Evidence-based investigations and treatments of recurrent pregnancy loss

2005 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 821-839 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ole B. Christiansen ◽  
Anne-Marie Nybo Andersen ◽  
Ernesto Bosch ◽  
Salim Daya ◽  
Peter J. Delves ◽  
...  
2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elzaan C Van Niekerk ◽  
Igno Siebert ◽  
Theunis Frans Kruger

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. 460-467
Author(s):  
Tofan Widya Utam ◽  
Lowilius Wiyono ◽  
Nathalia Isabella M ◽  
Nadine Herdwita Putri Soer ◽  
Karel Handito Syafi Suma ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Ruth Bender Atik ◽  
Ole Bjarne Christiansen ◽  
Janine Elson ◽  
Astrid Marie Kolte ◽  
...  

Abstract STUDY QUESTION What is the recommended management of women with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) based on the best available evidence in the literature? SUMMARY ANSWER The guideline development group formulated 77 recommendations answering 18 key questions on investigations and treatments for RPL, and on how care should be organized. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY A previous guideline for the investigation and medical treatment of recurrent miscarriage was published in 2006 and is in need of an update. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. After formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 31 March 2017 and written in English were included. Cumulative live birth rate, live birth rate and pregnancy loss rate (or miscarriage rate) were considered the critical outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline group. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the guideline group and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The guideline provides 38 recommendations on risk factors, prevention and investigations in couples with RPL, and 39 recommendations on treatments. These include 60 evidence-based recommendations – of which 31 were formulated as strong recommendations and 29 as conditional – and 17 good practice points. The evidence supporting investigations and treatment of couples with RPL is limited and of moderate quality. Of the evidence-based recommendations, only 10 (16.3%) were supported by moderate quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (35 recommendations: 57.4%), or very low quality evidence (16 recommendations: 26.2%). There were no recommendations based on high quality evidence. Owing to the lack of evidence-based investigations and treatments in RPL care, the guideline also clearly mentions investigations and treatments that should not be used for couples with RPL. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Several investigations and treatments are offered to couples with RPL, but most of them are not well studied. For most of these investigations and treatments, a recommendation against the intervention or treatment was formulated based on insufficient evidence. Future studies may require these recommendations to be revised. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in RPL, based on the best evidence available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in RPL. One of the most important consequences of the limited evidence is the absence of evidence for a definition of RPL. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. J.E. reports position funding from CARE Fertility. S.L. reports position funding from SpermComet Ltd. S.M. reports research grants, consulting and speaker’s fees from GSK, BMS/Pfizer, Sanquin, Aspen, Bayer and Daiichi Sankyo. S.Q. reports speaker’s fees from Ferring. The other authors report no conflicts of interest. ESHRE Pages are not externally peer reviewed. This article has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Channing Burks ◽  
Mary D Stephenson ◽  
Danny J Schust

The objective of this review is to highlight central issues relating to recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), including use of updated terminologies, updated criteria for initiating an RPL evaluation, and an evidence-based standard diagnostic evaluation. RPL is a condition characterized by repeated spontaneous demise of pregnancy. It is a multifactorial disorder that affects approximately 5% of couples in the general population who are trying to have a child. RPL should be defined as two or more pregnancy losses at any gestational age; these do not necessarily need to be consecutive. As 50 to 70% of pregnancy losses of less than 10 weeks gestational age are due to random numeric chromosome errors, we recommend chromosome testing of miscarriage tissues with the second and all subsequent miscarriages less than 10 weeks gestational age. If the second pregnancy loss is “unexplained,” meaning that the chromosome content is euploid (46,XX of pregnancy origin, 46,XY, or a balanced structural chromosomal rearrangement), then an RPL diagnostic evaluation is indicated. Despite a comprehensive evaluation, approximately 40% of couples with RPL will not have a specific etiologic factor identified. In these couples, as with all couples experiencing RPL, empirical management with close monitoring and supportive care during the first trimester is associated with encouraging subsequent live birth rates.   This review contains 10 figures, 5 tables and 57 references Key words: factors associated with recurrent pregnancy loss, idiopathic recurrent pregnancy loss, miscarriage chromosome testing, nonvisualized pregnancy loss, pregnancy of unknown location, recurrent miscarriage, recurrent pregnancy loss


