Obstetrics & gynecology science

Korean Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (대한산부인과학회)
권호 표지

Clinical Characteristics of Habitual Abortion According to the Etiological Classification

습관성 유산의 원인적 분류에 의한 임상적 고찰

Lee, Hyang-Ah;Joo, Won-Duk;Choi, Jeong-Won;Choi, Eun-Sun;Kim, Sung-Hoon;Chae, Hee-Dong;Kim, Chung-Hoon;Kang, Byung-Moon
이향아;주원덕;최정원;최은선;김성훈;채희동;김정훈;강병문

  • Published : 20050400
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To determine the frequency of factors associated with habitual abortion in 198 Korean couples. Methods: A total of 198 cases at the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Asan Medical Center, Korea from July 1989 to December 2001 that were diagnosed as habitual abortions were included in this study. The cases were divided into 2 main groups; a primary habitual abortion group and a secondary habitual abortion group. They were classified according to etiology. Results: The number of primary habitual abortion cases was 157 (79.3%) and that of secondary habitual abortion cases was 41 (20.7%). The mean age and number of previous abortions were not different between the two groups. The etiologic factors of the primary habitual abortions were anatomical (31.8%, 42/132), immunologic (24.2%, 32/132), unexplained (23.5%, 31/132), endocrinologic (15.2%, 20/132), genetic (12.9%, 17/132), and infection (1.5%, 2/132). The factors of the secondary habitual abortions were immunologic (36.8%, 14/38), unexplained (28.9%, 11/38), anatomical (21.1%, 8/38) and endocrinologic (13.2%, 5/38). The successful pregnancy rate following secondary habitual abortion was 42.0% (17/38), significantly higher than that following primary habitual abortion which was 34.8% (50/132) (p-value<0.05). Conclusion: The differences in etiologic factors between primary and secondary habitual abortions are statistically significant. The prognosis of a later successful pregnancy was significantly better in cases of secondary habitual abortion.

목적: 한국 여성에서의 습관성 유산의 원인을 알아보기 위함이다. 연구 방법: 1989년 7월부터 2001년 12월까지 울산대학교 의과대학 서울아산병원 산부인과에 내원한 습관성 유산 환자 198 명을 대상으로 원발성 습관성 유산군과 속발성 습관성 유산으로 나누어 원인적 분류를 시행하였다. 결과: 원발성 습관성 유산 환자는 157명 (79.3%)이었고 속발성 습관성 유산 환자는 41명 (20.7%)이었으며, 두 군 간의 나이, 기왕 유산 횟수에는 유의한 차이가 없었다. 원발성 습관성 유산을 원인빈도별로 보면 해부학적 이상이 있는 경우가 31.8% (42/132), 면역학적 원인 24.2% (32/132), 내분비계 이상 15.2% (32/132), 염색체 이상 12.9% (17/132), 감염에 의한 경우 1.5% (2/132) 순이었다. 속발성 습관성 유산을 원인 빈도별로 보면 면역학적 원인 36.8% (14/38), 해부학적 이상 21.1% (8/38), 내분비계 이상 13.2% (5/38)이었다. 유산 후 이후 임신의 생존 출생률은, 원발성 유산의 경우, 34.8% (50/132)가 이후 성공적인 분만을 하였고, 속발성 유산은 42.0% (17/38)에서 성공적인 분만을 하였다. 결론: 원발성 습관성 유산과 속발성 습관성 유산의 원인별 분류는 두 군 간의 빈도의 차이를 보였으며, 차후 임신에 대한 예후는 속발성 습관성 유산이 의미 있게 좋았다 (p<0.05).

