PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Z Pandian

Publications and source records attributed to Z Pandian.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility.

BACKGROUND: In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is now a widely accepted treatment for unexplained infertility (RCOG 1998). However, with estimated live-birth rates per cycle varying between 13% and 28%, its effectiveness has not been rigorously evaluated in comparison with other treatments. With increasing awareness of the role of expectant management and less invasive procedures such as intrauterine insemination, concerns about multiple complications and costs associated with IVF, it is extremely important to evaluate the effectiveness of IVF against other treatment options in couples with unexplained infertility. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to determine, in the context of unexplained infertility, whether IVF improves the probability of live-birth compared with (1) expectant management, (2) clomiphene citrate (CC), (3) intrauterine insemination (IUI) alone, (4) IUI with controlled ovarian stimulation, and (5) gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched 23 March 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2004), MEDLINE (1970 to August 2004), EMBASE (1985 to August 2004) and reference lists of articles. We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings and contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials were included. Live-birth rate per woman was the primary outcome of interest. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and quality of trials. MAIN RESULTS: Ten randomised controlled trials were identified. In two we could not extract data separately for unexplained infertility cases, two were non-randomised, one did not report valid rates (included in the review but not in the meta-analysis); leaving four trials for analysis. One trial compared two different interventions (IVF versus IUI with or without ovarian stimulation) and one study compared three interventions (IVF versus IUI with ovarian stimulation and GIFT). The numbers of trials assessing the effectiveness of IVF with the other treatments were as follows: IVF versus expectant management (two), IVF versus IUI (one), IVF versus IUI with ovarian stimulation (two) and IVF versus GIFT (three). Live-birth rate per woman was reported in three studies and three studies determined clinical pregnancy rate per woman. Multiple pregnancy rate was reported in three trials. Two studies reported ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) as an outcome measure. There were no comparative data for clomiphene citrate and no comparative data on live-birth rates for GIFT. There was no evidence of a difference in live-birth rates between IVF and IUI either without (OR 1.96; 95% CI 0.88 to 4.4) or with (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.55 to 2.4) ovarian stimulation. There were significantly higher clinical pregnancy rates with IVF in comparison to expectant management (OR 3.24; 95% CI 1.07 to 9.80). There was no significant difference between IVF and GIFT for the one RCT that reported live-birth rates (OR 2.57; 95% CI 0.93 to 7.08). However, there was a significant difference in the clinical pregnancy rates between IVF and GIFT, with pregnancy rates greater for IVF (OR 2.14; 95% CI 1.08 to 4.2). There was no evidence of a difference in the multiple pregnancy rates between IVF and IUI with ovarian stimulation (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.27 to 1.5), however, IVF had a higher rate than GIFT (OR 6.3; 95% CI 1.7 to 23). Clinical heterogeneity was present among the studies included. However, there was no evidence of statistical heterogeneity, which allowed the studies to be combined for statistical analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Any effect of IVF relative to expectant management, clomiphene citrate, IUI with or without ovarian stimulation and GIFT in terms of live-birth rates for couples with unexplained subfertility remains unknown. The studies included are limited by their small sample size so that even large differences might be hidden. Live-birth rates are seldom reported. Periods of follow up are inadequate and unequal. Adverse effects such as multiple pregnancies and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome have also not been reported in most studies. Larger trials with adequate power are warranted to establish the effectiveness of IVF in these women. Future trials should not only report rates per woman/couple but also include adverse effects and costs of the treatments as outcomes. Factors that have a major effect on these outcomes such as fertility treatment, female partner's age, duration of infertility and previous pregnancy history should also be considered.

Clomiphene↗
PubMed2004

Number of embryos for transfer following in-vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection.