2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laudelino Lopes ◽  
George P. Jacob

AbstractThe value of testing for inherited thrombophilia in pregnancy has been debated in literature with regard to its utility in preventing adverse obstetrical outcomes or identifying women at risk for it. In this commentary, an evidence based approach is used to investigate the strength of association between thrombophilias and recurrent pregnancy loss and stillbirth. Several studies and meta-analyses have shown that there is only a weak association with recurrent pregnancy loss. However, many of these studies were underpowered, and there was significant heterogeneity-issues that are addressed in this paper. The evidence for association with stillbirth is lacking, but the few studies that are available seem to suggest a stronger correlation than for recurrent pregnancy loss. Further, the benefit of treating thrombophilias with anticoagulation in order to prevent these outcomes is discussed. While there is a lack of evidence looking at whether anticoagulation prevents stillbirth, there is strong evidence to show that anticoagulation does not prevent recurrent pregnancy loss. Finally, guidelines put out by various obstetrical and hematological societies regarding this topic are summarized.


Author(s):  
Shubhi Vishwakarma ◽  
Sonia Khari ◽  
Pooja Verma

Background: Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is one of the most frustrating and difficult areas in reproductive medicine because the aetiology is often unknown and there are only few evidence-based diagnostic and treatment strategies. Objective of this study was to compare the role of trans vaginal sonography with hysteroscopy in detection of uterine causes of abortions.Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted in the department of obstetrics and gynaecology, Kasturba Hospital, Daryaganj, Delhi. The study was conducted from January 2016 to December 2016.Results: On transvaginal sonography majority of women i.e. 39(78%) patients had normal ultra-sonographic findings. 11(22%) showed various abnormal findings. Most commonly diagnosed abnormal finding on TVS was polyp, seen in 5(10%) patients. It was seen as a well-defined, uniformly hyperechoic mass within the endometrial cavity. normal hysteroscopic findings were seen in 27(54%) patients. Rest 23(46%) patients had abnormal uterine factors as diagnosed by hysteroscopy.Synechiae was detected in 9(18%) patients. It was the most common abnormality detected on hysteroscopy. Out of 9 patients who had synechiae, 2 had severe dense adhesions. In 6 patients, the adhesions were mild and flimsy. While minimal adhesions were noted in 1 patient, seen near the cornua.Conclusions: hysteroscopy is still the gold standard for diagnosis and most definitive procedure of choice if any kind of operative intervention is required.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 267-274
Author(s):  
G.C. Di Renzo ◽  
◽  
Yu.E. Dobrokhotova ◽  
E.A. Markova ◽  
◽  
...  

The health of any woman lies in her own hands. The functioning of the reproductive system is one of the major indicators of physical health. Therefore, every woman should care for her reproductive health and give it all the necessary attention since the main purpose of each woman is, above all, childbearing. Within the framework of the 4th International Interdisciplinary Summit “Woman’s health” that was held online on May 25–27, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Professor Gian Carlo di Renzo (University of Perugia, Italy) has given a lecture entitled “Termination of pregnancy: what can we do for the prevention?”. This paper addresses this lecture which will definitely be useful and interesting for practicing obstetricians and gynecologists. The lecture discusses the prevention of recurrent pregnancy loss, the issues facing doctors when deciding on progesterone prescription during pregnancy, and preventive strategies for premature birth. The importance of the critical assessment of the reliability of the findings which may be a basis for treatment approaches is highlighted. KEYWORDS: didrogesterone, recurrent pregnancy loss, pessary, short cervix, premature birth, evidence-based medicine. FOR CITATION: Di Renzo G.C., Dobrokhotova Yu.E., Markova E.A. Termination of pregnancy: what can we do for the prevention? Russian Journal of Woman and Child Health. 2020;3(4):267–274. DOI: 10.32364/2618-8430-2020-3-4-267-274.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document