双胎及多胎妊娠选择性减胎研究现状
Research Status of Selective Fetal Reduction in Twin and Multiple Pregnancy
DOI: 10.12677/ACM.2024.142569, PDF, HTML, XML, 下载: 47  浏览: 102 
作者: 薛靓瑀, 董 晋*:西安医学院临床医学院,陕西 西安
关键词: 多胎妊娠双胎妊娠减胎术辅助生殖妊娠并发症Multiple Pregnancy Twin Pregnancy Fetal Reduction Assisted Reproduction Pregnancy Complications
摘要: 随着晚婚晚育夫妇和不孕不育患者的增加,辅助生殖技术日益普遍,双胎及多胎妊娠率逐年上升,孕产妇及新生儿的围产期结局却不甚乐观,多胎妊娠减胎术通过减少此次妊娠胎儿数以改善妊娠结局,作为多胎妊娠减少母儿并发症的补救措施。目前多胎妊娠减胎技术愈发成熟,本文通过对既往多胎妊娠减胎病例的报道回顾,针对双胎及多胎妊娠选择性减胎阐述,旨在为临床提供一些科学依据和理论基础。
Abstract: With the increasing prevalence of delayed marriage, late childbearing couples, and infertility pa-tients, assisted reproductive technology is becoming increasingly common. Consequently, the rate of twin and multiple pregnancy has been on the rise year by year. However, the perinatal outcomes for both pregnant women and newborns are not promising. Multiple pregnancy reduction aims to improve these outcomes by reducing the number of fetuses in a pregnancy as a remedy to mitigate maternal and fetal complications associated with multiple pregnancy. Currently, fetal reduction techniques in multiple pregnancy have become more refined. This article reviews the previous re-ports of multiple pregnancy reduction cases, aiming at twin pregnancy and selective reduction of multiple pregnancy, to provide some scientific basis and theoretical foundation for clinical practice.
文章引用:薛靓瑀, 董晋. 双胎及多胎妊娠选择性减胎研究现状[J]. 临床医学进展, 2024, 14(2): 4095-4101. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2024.142569

1. 多胎妊娠概述

1.1. 多胎妊娠现状

一次妊娠,宫腔内有两个或以上胎儿时称为多胎妊娠,三个或更多胎儿的妊娠则称为高序多胎妊娠(higher-order-multifetal-gestations) [1] 。多胞胎的增加归因于辅助生殖技术(assisted reproductive technologies, ART)使用增加和生育延迟 [2] 。随着社会经济的不断发展,优化生育政策的开展以及生活环境的改变,晚婚晚育夫妇增加,生育力不断降低,导致不孕不育率逐年升高。随之ART、促排卵药物及人工受精的需求增多,为提高妊娠率 [3] ,多胎妊娠率逐年增加 [4] 。在普通人群中多胎妊娠率约为1/50,但通过ART技术助孕后其发生率为25%~35% [5] 。多胎及双胎妊娠的发生随地区、种族不同而有差别,孕妇家庭中有多胎史者,多胎及双胎妊娠发生率则增加。虽然现在诸多国家采取单胚胎移植(single-embryo transfer, SET)政策,以期显著降低多胎妊娠的发生率并改善多胎妊娠的孕产妇和围产儿结局,但ART治疗后多胎妊娠率在各国迥然不同,从2%~30%以上不等 [6] [7] 。目前有效减少多胎妊娠的策略之一就是采用SET,单胚胎移植可以减少双胎妊娠的发生。很早以前由欧洲研究人员发起,全球致力于减少多胎妊娠,多年来,这一想法不断发展,并产生了SET的概念 [8] 。这个概念最初在欧洲、最近在美国获得了广泛的普及。欧洲试管婴儿监测联盟报告称,2012年全欧洲30%的移植是单胚胎。体外受精(in vitro fertilization, IVF)/胞浆内单精子注射(intracytoplasmic sperm injection, ICSI)后的双胞胎分娩比例仍接近17% [9] 。但全球范围内STE率差异较大,如澳大利亚大约为90% [6] ,欧洲为38% [10] ,在美国23个州通过ART治疗妊娠的出生的婴儿中有50%以上是多胎分娩。ART治疗导致的多胎是一个日益严重的公共卫生问题,在全国和大多数州都是如此 [2] 。其原因可能是由于STE着床率及妊娠率低,间接增加移植次数、时间及经济成本等 [11] 。排卵功能障碍、子宫内膜异位症或男性因素不育的比例随着女性年龄的增长而下降,而卵巢储备功能减退的比例随着女性年龄的增长而增加。此外,治疗因素因妇女年龄的不同而有很大差异。在第5天(即囊胚期)进行胚胎移植的手术比例随着女性年龄的增长而下降,而移植三个或更多胚胎的手术比例随着年龄的增长而稳步增加 [12] 。在全球范围内,ICSI约占ART总人数的63%,比2004年有所增加,并且因区域而异。在欧洲ICSI占比约为64%,北美和拉丁美洲分别约为66.3%和81.1% [13] 。此外,对于妊娠率(pregnancy rates, PR)而言,ART的成本效益是SET与双胚胎移植(double-embryo transfer, DET)、新鲜胚胎移植及冷冻胚胎移植进行选择时需要考虑的一个重要方面。随着对多胎妊娠风险认识的提高,选择性SET也将更容易被接受 [14] 。有人担心冷冻胚胎移植对新生儿健康产生影响,但其实目前研究结果表明总体是安全的 [15] 。有研究对比了冷冻ICSI、冷冻IVF、新鲜ICSI和新鲜IVF活产婴儿的新生儿测量值。结果显示无论是ICSI还是IVF,冷冻组婴儿出生时的平均体重、身高和头围都高于新鲜组 [16] 。近期一项荟萃分析指出冷冻单胚胎移植妊娠与ICSI单胎妊娠相比围产期死亡率、早产、低出生体重、产前出血风险较低 [14] 。ART过程中,通过限制胚胎移植的数量,且在不影响移植成功率的情况下将多胞胎的风险降到最低是我们目前的期望。