BACKGROUND: The traditional reliance on the transfer of multiple embryos during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) in order to maximise the chance of pregnancy, has resulted in increasing rates of multiple pregnancies. Women undergoing IVF had a 20 - fold increased risk of twins and 400 - fold increased risk of higher order pregnancies (Martin 1998). The maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality as well as national health service costs associated with multiple pregnancies is significantly high in comparison with singleton births (Luke 1992; Callahan 1994; Goldfarb 1996). Single embryo transfer is now being considered as an effective means of reducing this iatrogenic complication. This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of elective two embryo transfer in comparison with single and more than two embryo transfer following IVF and ICSI (intra cytoplasmic sperm injection) treatment. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to determine, whether in couples who undergo IVF/ICSI: (1) the elective transfer of two embryos improves the probability of livebirth compared with: (a) Single embryo transfer, (b) Three embryo transfer or (c) Four embryo transfer.(2) the elective transfer of three embryos improves the probability of livebirth compared with: (a) Single embryo transfer, or (b) Four embryo transfer, SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's trials register (searched June 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2003), MEDLINE (1970 to 2003), EMBASE (1985 to 2003) and reference lists of articles. We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings and contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and quality of trials. MAIN RESULTS: We found no studies that compared a policy of transferring multiple embryos on one cycle versus a policy of cryo- preservation and transfer of a single embryo over multiple cycles. We also found no trials comparing transfer of two versus three embryos. Three small, poorly reported trials compared transfer of two versus one embryo in a single cycle, and one small, poorly reported trial compared transfer of two versus four embryos in a single cycle. The clinical pregnancy rate per woman/couple associated with two embryo transfer was significantly higher compared to single embryo transfer (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.50; test for overall effect p = 0.006). The live birth rate per woman/couple associated with two embryo transfer was also significantly higher than that associated with single embryo transfer (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.22, test for overall effect p=0.02). The multiple pregnancy rate was significantly lower in women who had single embryo transfer (OR 9.97, 95% CI 2.61 to 38.19; p = 0.0008). The effectiveness of double embryo transfer versus four embryo transfer was tested in a single trial. There was no statistically significant differences in the clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.16; p=0.6), and multiple pregnancy rates (OR 0.44. 95% CI 0.10 to 1.97; p = 0.28) between the two groups. The livebirth rate in the four embryo transfer group was higher compared to the two embryo transfer group, but the results were not statistically significant (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.05; p = 0.06). REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review suggest that live birth and pregnancy rates following single embryo transfer are lower than those following double embryo transfer as are the chances of multiple pregnancy including twins. As such, it is unlikely that the conclusions are robust enough to catalyse a change in clinical practice. The studies included are limited by their small sample size, so that even large differences might be hidden. Cumulative livebirth rates are seldom reported. The data were inadequate to draw conclusions about single embryo transfer and first frozen single embryo transfer (1FZET) or subsequent single frozen embryo transfers. Until more evidence is available single embryo transfer may not be the preferred choice for all patients undergoing IVF/ICSI. Clinicians may need to individualise protocols for couples based on their risks of multiple pregnancy. A definitive pragmatic, large multi centre randomised controlled trial comparing single embryo versus double embryo transfer in terms of clinical and cost effectiveness as well as acceptability is required. The primary outcome measured should be cumulative livebirth per woman/couple.

Embryo Transfer↗
PubMed2002

In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility.

