Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Perinatal Medicine

Official Journal of the World Association of Perinatal Medicine

Editor-in-Chief: Dudenhausen, MD, FRCOG, Joachim W.

Ed. by Bancalari, Eduardo / Chappelle, Joseph / Chervenak, Frank A. / D'Addario , Vincenzo / Genc, Mehmet R. / Greenough, Anne / Grunebaum, Amos / Konje, Justin C. / Kurjak M.D., Asim / Romero, Roberto / Zalud, MD PhD, Ivica


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.361
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.578

CiteScore 2018: 1.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.522
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.602

Online
ISSN
1619-3997
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 46, Issue 7

Issues

Pregnancy outcomes among patients with recurrent pregnancy loss and chromosomal aberration (CA) without PGD

Maor Kabessa
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Avi Harlev
  • Fertility and IVF unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Michael Friger
  • Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Public Health, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Ruslan Sergienko
  • Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Public Health, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Baila Litwak
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Arie Koifman
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Naama Steiner
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Asher Bashiri
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-06-26 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2016-0408

Abstract

Background:

Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is defined by two or more failed clinical pregnancies. Three to four percent of the couples with RPL have chromosomal aberrations (CA) in at least one partner. The parent’s structural chromosomal abnormalities may cause an unbalanced karyotype in the conceptus which could lead to implantation failure, early or late pregnancy loss, or delivery of a child with severe physical and/or mental disabilities.

Objective:

To compare live birth rates of couples with CA to couples with normal karyotypes and to investigate medical and obstetric characteristics and pregnancy outcomes of couples with CA and RPL who attend an RPL clinic at a tertiary hospital.

Methods:

A retrospective cohort study, including 349 patients with two or more consecutive pregnancy losses. The study group consisted of 52 patients with CA, and the control group consisted of 297 couples with normal karyotype. All patients were evaluated and treated in the RPL clinic at Soroka University Medical Center and had at least one subsequent spontaneous pregnancy.

Results:

The demographic and clinical characteristics were not found to be statistically different between the two groups. The group of carriers of CA had 28/52 (53.8%) live births in their index pregnancy vs. the normal 202/297 (68%) (P=0.067, CI 95%) in the control group. No statistically significant etiology was found between the study group and the control group. A statistically significant difference in live birth rates was found when comparing the total amount of pregnancies [index pregnancy (IP)+post index pregnancy (PIP)] between the study group and the control group (54.16% vs. 67.82%, respectively, P=0.0328).

Conclusion:

Patients with RPL and CA who have spontaneous pregnancies, have a good prognosis (63.4%) of a successful pregnancy with at least one of the pregnancies (index or post index) resulting in a live birth.

Keywords: Chromosomal aberration; recurrent miscarriages; recurrent pregnancy loss; stillbirth

References

  • [1]

    Medicine PCotASfR. Evaluation and treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:1103–11.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [2]

    Medicine PCotASfR. Definitions of infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:63.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [3]

    Koifman, A. Genetics of recurrent pregnancy loss. In: Ed. Bashiri A. Recurrent pregnancy loss. Evidence-based evaluation, diagnosis and treatment. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2016. pp. 53–66. Print.Google Scholar

  • [4]

    Shahine L, Lathi R. Recurrent pregnancy loss: evaluation and treatment. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2015;42:117–34.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [5]

    Regan L, Rai R, Backos M. The investigation and treatment of couples with recurrent first-trimester and second-trimester miscarriage. London, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (2011).Google Scholar

  • [6]

    Franssen MT, Musters AM, van der Veen F, Repping S, Leschot NJ, Bossuyt PM, et al. Reproductive outcome after PGD in couples with recurrent miscarriage carrying a structural chromosome abnormality: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:467–75.CrossrefWeb of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [7]

    Franssen MT, Korevaar JC, van der Veen F, Leschot NJ, Bossuyt PM, Goddijn M. Reproductive outcome after chromosome analysis in couples with two or more miscarriages: case-control study. Br Med J. 2006;332:759–63.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [8]

