Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 6 de 6
Filtrar
1.
Womens Health (Lond) ; 19: 17455057231206312, 2023.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37899602

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Studies had compared single-embryo transfer to double-embryo transfer with cleavage stage embryos and found that while single-embryo transfer was less costly, it was also associated with a lower live birth rate than double-embryo transfer. A single blastocyst transfer has been shown to improve the live birth rate per cycle compared to single-embryo transfer at cleavage stage. OBJECTIVES: To compare live birth rates and real costs of elective single-embryo transfer to double-embryo transfer and to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of these two strategies in an unselected pool of women in a single center. DESIGN: Retrospective study. METHODS: We analyzed data of 4232 women who underwent their first fresh in vitro fertilization/intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection cycles with at least two embryos available for transfer in KK Women's and Children's Hospital from 2010 to 2017. RESULTS: Five hundred and sixty-four women underwent elective single-embryo transfer and 3668 women underwent double-embryo transfer. One hundred and fifty-six women who failed to achieve a live birth in their fresh elective single-embryo transfer cycle underwent a sequential thaw single-embryo transfer cycle. Live birth rate of fresh elective single-embryo transfer was significantly higher at 41.3% than that of double-embryo transfer at 32.6%. Cumulative live birth rate for sequential elective single-embryo transfer (fresh elective single-embryo transfer + thaw single-embryo transfer) was 47.9%. After accounting for variables which may affect live birth rates such as age and stage of embryo transfer, the odds of achieving a live birth from double-embryo transfer was 24% lower than that from sequential single-embryo transfer, although not statistically significant. For every live birth gained from an elective single-embryo transfer compared to double-embryo transfer, cost savings were S$20,172 per woman. If a woman had to have a sequential single-embryo transfer after a failed single-embryo transfer in her fresh cycle, cost savings were reduced to S$1476 per woman. CONCLUSION: Single-embryo transfer is a dominant strategy in an unselected population and adopting it in assisted reproductive treatments (ART) can produce cost savings without compromising on live birth rates.


Asunto(s)
Transferencia de Embrión , Semen , Masculino , Embarazo , Niño , Femenino , Humanos , Índice de Embarazo , Estudios Retrospectivos , Fertilización In Vitro , Costos y Análisis de Costo
2.
BMJ Open ; 12(1): e051710, 2022 Jan 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34980614

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Birth rates have been declining in many advanced societies including Singapore. We designed two interventions with vastly different resource requirements, which include fertility education, personalised fertility information and a behavioural change component targeting modifiable psychological constructs to modify fertility awareness and childbearing intentions. We aim to evaluate the effect of these two interventions on knowledge, attitudes and practice around childbearing compared with a control group among young married couples in Singapore and understand the implementation factors in the setting of an effectiveness-implementation hybrid type 1 three-arm randomised trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will randomise 1200 young married couples to no intervention (control), Fertility Health Screening group (FHS) or Fertility Awareness Tools (FAT) in a 7:5:5 ratio. Couples in FHS will undergo an anti-Mullerian hormone test and semen analysis, a doctor's consultation to explain the results and standardised reproductive counselling by a trained nurse. Couples in FAT will watch a standardised video, complete an adapted fertility status awareness (FertiSTAT) tool and receive an educational brochure. The attitudes, fertility knowledge and efforts to achieve pregnancy of all couples will be assessed at baseline and 6 months post-randomisation. Birth statistics will be tracked using administrative records at 2 and 3 years. The primary outcome is the change in the woman's self-reported intended age at first birth between baseline and 6 months post-randomisation. In addition, implementation outcomes and cost-effectiveness of the two interventions will be assessed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been reviewed and approved by the Centralized Institutional Review Board of SingHealth (2019/2095). Study results will be reported to the study funder and there are plans to disseminate them in scientific conferences and publications, where authorship will be determined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04647136; ClinicalTrails.gov Identifier.


