Comparison of maternal-neonatal results of vaginal birth after cesarean and elective repeat cesarean delivery

Objective: To evaluate maternal-neonatal results in women who underwent vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) and elec-tive repeat cesarean delivery (ERCD). Material and methods: In a two-year retrospective cohort analysis, 423 patients with a history of prior cesarean section, singleton pregnancy with cephalic presentation and gestational age of 37–41 weeks were investigated. The maternal and perinatal outcomes of 195 patients desiring VBAC and undergoing a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) attempt and 228 patients undergoing an ERCD were compared.Results: While the TOLAC attempt was successful in 141 patients (72.3%), it was unsuccessful in 54 patients. No statistically significant difference was determined between VBAC and ERCD patients regarding uterine rupture, dehiscence, post-partum hemorrhage, the need for a blood transfusion and wound site infection (p > 0.05). When the post-partum neonatal outcomes were compared, there was no statistically significant difference between VBAC and ERCD groups regarding the prevalence of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), respiratory distress, sepsis and birth injury (p > 0.05).Conclusion: The maternal and perinatal outcomes of our study may be encouraging in favor of VBAC particularly in countries with higher cesarean rates. We think that the option of VBAC should be offered more frequently for selected appropriate patients in created safe environments

Expectations of pregnant women for antenatal care services and factors affecting anxiety severity during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the difficulties pregnant women encountered while receiving health care, their demands for antenatal care, and their mental state during the COVID-19 pandemic. Material and methods: A total of 447 pregnant women were included in this cross-sectional study. The data were collected through a face-to-face questionnaire, which assessed participants’ demographic, individual, and obstetric characteristics, their opinions regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, expectations from their antenatal care services, and their Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) scores. Results: During the COVID-19 pandemic, it was determined that 17.2% of the pregnant women participating in our study could not go to antenatal follow-ups and almost half (45.9%) demanded that their follow-ups be reduced due to the risk of coronavirus transmission. The BAI scores were found to be significantly higher in participants with low-income levels, chronic diseases, those in the third trimester, those with high-risk pregnancy either previous or current, and those who got pregnant unintentionally. Young age, unintentional conception, advanced pregnancy week, previous high-risk pregnancy, and failure to receive regular antenatal care were independent variables that predicted moderate-severe anxiety in logistic regression analysis. Conclusions: In order to minimize the adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of pregnant women, it is important to develop support programs that contribute to the well-being of the mother and fetus by recognizing the pregnant women at risk in the antenatal period

Does asymptomatic/uncomplicated SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy increase the risk of spontaneous preterm birth?

Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze the perinatal outcomes of asymptomatic/uncomplicated SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy and the relationship between gestational age at the time of infection and spontaneous preterm birth (PTB). Material and methods: This was a retrospective cohort study. The study population included pregnant women who were 19–45 years old and who had been admitted to a Research and Training Hospital for singleton birth delivery. Women who had contracted SARS-CoV-2 during their pregnancy (n = 102) were compared to those who were not infected (n = 378) for the development of spontaneous PTB and other perinatal outcomes. The factors associated with spontaneous PTB were analyzed through univariate and multivariate methods. Results: Spontaneous PTB developed in 22.5% of the pregnant women with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection and in 5.3% without a history of the infection (p < 0.001). The multivariate model determined that compared to the non-infected women, the OR of spontaneous PTB among those who had contracted the virus in the first, second, and the third trimesters were 9.13 (p < 0.001), 1.85 (p = 0.292) and 7.09 (p < 0.001), respectively. Pregnancy cholestasis (3.9% vs 0.5%; p = 0.020) and placental abruption (3.9% vs 0.5%; p = 0.040) were significantly higher in cases with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to the non-infected women. Conclusions: Asymptomatic or uncomplicated SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy increases the risk of spontaneous PTB. This risk is higher particularly among pregnant women who develop the infection in the first and the third trimesters

Can FMR1 CGG repeat lengths predict the outcome in ICSI cycles?

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess relationship between CGG repeat lengths and ovarian reserve and response to controlled ovarian stimulation (COH). Material and methods: This prospective cohort study was carried out on patients (n = 49) who were admitted to the in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic of the Zeynep Kamil Women's and Children's Diseases Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences. Women under 40 years of age with premature ovarian insufficiency underwent genetic analysis to determine CGG repeat lengths. Ovarian reserve was assessed for each participant and participants underwent ovarian hyperstimulation and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycle. Relationships between ovarian reserve, cycle outcome and CGG repeat lengths were assessed. Variables including fertility assessment including ovarian reserve tests (Follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), Luteinizing hormone (LH), Estradiol (E2), Prolactin (PRL), Thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH), Antimullerian hormone (AMH), antral follicle count (AFC) tests) and some IVF cycle characteristics were assessed in relation to number of CGG repeat numbers. Results: None of the ovarian reserve tests and cycle characteristics was found to be correlated with CGG repeat lengths. Comparison of ovarian reserve tests and cycle characteristics revealed no difference between groups of women with CGG repeat length > 55 and CGG repeat length ≤ 55. Antimullerian hormone (AMH) was a significant predictor for cycle cancellation (AUC = 0.779, P = 0.008). AMH level > 0.035 was found to be the optimal cut off value to predict cycles reaching to embryo transfer with 71% sensitivity and 85% specificity. The rate of cycle cancellation was 71% in cases with AMH ≤ 0.035 whereas it was 20% in cases with AMH > 0.035 (p = 0.001). No difference was determined between groups with and without cycle cancellation in terms of CGG repeat lengths (55.3 vs. 53.9, p = 0.769). Among cycles reaching to embryo transfer stage, 3 (13.6%) pregnancies were achieved. Conclusions: Our data showed no relationship between CGG repeat lengths and ovarian reserve and response to controlled ovarian stimulation. This data also showed that no clinical difference between FMR gene mutation related POI and other etiologies