    Sugiura-Ogasawara M, Ozaki Y, Sato T, Suzumori N, Suzumori K. Poor prognosis of recurrent aborters with either maternal or paternal reciprocal translocations. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:367–73.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [9]

    Carp H, Feldman B, Oelsner G, Schiff E. Parental karyotype and subsequent live births in recurrent miscarriage. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:1296–301.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [10]

    Miyakis S, Lockshin M, Atsumi T, Branch D, Brey R, Cervera R, et al. International consensus statement on an update of the classification criteria for definite antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). J Thromb Haemost. 2006;4:295–306.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [11]

    Bashiri A, Ratzon R, Amar S, Serjienko R, Mazor M, Shoham-Vardi I. Two vs. three or more primary recurrent pregnancy losses – are there any differences in epidemiologic characteristics and index pregnancy outcome? J Perinat Med 2012;40:365–71.PubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [12]

    Ghazaey S, Keify F, Mirzaei F, Maleki M, Tootian S, Ahadian M, et al. Chromosomal analysis of couples with repeated spontaneous abortions in northeastern Iran. Int J Fertil Steril. 2015;9:47–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [13]

    Stephenson M, Awartani K, Robinson W. Cytogenetic analysis of miscarriages from couples with recurrent miscarriage: a case–control study. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:446–51.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [14]

    Kochhar PK, Ghosh P. Reproductive outcome of couples with recurrent miscarriage and balanced chromosomal abnormalities. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2013;39:113–20.Web of SciencePubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [15]

    Soh K-I, Yajima A, Ozawa N, Abe Y, Takabayashi T, Sato S, et al. Chromosome analysis in couples with recurrent abortions. Tohoku J Exp Med. 1984;144:151–63.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [16]

    Flynn H, Yan J, Saravelos SH, Li TC. Comparison of reproductive outcome, including the pattern of loss, between couples with chromosomal abnormalities and those with unexplained repeated miscarriages. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014;40:109–16.CrossrefWeb of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [17]

    Sugiura-Ogasawara M, Aoki K, Fujii T, Fujita T, Kawaguchi R, Maruyama T, et al. Subsequent pregnancy outcomes in recurrent miscarriage patients with a paternal or maternal carrier of a structural chromosome rearrangement. J Hum Genetics. 2008;53:622–8.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [18]

    Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, Audibert F, Genetics Committee, Wilson RD, Audibert F, et al. Technical update: preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. Obstet Gynecol Survey 2015;70:557–8.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [19]

    Sahlin E, Gustavsson P, Liedén A, Papadogiannakis N, Bjäreborn L, Pettersson K, et al. Molecular and cytogenetic analysis in stillbirth: results from 481 consecutive cases. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2014;36:326–32.Web of SciencePubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [20]

    Varli IH, Petersson K, Bottinga R, Bremme K, Hofsjö A, Holm M, et al. The Stockholm classification of stillbirth. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008;87:1202–12.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-12-14

Accepted: 2017-04-27

Published Online: 2017-06-26

Published in Print: 2018-09-25


Author’s statement

Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest.Material and methods: Informed consent: Informed consent has been obtained from all individuals included in this study.

Ethical approval: The research related to human subject use has complied with all the relevant national regulations, and institutional policies, and is in accordance with the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration, and has been approved by the authors’ institutional review board or equivalent committee.


Citation Information: Journal of Perinatal Medicine, Volume 46, Issue 7, Pages 764–770, ISSN (Online) 1619-3997, ISSN (Print) 0300-5577, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2016-0408.

Export Citation

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Justin C. Konje
Journal of Perinatal Medicine, 2018, Volume 46, Number 7, Page 697
[2]
Mahmoud Iews, Justin Tan, Omur Taskin, Sukainah Alfaraj, Faten F. AbdelHafez, Ahmed H. Abdellah, and Mohamed A. Bedaiwy
Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 2018

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in