Asunto(s)
Fertilidad , Proyectos de Investigación , Tasa de Natalidad , Consejo , Servicios de Planificación Familiar , Femenino , Humanos , Lactante , Estudios Multicéntricos como Asunto , Embarazo , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
3.
Front Glob Womens Health ; 3: 813731, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35910001

RESUMEN

Introduction: This study aimed to investigate the knowledge and expectations of pregnant women on perinatal care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among pregnant women ≥21 years, without a history of confirmed COVID-19, attending antenatal clinics between August and September 2020 via a secure online platform. The survey consisted of 10 questions which evaluated the knowledge and expectations on perinatal and neonatal care during the current pandemic. Results: A total of 313 pregnant women completed the survey. The mean age of the participants was 30 years (SD 4; range 22-43 years). The median gestational age was 25 weeks (range 4-40 weeks). The participants were predominantly multiparous (54%) and almost all (98%) had completed secondary level education. Majority of participants were aware of the spread of COVID-19 by respiratory secretions and contact (90%), and the importance of prevention strategies (94%). Up to 72% agreed or strongly agreed that in-utero transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was possible. Most were unsure of the optimal mode of delivery (77%) and only 22% believed that breastfeeding was safe in a pregnant woman with active COVID-19. Although 46% were concerned about increased transmission risk with antenatal clinic visits, only 37% were agreeable to teleconferencing of clinic appointments. Maternal age >35 years was significantly associated with agreement with separation of mother-infant after birth [AOR 1.89 (95% CI 1.05, 3.39)], restrictions of visitors during the postnatal period [1.92 (1.05, 3.49)] and having their confinement practices were affected [2.3 (1.26, 4.17)]. Pregnant women who were multiparous disagreed that breastfeeding was safe in women with active COVID-19 [0.42 (0.23, 0.75)]. Conclusions: There was significant uncertainty about the optimal delivery method and safety of breastfeeding with COVID-19 among expectant mothers, along with variable agreement with alterations to routine perinatal care.

4.
Ann Acad Med Singap ; 49(4): 180-185, 2020 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32296806

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: We aim to compare live birth rates, cost analysis and a survey of patient attitudes between laparosopic tubal re-anastomosis and in vitro fertilisation (IVF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was done in a single reproductive medicine and IVF unit in Singapore from January 2011 to December 2016. Previously ligated patients underwent either laparoscopic tubal re-anastomosis or IVF. The primary outcome was first live birth after treatment. Interval to first pregnancy, miscarriage and ectopic pregnancies were also reported. Patients attending the subfertility clinic completed a questionnaire on IVF and tubal re-anastomosis on preferred choice of treatment, before and after reading an information sheet. RESULTS: Twelve patients underwent tubal re-anastomosis while 31 patients underwent IVF treatment. Pregnancy (75.0% vs 35.5%) and live birth (58.3% vs 25.8%) were significantly higher in the tubal surgery group (P <0.05%) after transferring all available embryos in one stimulated IVF cycle. Cost per live birth was lower in the tubal surgery group (SGD27,109 vs SGD52,438). One hundred patients participated in the survey. A majority of patients preferred tubal surgery to IVF (68.2% vs 31.8%) before given information on the procedures, but indicated a preference for IVF (54.6%) to surgery (45.4%) after receiving information on the procedures. CONCLUSIONS: For women less than 40 years of age, desiring fertility after tubal ligation, laparoscopic tubal re-anastomosis offers better live birth rates and cost-effectiveness. Patients in Singapore are equivocal as to their preference after education regarding the choices. Thus, laparoscopic tubal re-anastomosis remains a viable alternative to IVF treatment.


Asunto(s)
Actitud , Fertilización In Vitro , Reversión de la Esterilización/psicología , Esterilización Tubaria , Adulto , Costos y Análisis de Costo , Femenino , Humanos , Embarazo , Índice de Embarazo , Estudios Retrospectivos , Reversión de la Esterilización/economía
5.
Case Rep Obstet Gynecol ; 2019: 2460485, 2019.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31772795

RESUMEN

Abdominal pregnancy is a rare occurrence and it represents only 1% of ectopic pregnancy. We report a case of an abdominal pregnancy that resulted in a term live baby. Diagnosis is unsurprisingly difficult in advanced gestation. A high index of suspicion detailed clinical and imaging examinations are needed to make the diagnosis. Multidisciplinary team involvement is crucial in the management of abdominal pregnancy.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA