1,03 0,75-1,68
p >0.05 -

Table 2: Mean, interval confidence 95% y maximum-minimum MoMs in natural gestations and after IVF / ICSI gestations.

Screening results Normal Patologic p
Natural Pregnancies naturales 1260(97,1%) 38(2,9%) 0.366
FIV/ICSI Pregnancies 82(97,6%) 2(2,4%)

Table 3: Screening results.

Conclusions

The possible association between congenital, malformative and chromosomal defects, and assisted reproduction treatments continues to be a controversial issue in the literature [4,5].

Our study shows that there are no significant differences in multiples of the median (biochemical and ultrasound variables) or in the rate of pathological screening, which need to be confirmed by invasive techniques. In spite of this, and due to the small number of pathological cases observed, it is advisable to extend the study in order to confirm this affirmation.

The risk calculations are performed with a previously validated computer system, with modifications of the reference charts according to our experience of more than 10 years and suitable to our reference population, as recommended by all clinical practice guidelines.

References

Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Post your comment

Share This Article

Relevant Topics

Recommended Conferences

  • International Conference on Gynecology and Obstetrics Pathology
    October 23-24, 2017 Orlando, USA
  • 5th International Conference on HIV/AIDS, STDs and STIs
    Nov 13-14, 2017, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

Article Usage

  • Total views: 59
  • [From(publication date):
    September-2017 - Oct 19, 2017]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views : 41
  • PDF downloads :18
 

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri, Food, Aqua and Veterinary Science Journals

Dr. Krish

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Clinical and Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemical Engineering and Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Earth & Environmental Sciences

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science and Health care Journals

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics and Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Informatics Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Material Sciences Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Mathematics and Physics Journals

Jim Willison

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

John Behannon

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

 
© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version
adwords