Search

Introduction: A pilot study was carried out to test the efficacy of the autologous mitochondrial transfer therapy (AUGMENT) technique. No improvements in pregnancy rate, development, or embryo quality were observed in the AUGMENT-treated group versus the Control group in this study. The main objective of this research is to analyze whether AUGMENT technology did have any impact on the obstetric and perinatal outcomes of pregnancies and children resulting from treated oocytes., Methods: Follow up study of women with a livebirth who participated in a pilot randomized controlled trial in which sibling MII oocytes were randomly allocated to AUGMENT + intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) (AUGMENT group) or ICSI alone (control group). Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy was performed in both groups. Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of 14 women (15 pregnancies) and their 18 children were analyzed. The information was retrieved by reviewing the medical records or through questionnaires sent to the patients., Results: No differences were found in this small case series between the AUGMENT and control groups regarding the rate of gestational complications, birth defects, gestational age at delivery (271.4 ± 12.56 vs 278 ± 10.4 days), birthweight (3.1 ± 0.6 kg vs. 3.1 ± 0.4 kg) and neonatal outcome., Discussion: The few pregnancies achieved using AUGMENT oocyte therapy had similar outcomes than controls in this very small series. Our very preliminary data need to be confirmed in larger samples. The long term follow up of these children also needs to be analyzed., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of vaginal progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth and adverse perinatal outcomes in twin gestations., Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and CINAHL (from their inception to January 31, 2023), Cochrane databases, Google Scholar, bibliographies, and conference proceedings., Study Eligibility Criteria: Randomized controlled trials that compared vaginal progesterone to placebo or no treatment in asymptomatic women with a twin gestation., Methods: The systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The primary outcome was preterm birth <34 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes included adverse perinatal outcomes. Pooled relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. We assessed the risk of bias in each included study, heterogeneity, publication bias, and quality of evidence, and performed subgroup and sensitivity analyses., Results: Eleven studies (3401 women and 6802 fetuses/infants) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Among all twin gestations, there were no significant differences between the vaginal progesterone and placebo or no treatment groups in the risk of preterm birth <34 weeks (relative risk, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.17; high-quality evidence), <37 weeks (relative risk, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.06; high-quality evidence), and <28 weeks (relative risk, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.55; moderate-quality evidence), and spontaneous preterm birth <34 weeks of gestation (relative risk, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.18; high-quality evidence). Vaginal progesterone had no significant effect on any of the perinatal outcomes evaluated. Subgroup analyses showed that there was no evidence of a different effect of vaginal progesterone on preterm birth <34 weeks of gestation related to chorionicity, type of conception, history of spontaneous preterm birth, daily dose of vaginal progesterone, and gestational age at initiation of treatment. The frequencies of preterm birth <37, <34, <32, <30, and <28 weeks of gestation and adverse perinatal outcomes did not significantly differ between the vaginal progesterone and placebo or no treatment groups in unselected twin gestations (8 studies; 3274 women and 6548 fetuses/infants). Among twin gestations with a transvaginal sonographic cervical length <30 mm (6 studies; 306 women and 612 fetuses/infants), vaginal progesterone was associated with a significant decrease in the risk of preterm birth occurring at <28 to <32 gestational weeks (relative risks, 0.48-0.65; moderate- to high-quality evidence), neonatal death (relative risk, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.92; moderate-quality evidence), and birthweight <1500 g (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.88; high-quality evidence). Vaginal progesterone significantly reduced the risk of preterm birth occurring at <28 to <34 gestational weeks (relative risks, 0.41-0.68), composite neonatal morbidity and mortality (relative risk, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.98), and birthweight <1500 g (relative risk, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.94) in twin gestations with a transvaginal sonographic cervical length ≤25 mm (6 studies; 95 women and 190 fetuses/infants). The quality of evidence was moderate for all these outcomes., Conclusion: Vaginal progesterone does not prevent preterm birth, nor does it improve perinatal outcomes in unselected twin gestations, but it appears to reduce the risk of preterm birth occurring at early gestational ages and of neonatal morbidity and mortality in twin gestations with a sonographic short cervix. However, more evidence is needed before recommending this intervention to this subset of patients., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To evaluate cost-effectiveness of transfemoral TAVR vs surgical replacement (SAVR) and its determinants in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and comparable risk., Methods: Patients were prospectively recruited in 6 Spanish hospitals and followed up over one year. We estimated adjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (Euros per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) using a net-benefit approach and assessed the determinants of incremental net-benefit of TAVR vs SAVR., Results: We analyzed data on 207 patients: 58, 87 and 62 in the Edwards SAPIEN (ES) TAVR, Medtronic-CoreValve (MC) TAVR and SAVR groups respectively. Average cost per patient of ES-TAVR was €8800 higher than SAVR and the gain in QALY was 0.036. The ICER was €148,525/QALY. The cost of MC-TAVR was €9729 higher than SAVR and the QALY difference was -0.011 (dominated). Results substantially changed in the following conditions: 1) in patients with high preoperative serum creatinine the ICERs were €18,302/QALY and €179,618/QALY for ES and MC-TAVR respectively; 2) a 30% reduction in the cost of TAVR devices decreased the ICER for ES-TAVR to €32,955/QALY; and 3) imputing hospitalization costs from other European countries leads to TAVR being dominant., Conclusions: In countries with relatively low health care costs TAVR is not likely to be cost-effective compared to SAVR in patients with intermediate risk for surgery, mainly because of the high cost of the valve compared to the cost of hospitalization. TAVR could be cost-effective in specific subgroups and in countries with higher hospitalization costs., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)