英国辅助生殖后受孕儿童组群的围产期健康:基于人口的记录链接研究。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL BMJ Open Pub Date : 2024-11-11 DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-091910
Mitana Purkayastha, Alastair Sutcliffe, Daniel R Brison, Scott M Nelson, Deborah Lawlor, Stephen A Roberts
{"title":"英国辅助生殖后受孕儿童组群的围产期健康:基于人口的记录链接研究。","authors":"Mitana Purkayastha, Alastair Sutcliffe, Daniel R Brison, Scott M Nelson, Deborah Lawlor, Stephen A Roberts","doi":"10.1136/bmjopen-2024-091910","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the risk of hospitalisation for conditions originating in the perinatal period between children conceived via assisted reproductive technology and those that are naturally conceived, differentiating by treatment type.</p><p><strong>Study design, setting and participants: </strong>Population-based record-linkage study of children born after assisted reproduction in the UK between 2002 and 2009 (n=44 618), their naturally conceived siblings (n=8462) and matched naturally conceived population (n=89 072) controls linked to their hospital inpatient records up to 31 March 2016.</p><p><strong>Primary and secondary outcome measures: </strong>Robust estimates of the overall and cause-specific risk of hospital admission for adverse perinatal events and the comparison of outcomes by type of treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over the study period, 17 132 (38.40%) children conceived via assisted reproduction and 30 306 (34.02%) and 1738 (20.54%) naturally conceived population and sibling controls, respectively, were admitted to the hospital for severe perinatal events. Compared with the population controls, singletons (Risk ratio (95% CI 1.30 (1.26, 1.34))) and twins (1.01 (0.99, 1.03)) conceived via assisted reproduction exhibited a higher risk of hospitalisation for any adverse perinatal event. However, no such increase was observed in the within-sibling analysis (0.97 (0.84, 1.12)). Similar patterns were seen for diagnoses related to length of gestation and fetal growth (vs population controls: 1.37 (1.29, 1.46); vs siblings: 1.17 (0.86, 1.60)); birth trauma (vs population controls: 1.23 (1.04, 1.44); vs siblings: 0.78 (0.47, 1.30)); respiratory and cardiovascular disorders (vs population controls: 1.28 (1.20, 1.38); vs siblings: 0.72 (0.53, 0.98)); infections (vs population controls: 1.30 (1.06, 1.59); vs siblings: 0,68 (0.24, 1.90)) and several other conditions. Associations were similar when comparing in vitro fertilisation to intracytoplasmic sperm injection and were higher when comparing fresh to frozen embryo transfers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Children conceived via assisted reproduction showed modest increases in the risk of hospitalisations for severe perinatal events when compared with population controls, although these findings were attenuated in the sibling analyses. The imprecision of within-sibling analyses highlights the need for larger studies to explore potential causal effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":9158,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11555099/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perinatal health in a cohort of children conceived after assisted reproduction in the UK: a population-based record-linkage study.\",\"authors\":\"Mitana Purkayastha, Alastair Sutcliffe, Daniel R Brison, Scott M Nelson, Deborah Lawlor, Stephen A Roberts\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjopen-2024-091910\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the risk of hospitalisation for conditions originating in the perinatal period between children conceived via assisted reproductive technology and those that are naturally conceived, differentiating by treatment type.</p><p><strong>Study design, setting and participants: </strong>Population-based record-linkage study of children born after assisted reproduction in the UK between 2002 and 2009 (n=44 618), their naturally conceived siblings (n=8462) and matched naturally conceived population (n=89 072) controls linked to their hospital inpatient records up to 31 March 2016.</p><p><strong>Primary and secondary outcome measures: </strong>Robust estimates of the overall and cause-specific risk of hospital admission for adverse perinatal events and the comparison of outcomes by type of treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over the study period, 17 132 (38.40%) children conceived via assisted reproduction and 30 306 (34.02%) and 1738 (20.54%) naturally conceived population and sibling controls, respectively, were admitted to the hospital for severe perinatal events. Compared with the population controls, singletons (Risk ratio (95% CI 1.30 (1.26, 1.34))) and twins (1.01 (0.99, 1.03)) conceived via assisted reproduction exhibited a higher risk of hospitalisation for any adverse perinatal event. However, no such increase was observed in the within-sibling analysis (0.97 (0.84, 1.12)). Similar patterns were seen for diagnoses related to length of gestation and fetal growth (vs population controls: 1.37 (1.29, 1.46); vs siblings: 1.17 (0.86, 1.60)); birth trauma (vs population controls: 1.23 (1.04, 1.44); vs siblings: 0.78 (0.47, 1.30)); respiratory and cardiovascular disorders (vs population controls: 1.28 (1.20, 1.38); vs siblings: 0.72 (0.53, 0.98)); infections (vs population controls: 1.30 (1.06, 1.59); vs siblings: 0,68 (0.24, 1.90)) and several other conditions. Associations were similar when comparing in vitro fertilisation to intracytoplasmic sperm injection and were higher when comparing fresh to frozen embryo transfers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Children conceived via assisted reproduction showed modest increases in the risk of hospitalisations for severe perinatal events when compared with population controls, although these findings were attenuated in the sibling analyses. The imprecision of within-sibling analyses highlights the need for larger studies to explore potential causal effects.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9158,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11555099/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-091910\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-091910","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的比较辅助生殖技术受孕儿童与自然受孕儿童因围产期疾病住院的风险,并按治疗类型加以区分:基于人口的记录链接研究,研究对象为2002年至2009年间在英国通过辅助生殖技术出生的儿童(n=44 618)、他们的自然受孕兄弟姐妹(n=8462)和匹配的自然受孕人群(n=89072)对照组,并与他们截至2016年3月31日的住院记录进行链接:对因围产期不良事件入院的总体风险和特定原因风险进行稳健估算,并按治疗类型对结果进行比较:在研究期间,分别有17 132名(38.40%)通过辅助生殖技术受孕的儿童、30 306名(34.02%)和1738名(20.54%)自然受孕的人群和兄弟姐妹对照组儿童因严重围产期事件入院。与人群对照组相比,通过辅助生殖技术受孕的单胎(风险比(95% CI 1.30 (1.26, 1.34))和双胞胎(1.01 (0.99, 1.03))因任何围产期不良事件入院的风险较高。然而,在同胞分析(0.97 (0.84, 1.12))中没有观察到这种增加。与妊娠期长短和胎儿生长有关的诊断也出现了类似的模式(与人群对照组相比:1.37(1.29,1.12,1.14)):1.37 (1.29, 1.46);与同胞相比:1.17 (0.86, 1.46):1.17 (0.86, 1.60));出生创伤(与人群对照组相比:1.23 (1.04, 1.50);与同胞兄弟姐妹相比:1.17 (0.86, 1.60)):1.23 (1.04, 1.44); vs siblings:0.78 (0.47, 1.30));呼吸系统和心血管疾病(与人群对照组相比:1.28 (1.20, 1.44);与同胞兄弟姐妹相比:1.17 (0.86, 1.60));出生创伤(与人群对照组相比:1.23 (1.04, 1.44)0.72 (0.53, 0.98));感染(与人群对照组相比:1.30 (1.06, 1.38);与同胞相比:0.72 (0.53, 0.98)1.30 (1.06, 1.59); vs siblings:0.68 (0.24, 1.90))和其他几种情况。体外受精与卵胞浆内单精子注射的相关性相似,而新鲜胚胎移植与冷冻胚胎移植的相关性更高:结论:与人群对照组相比,通过辅助生殖技术受孕的儿童因严重围产期事件住院的风险略有增加,但这些结果在同胞分析中有所减弱。同胞分析的不精确性突出表明,有必要进行更大规模的研究,以探讨潜在的因果效应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Perinatal health in a cohort of children conceived after assisted reproduction in the UK: a population-based record-linkage study.

