Induced abortion and future use of IVF treatment; A nationwide register study


Autoři: Jaana Männistö aff001;  Maarit Mentula aff002;  Aini Bloigu aff001;  Mika Gissler aff003;  Oskari Heikinheimo aff002;  Maarit Niinimäki aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, PEDEGO Research Unit, Medical Research Center Oulu, University Hospital of Oulu and University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland aff001;  Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Helsinki, and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland aff002;  Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland aff003;  Karolinska Institutet, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Stockholm, Sweden aff004
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225162

Souhrn

Objective

In this nationwide study we assessed the use and factors associated with future in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment after induced abortion.

Materials and methods

The study population was collected by means of record linkage between Finnish national registers. All women who underwent induced abortion between 2000 and 2009 in Finland were identified through the Register of Induced Abortions (n = 88 522). The study group consisted of women who underwent induced abortion and subsequently had an IVF treatment (n = 379); the comparison group were all women who had a spontaneous pregnancy and delivery 12–24 months after the index abortion (n = 7434).

Demographic characteristics at the time of index abortion, and factors associated with the abortion (gestational age at abortion, indication and method of abortion, complications after abortion) were compared between the study groups. Logistic regression was used to assess whether some of the demographic characteristics or abortion associated factors increased the use of IVF treatment in the future.

Results

The proportion of women with IVF treatment after induced abortion in the whole cohort was 0.4%. Women needing IVF treatment were older, of a higher socioeconomic status, and had fewer previous induced abortions and deliveries compared to women in the comparison group. No statistically significant differences were observed in the gestational age (≤ 12 weeks or >12 weeks of gestation) at abortion, method or complications of abortion. In multivariable analysis higher age increased, and history of previous deliveries or one or two abortions decreased the use of IVF.

Conclusions

Infertility necessitating the use of IVF treatment after induced abortion is uncommon. The factors associated with use of IVF after abortion are those generally recognized as risk factors of infertility. Abortion-related outcomes are not associated with an increased need of future IVF-treatment.

Klíčová slova:

Drug therapy – Female infertility – Finnish people – Infertility – Obstetric procedures – Surgical and invasive medical procedures – Termination of pregnancy – In vitro fertilization


Zdroje

1. World Health Organization Task Force. Secondary infertility following induced abortion. Stud Fam Plann 1984;15:291–5. 6515670

2. Atrash HK, Hogue CJ. The effect of pregnancy termination on future reproduction. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol 1990;4:391–405. doi: 10.1016/s0950-3552(05)80234-2 2225607

3. Frank P, McNamee R, Hannaford PC, Kay CR, Hirsch S. The effect of induced abortion on subsequent fertility. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993;100:575–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1993.tb15313.x 8334095

4. Department of Health. Report on abortion statistics in England and Wales. Available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/714183/2017_Abortion_Statistics_Commentary.pdf. Accessed 3rd October 2018.

5. National Institute for Health and Welfare. Sexual and reproductive health, 2017. Available at https://www.thl.fi/en/web/thlfi-en/statistics/statistics-by-topic/sexual-and-reproductive-health. Accessed 3rd October 2018.

6. Petraglia F, Serour GI, Chapron C. The changing prevalence of infertility. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2013;123 Suppl 2:S4–8.

7. Lokeland M, Bjorge T, Iversen OE, Akerkar R and Bjorge L. Implementing medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol in Norway 1998–2013. Int J Epidemiol 2016;. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw270 28031316

8. Finnish Medical Society Duodecim. The Finnish Current Care Guidelines, 2013: Induced abortion. Available at http://www.kaypahoito.fi/web/english/guidelineabstracts/guideline?id=ccs00034. Accessed 21 April 2018.

9. Finlex. Finlex, ajantasainen lainsäädäntö:24.3.1970/239. Available at http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1970/197002391970. Accessed 12 April 2018.

10. World Health Organization. International Classification of Diseases (ICD), 2016. Available at http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/. Accessed 12 April 2018.

11. Nordic Centre for Classifications in Health Care. NCSP-the NOMESCO classification of surgical procedures, 2009. Available at https://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:970548/FULLTEXT01.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2018.

12. Evers JL. Female subfertility. Lancet 2002;360:151–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09417-5 12126838

13. Statistics Finland, Koulutusluokitus 31.12.1991 (Classification of education. 31 December 1991 [in Finnish]), 1992 Helsinki Handbook 1.

14. Statistics Finland, Classification of occupations, 1987 Helsinki Handbook 14.

15. Statistics Finland, Classification of socioeconomic groups, 1989 Helsinki Handbook 17.

16. Heino A, Niinimaki M, Mentula M, Gissler M. How reliable are health registers? Registration of induced abortions and sterilizations in Finland. Inform Health Soc Care 2017:1–10.

17. Hemminki E, Klemetti R, Rinta-Paavola M, Martikainen J. Identifying exposures of in vitro fertilization from drug reimbursement files: a case study from Finland. Med Inform Internet Med 2003;28:279–89. doi: 10.1080/14639230310001621666 14668130

18. ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Europe the continent with the lowest fertility. Hum Reprod Update 2010;16:590–602. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmq023 20603286

19. Hemminki E, Klemetti R, Sevon T, Gissler M. Induced abortions previous to IVF: an epidemiologic register-based study from Finland. Hum Reprod 2008;23:1320–3. doi: 10.1093/humrep/den101 18372256

20. Daling JR, Weiss NS, Voigt L, Spadoni LR, Soderstrom R, Moore DE, et al. Tubal infertility in relation to prior induced abortion. Fertil Steril 1985;43:389–94. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)48437-2 3979576

21. Torres-Sanchez L, Lopez-Carrillo L, Espinoza H, Langer A. Is induced abortion a contributing factor to tubal infertility in Mexico? Evidence from a case-control study. BJOG 2004;111:1254–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00405.x 15521871

22. Niinimäki M, Pouta A, Bloigu A, Gissler M, Hemminki E, Suhonen S, et al. Immediate complications after medical compared with surgical termination of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:795–804. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b5ccf9 19888037

23. Tam WH, Tsui MH, Lok IH, Yip SK, Yuen PM, Chung TK. Long-term reproductive outcome subsequent to medical versus surgical treatment for miscarriage. Hum Reprod 2005;20:3355–9. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dei257 16096322


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 11