Does LH supplementation in poor responders affect granulosa cells apoptosis rate in ART? A prospective randomised controlled trial

The aim was to compare granulosa cell's (GCs) apoptosis rate with (group A) or without (group B) luteinising hormone (LH) supplementation in poor ovarian responders (PORs) during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS). After oocyte retrieval, the follicular fluid was analysed by cytoflowmetry. Primary outcomes were GCs apoptosis rate in terms of viability, early apoptosis, late apoptosis and necrosis. Secondary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate. The viability was 96.7{IQR: 8} and 83.5{IQR: 20} for groups A and B, respectively (p < .001). Late apoptosis rates were significantly lower in group A (median 1.5, {IQR: 3.1}) than group B (median 9.5, {IQR: 20.6}) (p < .001). Median early apoptosis rates were 1.4 {IQR: 2.9} and 5.2 {IQR: 6.5} for group A and B respectively (p = .04). No significant difference was observed in the clinical pregnancy rate. Although LH seems necessary in PORs to decrease late granulosa apoptosis rates, this does not improve clinical pregnancy rates.IMPACT STATEMENT What is already known on this subject? LH supplementation during COS has long been an issue in PORs to overcome the rFSH responsiveness due to the LH polymorphism. LH receptors have also been on GCs and their expression increases in preovulatory follicles. GCs apoptosis rates may show the oocyte quality and reproductive potential of oocyte retrieved and the requirement for LH supplementation. What do the results of this study add? The present study shows that LH supplementation during COS for PORs promotes the GC viability and reduces early/late apoptosis rates. Similarly, the number of MII oocytes was significantly higher in the LH regimen group. However, there was no significant difference in terms of clinical pregnancy rates. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? The oocyte quality parameters such as higher GC viability and lower GC early/late apoptosis rates verify the LH supplementation in PORs during COS. However, the limited size of this study requires further multi-centre research in a larger cohort of patients. Results obtained with a sensitive and validated method will help clinicians to make better decisions in patient care

Does Lh Supplementation in Poor Responders Affect Granulosa Cell Apoptosis Rate in Art?

75th Scientific Congress of the American-Society-for-Reproductive-Medicine (ASRM) -- OCT 12-16, 2019 -- Philadelphia, PAWOS: 000487821304065…Amer Soc Reprod MedGiresun University Scientific Research Projects DepartmentGiresun University [SAG-BAP-A-2302]This study was supported by grants from Giresun University Scientific Research Projects Department (SAG-BAP-A-2302

Combined use of oestradiol and progesterone to support luteal phase in antagonist intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles of normoresponder women: a case-control study

We evaluated the effect of combined use of oral oestrogen (E2) and vaginal progesterone (P) to support luteal phase in antagonist intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles. We analysed data from 176 patients who underwent ICSI cycles with antagonist protocol. P 90 mg vaginal gel once a day and micronised E2 of 4 mg/day, were started from the day of oocyte pick up and continued to the 12th day of embryo transfer. Group 1 (n = 79) patients received E2 + P for luteal phase support. In group 2 (n = 97) patients, only P 90 mg vaginal gel was used for luteal phase support. There were no significant differences between group 1 and group 2 patients in terms of clinical pregnancy rates (PRs) (26.58% vs. 20.62%, p = .352), early pregnancy loss rates (6.33% vs. 6.19%, p = .969), incidence of luteal vaginal bleeding (8.86% vs. 8.25%, p = .885) and implantation rates (22.8% vs. 16.9%, p = .298). In conclusion, our study showed no beneficial effect of addition of E2 to luteal phase support on clinical PR in antagonist IVF cycles.Impact statement What is already known on this subject? Luteal phase deficiency is defined as a disruption in progesterone and oestrogen production after ovulation. It is clear that, luteal phase supplementation to improve the outcomes in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles is mandatory. As an iatrogenic complication of assisted reproductive technique, decreased luteal oestrogen and progesterone levels lead to decreased pregnancy rates (PRs) and implantation rates. What the results of this study add? In this study, we aimed to present the role of luteal phase oestrogen administration in GnRH antagonist cycles. A total of 176 cases received progesterone vaginal gel form for luteal phase support. Study group received 4 mg oral oestradiol hemihydrate in addition to progesterone. Compared to previous studies, our study consisted of larger number of patients and we used oestradiol through oral route. We found out that luteal oestradiol support did not improve the clinical PR. What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Our study showed no beneficial effect of addition of oestradiol to luteal phase support on clinical PR in antagonist IVF cycles