Objective: To compare the risk of hospitalisation for conditions originating in the perinatal period between children conceived via assisted reproductive technology and those that are naturally conceived, differentiating by treatment type.

Study design, setting and participants: Population-based record-linkage study of children born after assisted reproduction in the UK between 2002 and 2009 (n=44 618), their naturally conceived siblings (n=8462) and matched naturally conceived population (n=89 072) controls linked to their hospital inpatient records up to 31 March 2016.

Primary and secondary outcome measures: Robust estimates of the overall and cause-specific risk of hospital admission for adverse perinatal events and the comparison of outcomes by type of treatment.

Results: Over the study period, 17 132 (38.40%) children conceived via assisted reproduction and 30 306 (34.02%) and 1738 (20.54%) naturally conceived population and sibling controls, respectively, were admitted to the hospital for severe perinatal events. Compared with the population controls, singletons (Risk ratio (95% CI 1.30 (1.26, 1.34))) and twins (1.01 (0.99, 1.03)) conceived via assisted reproduction exhibited a higher risk of hospitalisation for any adverse perinatal event. However, no such increase was observed in the within-sibling analysis (0.97 (0.84, 1.12)). Similar patterns were seen for diagnoses related to length of gestation and fetal growth (vs population controls: 1.37 (1.29, 1.46); vs siblings: 1.17 (0.86, 1.60)); birth trauma (vs population controls: 1.23 (1.04, 1.44); vs siblings: 0.78 (0.47, 1.30)); respiratory and cardiovascular disorders (vs population controls: 1.28 (1.20, 1.38); vs siblings: 0.72 (0.53, 0.98)); infections (vs population controls: 1.30 (1.06, 1.59); vs siblings: 0,68 (0.24, 1.90)) and several other conditions. Associations were similar when comparing in vitro fertilisation to intracytoplasmic sperm injection and were higher when comparing fresh to frozen embryo transfers.

Conclusion: Children conceived via assisted reproduction showed modest increases in the risk of hospitalisations for severe perinatal events when compared with population controls, although these findings were attenuated in the sibling analyses. The imprecision of within-sibling analyses highlights the need for larger studies to explore potential causal effects.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Open
BMJ Open MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
4510
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open is an online, open access journal, dedicated to publishing medical research from all disciplines and therapeutic areas. The journal publishes all research study types, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Publishing procedures are built around fully open peer review and continuous publication, publishing research online as soon as the article is ready.
期刊最新文献
Pain during prolonged sitting in subjects with patellofemoral pain in Dutch physical therapy clinics: an online questionnaire-based analysis. Post-COVID in healthcare workers and its consequences on quality of life, activities, participation, need for rehabilitation and care experiences: protocol of a cohort study. Association between life satisfaction and health behaviours among older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. Determinants of inpatient satisfaction and hospital recommendation: experiences from a cross-sectional study of a tertiary general hospital in China. Development and validation of a clinical prediction tool to estimate survival in community-dwelling adults living with dementia: a protocol.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1