THE EFFECT OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES CONDUCTED IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE MANDATORY HEALTH INSURANCE
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective. Seventy-seven women who applied to the female outpatient health center for infertility reason in 2016-2018.
Materials and methods. A prospective analysis of outpatient charts of women who applied to the female outpatient health center in 2016-2018 for infertility reason was conducted. The diagnosis on presentation was made in accordance with the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10). Infertile couples were examined according to the order of the Ministry of Health N 107n of 30.08.12. Statistical data analysis was carried out using the Microsoft Office Excel application package.
Results. Sixteen patients (20.8 %) conceived, and 21 (27.3 %) – did not conceived. Currently, 21 patients (27.3 %) are in the waiting list to be included in the ART Program or are at the stage of stimulation, 19 (24.6 %) – are at the preparatory stage.
Pregnancy resulted in childbirth in 9 women (11.7 %, including twins in 5.2 %), spontaneous miscarriage in the early period – in 1 (1.3 %), non-developing pregnancy – in 1 (1.3 %). Five patients (6.5 %) are currently pregnant.
Conclusion. Thus, most women had the tubal-peritoneal factor as the leading cause of infertility, mainly due to past and concomitant gynecological diseases. The use of ART is a justified and effective method of overcoming infertility in married couples, the proportion of positive outcomes of ART corresponds to the average data.
Keywords
Article Details
Information about financing and conflict of interests
The authors declare that they have no apparent or potential conflicts of interest related to the publication of this article.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
How to Cite
References
Radzinsky VE, Fux AM. Gynecology. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media. 2014; 1000. Russian (Радзинский В.Е., Фукс А. М. Гинекология. М.: ГЭОТАР-Медиа, 2014. 1000 с.)
Radzinsky VE. Infertile couple. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media. 2018; 404. Russian (Бесплодный брак: версии и контраверсии /под ред. В.Е. Радзинского. М.: ГЭОТАР-Медиа, 2018. 404 с.)
Order of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation of August 30, 2012 N 107n «On the use of assisted reproductive technologies, contraindications and limitations to their use». Russian (Приказ Министерства здравоохранения РФ от 30.08.2012 г. № 107н «О порядке использования вспомогательных репродуктивных технологий, противопоказаниях и ограничениях к их применению»)
Venturella R, Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Pedri S, Lico D, Mazzilli R et al. State of the art and emerging drug therapies for female infertility. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2019 Apr; 29: 1-7
Vannuccini S, Ferrata C, Perelli F, Pinzauti S, Severi FM, Reis FM et al. Peripartum and postpartum outcomes in uncomplicated term pregnancy following ART: a retrospective cohort study from two Italian obstetric units. Hum Reprod Open. 2018 Jul 24; 2018(3)
Davies MJ, Rumbold AR, Moore VM. Assisted reproductive technologies: a hierarchy of risks for conception, pregnancy outcomes and treatment decisions. J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2017 Aug; 8(4): 443-447
Lindsay TJ, Vitrikas KR. Evaluation and treatment of infertility. Am Fam Physician. 2015; 91(5): 308-314
Rusanova NE. Assisted reproductive technologies in Russia: history, problems, demographic prospects. The Journal of Social Policy Studies. 2013; 11(1): 69-86. Russian (Русанова Н.Е. Вспомогательные репродуктивные технологии в России: история, проблемы, демографические перспективы. //Журнал исследований социальной политики. 2013. Т. 11, № 1. С. 69-86)
Pregravid preparation: clinical protocol /ed. by Radzinsky VE. M.: Editorial Board Status Praesens, 2016. 80 p. Russian (Прегравидарная подготовка: клинический протокол /под ред. В.Е. Радзинского. М.: Редакция журнала Status Praesens, 2016. 80 с.)
Skora D, Frankfurter D. Adverse perinatal events associated with ART. Semin Reprod Med. 2012 Apr; 30(2): 84-91
Luke B, Stern JE, Kotelchuck M, Declercq ER, Anderka M, Diop H. Birth Outcomes by Infertility Treatment: Analyses of the Population-Based Cohort: Massachusetts Outcomes Study of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (MOSART). J Reprod Med. 2016 Mar-Apr; 61(3-4): 114-127
Palomba S, Homburg R, Santagni S, La Sala GB, Orvieto R. Risk of adverse pregnancy and perinatal outcomes after high technology infertility treatment: a comprehensive systematic review. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2016 Nov 4; 14(1): 76
ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. A prognosis-based approach to infertility: understanding the role of time. Hum Reprod. 2017 Aug 1; 32(8): 1556-1559
Sunderam S, Kissin DM, Zhang Y, Folger SG, Boulet SL, Warner L et al. Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance – United States. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2019 Apr 26; 68(4): 1-23
Yu B, Fritz R, Xie X, Negassa A, Jindal S, Vega M, Buyuk E. The impact of using donor sperm in assisted reproductive technology cycles on perinatal outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2018 Dec; 110(7): 1285-1289
Dyer S, Chambers GM, de Mouzon J, Nygren KG, Zegers-Hochschild F, Mansour R et al. International committee for monitoring assisted reproductive technologies world report: Assisted reproductive technologies 2008, 2009 and 2010. Human reproduction. 2016; 31(7): 1588-1609
Saveljeva GM, Sukhikh GT, Serov VN, Radzinsky VE, Manukhin IB. Gynecology. National guideline. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media, 2017. 989 p. Russian (Национальное руководство по гинекологии /под ред. Г.М. Савельевой, Г.Т. Сухих, В.Н. Серова, В.Е. Радзинского, И.Б. Манухина. М.: ГЭОТАР-Медиа, 2017. 989 с.)