Keywords

References

  1. Wilcox AJ, Weinberg CR, O'Connor BF, Baird DD, Schlatterer JP, Canfield RE, et al. Incidence of early pregnancy loss. N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 189-94 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198807283190401
  2. Stirrat GM. Recurrent miscarriage. Lancet 1990; 15: 673-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)95316-X
  3. Miller JF, Williamson E, Glue J, Cordon YB, Gruzinskas JG, Sytces A. Fetal loss after implantation; a prospective study. Lancet 1980; 2: 554-6
  4. Poland BJ, Miller JR, Harris M, Livingston J. Spontaneous abortion. A study of 1961 woman and their conceptuses. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl 1981; 102: 1-32
  5. Li TC, Makris M, Tomsu M, Tuckerman E, Laird S. Recurrent miscarriage: aetiology, management and prognosis. Hum Reprod Update 2002; 8: 463-81 https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/8.5.463
  6. Brigham SA, Conlon C, Farquharson RG. A longitudinal study of pregnancy outcome following idiopathic recurrent miscarriage. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 2868-71 https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/14.11.2868
  7. Clifford K, Rai R, Regan L. Future pregnancy outcome in unexplained recurrent first trimester miscarriage. Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 387-9 https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/12.2.387
  8. Li TC, Iqbal T, Anstie B, Gillham J, Amer S, Wood K, et al. An analysis of the pattern of pregnancy loss in women with recurrent miscarriage. Fertil Steril 2002; 78: 1100-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(02)04207-3
  9. Quency S, Farquharson RG. Predicting recurrent miscarriage -what is important? Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 82: 132-8
  10. Mary DS. Frequency of factors associated with habitual abortion in 197 couple. Fertil Steril 1996; 66: 24-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)58382-4
  11. DiejomaohMF, Al-Azemi M, Jirous J, Bandar A, Egbase P, Al-sweih N, et al. The aetiology and pattern of recurrent pregnancy loss. J Obstet Gynaecol 2002; 22: 62-7 https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610120101754
  12. Makino T, Hara T, Oka C, Toyoshima K, Sugi T, Iwasaki K, et al. Survey of 1120 Japanesewomenwith a history of recurrent spontaneous abortions. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1992; 44: 123-30 https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-2243(92)90057-6
  13. Ashermann JG. Amenorrhoea traumatica. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp 1948; 55: 23-30 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1948.tb07045.x
  14. Yaffe H, Ron M, Polishuk WZ. Amenorrhea, hypomenorrhea, and uterine fibrosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1978; 130: 599-601 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(78)90093-5
  15. Capella-Allouc S, Morsad F, Rongieres-Bertrand C, Taylor S, Fernandez H. Hysteroscopic treatment of severe Asherman's syndrome and subsequent fertility. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 1230-3 https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/14.5.1230
  16. Sugiura-OgasawaraM, Ozaki Y, Sato T, Suzumori N, Suzumori K. Poor prognosis of recurrent aborters with either maternal or paternal reciprocal translocation. Fertil Steril 2004; 81: 367-73 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.07.014
  17. 정성노.습관성 유산부부에서 발견된 전자에 관한 연구.대한산부회지 1992; 35: 471-9
  18. Ben-David M, Schenker JG. Transient hyperprolactinemia: a correctable cause of idiopathicfemale infertility. J Clin Endocrin Metab 1983; 57: 442-4 https://doi.org/10.1210/jcem-57-2-442
  19. Dlugi AM. Hyperprolactinemic recurrent spontaneous pregnancy loss: a true clinical entity or a spurious finding?. Fertil Steril 1998; 70: 253-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(98)00162-9
  20. Reber PM. Prolactin and immunomodulation. Am J Med 1993; 95: 637-44 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9343(93)90360-2
  21. Bryant-Greenwood GD, Yamamoto SY. Control of peripheral collagenolysis in the human chorio-decidua. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 172: 63-70 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(95)90085-3
  22. Hirahara F, Andoh N, Sawai K, Hirabuki T, Uemura T, Minaguchi H. F, et al Hyperprolactinemic recurrent miscarriage and results of randomized bromocriptine treatment trials. Fertil Steril 1998; 70: 246-52 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(98)00164-2
  23. Kuttech WH. Antiphospholipid antibody syndrome assosciated recurrent pregnancy l loss: treatment with heparin and low-dose aspirin is superior to low-dose aspirin alone. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 174: 1584-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70610-5
  24. Wilson WA, Gharavi AE, Koike T, Lockshin MD, Branch DW, Piette JC, et al. International consensus statement on preliminary classification criteria for definite antiphospholipid syndrome: report of an international workshop. Arthritis Rheum 1999; 42: 1309-11 https://doi.org/10.1002/1529-0131(199907)42:7<1309::AID-ANR1>3.0.CO;2-F
  25. Levine JS, Branch DW, Rauch J. The antiphospholipid syndrome. N Engl J Med 2002; 34: 752-63
  26. Triolo G, Ferrante A, Ciccia F, Accardo-Palumbo A, Perino A, Castelli A, et al. Randomized study of subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin plus aspirin versus intravenous immunoglobulin in the treatment of recurrent fetal loss associated with antiphospholipid antibodies. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 48: 728-31 https://doi.org/10.1002/art.10957
  27. Vaquero E, Lazzarin N, Valensise H, Menghini S, Di Pierro G, Cesa F, et al. Pregnancy outcome in recurrent spontaneous abortion associated with antiphospholipid antibodies: a comparativestudyof intravenous immunoglobulin versus prednisone plus low-dose aspirin. Am J Reprod Immunol 2001; 45: 174-9 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.8755-8920.2001.450309.x
  28. Tulppala M, Palosuo T. A prospective study of 63 couples with a history of recurrent spontaneous abortion: contributing factors and outcome of subsequent pregnancies. Hum Reprod 1993; 8: 764-70 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138137