BACKGROUND: In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is now a widely accepted treatment for unexplained infertility (RCOG 1998). However, with estimated livebirth rates per cycle varying between 13% and 28%, it's effectiveness has not been rigorously evaluated in comparison with other treatments. With increasing awareness of the role of expectant management and less invasive procedures such as intrauterine insemination, concerns about multiple complications and costs associated with IVF, it is extremely important to evaluate the effectiveness of IVF against other treatment options in couples with unexplained infertility. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to determine, in the context of unexplained infertility, whether IVF improves the probability of livebirth compared with 1. expectant management 2. clomiphene citrate (CC) 3. intra uterine insemination (IUI) alone 4. IUI with controlled ovarian stimulation and 5. Gamete IntraFallopian Transfer (GIFT). SEARCH STRATEGY: RCTs were identified using the search strategies developed for the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group. See Review group for more information. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials were included. Livebirth rate per woman was the primary outcome of interest. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and quality of trials. MAIN RESULTS: Nine randomised controlled trials were identified. In two we could not extract data separately for unexplained infertility cases, two were non-randomised, one reported no valid rates (included in the review and not in the meta-analysis), leaving four trials for analysis. One trial compared two different interventions (IVF versus IUI with or without ovarian stimulation) and one study compared three interventions (IVF versus IUI with ovarian stimulation and GIFT). The number of trials assessing the effectiveness of IVF with the other treatments were as follows: IVF versus expectant management (one), IVF versus IUI (one), IVF versus IUI with ovarian stimulation (two) and IVF versus GIFT (three). Livebirth rate per woman was reported in two studies and three studies determined clinical pregnancy rate per woman. Multiple pregnancy rate was reported in three trials. Two studies reported ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) as an outcome measure. There were no comparative data for clomiphene citrate, and no comparative data on livebirth rates for expectant management or GIFT. There was no evidence of a difference in livebirth rates between IVF and IUI either without (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.1) or with (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.8) ovarian stimulation. There was no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy rates between IVF and expectant management. There was no significant difference in the clinical pregnancy rates between IVF and GIFT (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.92). There was no evidence of a difference in the multiple pregnancy rates between IVF and either IUI with ovarian stimulation (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.68 to 3.70) or GIFT (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.58). Clinical heterogeneity was present among the studies included. However, there was no evidence of statistical heterogeneity, which allowed the studies to be combined for statistical analysis. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Any effect of IVF relative to expectant management, clomiphene citrate, IUI with or without ovarian stimulation and GIFT in terms of livebirth rates for couples with unexplained subfertility remains unknown. The studies included are limited by their small sample size, so that even large differences might be hidden. Livebirth rates are seldom reported. Adverse effects such as multiple pregnancies and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome have also not been reported in most studies. Larger trials with adequate power are warranted to establish the effectiveness of IVF in these women. Future trials should not only report rates per woman /couple but also include adverse effects and costs of the treatments compared as outcomes. Factors that have a major effect on these outcomes such as fertility treatment, female partner's age, duration of infertility and previous pregnancy history should also be considered.

Female↗
PubMed2001

Review of unexplained infertility and obstetric outcome: a 10 year review.

BACKGROUND: Increased maternal and fetal risks have been reported in pregnancies following unexplained infertility. Our aims were to examine the obstetric and perinatal outcome of singleton pregnancies in couples with unexplained infertility and explore the impact of fertility treatment. METHODS: Women with unexplained infertility were identified from the Aberdeen Fertility Clinic Database. Their unit numbers were matched against the Aberdeen Maternity and Neonatal Databank (AMND) in order to extract obstetric records of those women with subsequent pregnancy outcomes. The general obstetric population served as a control group. RESULTS: Women with unexplained infertility were older [30.8 versus 27.9 years, 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference = +2.4 to +3.4] and more likely to be primiparous (59 versus 40%, 95% CI = +1.3 to +1.9). After adjusting for age and parity they had a higher incidence of pre-eclampsia, abruptio placentae, preterm labour, emergency Caesarean section and induction of labour in comparison with the general population (P < 0.05). Perinatal outcome did not differ between women with unexplained infertility and those of the general population. The multiple pregnancy rate was 5.4% higher following fertility treatment than in women who conceived spontaneously (95% CI = +2.8 to +9.7). CONCLUSIONS: Women with unexplained infertility are at higher risk of obstetric complications which persist even after adjusting for age, parity and fertility treatment. The reasons are however unclear and merit further study.

Abruptio Placentae↗
PubMed2001

The treatment of incomplete miscarriage with oral misoprostol.

In a retrospective study of 112 women, the effectiveness of three sequential oral doses of misoprostol was evaluated for the treatment of incomplete miscarriage. We report our experience with this regimen, which achieved a complete miscarriage rate of 85%. Surgical intervention was required in 17 women (15%). The regimen appears to be effective in terms of a high rate of complete miscarriage, and it is safe.

Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal↗