1.2. 多胎妊娠影响

多胎妊娠对母亲和婴儿都有更大的健康问题,母体方面,多胎妊娠显著增加妊娠期糖尿病、妊娠期高血压疾病、未足月胎膜早破、前置胎盘、胎盘早剥、产后出血等围产期并发症和合并症风险,增加孕产妇死亡率和剖宫产率 [17] 。对于胎儿来说会增加早产、低出生体重(low birth weight, LBW)、小于胎龄(small for gestational age, SGA)、婴儿死亡和残疾的发生率。还有一些单绒毛膜的特异性并发症,如双胎反向灌注序列征(twin reverse arterial perfusion sequence, TRAP)、双胎输血综合征(twin-twin transfusion syndrome, TTTS)、双胎贫血–多红细胞血症序列(twin-anaemia-sequence, TAPS)。与单胎相比,多胎妊娠的死亡风险增加5倍,新生儿死亡风险增加7倍 [18] 。多胎妊娠未经干预者多数会发生早产,而早产儿虽存活率尚可,但远期并发症及智力障碍等发生率却远高于足月新生儿 [19] 。新生儿重症监护室医疗水平的提高,降低了新生儿的死亡率,尤其是极早产儿,但幸存婴儿的合并症的发病率也随之升高。在美国一项统计显示大约9%的ART单胎、56%的ART双胞胎和95%的ART三胞胎或高次多胞胎是低出生体重。接受ART治疗的单胎早产儿占15%,在双胎中占64%,在三胎或高倍数胎中占98% [12] 。研究显示出生体重 < 750 g的婴儿约有20%患有脑瘫(cerebral palsy, CP) [20] 。美国有研究表明ART婴儿中约有42%早产,占美国总人口中早产的比例约为13% [21] 。早产婴儿在死亡率和各种健康和发育问题方面比足月出生的婴儿面临更大的风险。并发症包括急性呼吸、胃肠、免疫、中枢神经系统、听力和视力问题,以及长期的运动、认知、视觉、听力、行为、社会情感、健康和成长问题。与单胎妊娠相比,双胎妊娠的新生儿围产期死亡率和发病率增加了6倍,CP的风险增加了4倍 [22] 。早产儿的出生还会给家庭带来巨大的情感和经济成本,并对公共部门的服务产生影响,如医疗保险、教育和其他社会支持系统。2005年美国与早产相关的经济费用估计为260亿美元,每个早产婴儿估计约51,600美元 [23] 。早产儿出生后12月之内所需要的医疗费用为足月儿的10倍 [18] 。生活质量差导致离婚率更高。

2. 减胎概述

由于促排卵药物及辅助生殖技术的广泛使用,多胎妊娠率急剧增加,由于其相关的不良围产结局,目前如何提高妊娠率并同时降低多胎妊娠并发症的发生率成为普遍关注的热点问题。在比利时,因颁布一项新法律,即要求所有36岁以下的患者在第一个周期进行SET,2004年多胎妊娠率从25%下降到11.9% [24] 。2017年辅助生殖技术协会制定的最新指南建议,在35岁以下的患者中,可以移植单个囊胚或单个卵裂期胚胎 [25] 。最初争论聚焦于对于几胞胎减胎较为合理,目前研究表明三胞胎减为双胞胎和未减胎的三胞胎相比,妊娠结局有明显改善 [26] 。但是减到单胎还是双胎更为合适目前仍有争议。

2.1. 减胎术适应症

多胎妊娠减胎术(multifetal pregnancy reduction, MFPR)是指多胎妊娠中减少一个或者多个胎儿总数的手术。多胎妊娠增加孕产妇及围产儿风险,并发症较多,故一般建议多胎妊娠者进行减胎治疗,以改善妊娠结局 [27] 。患者的选择可根据其社会经济地位、病史、生育能力、胎次和胎儿健康状况进行指导。选择性减胎适用于胎儿严重生长受限或者不协调性胎儿异常,其目的是改善胎儿健康状况。

目前国内外尚无公认的选择性减胎术的应用指征,根据国内外相关研究相对明确的指征有 [28] [29] :1. 多胎妊娠要求减少胎儿的数目;2. 孕妇有宫颈机能不全病史、子宫畸形等疾病的多胎妊娠;3. 其中一胎儿发现严重的结构异常;4. 严重早期胎儿选择性生长受限;5. TRAP;6. TTTS IV期;7. TAPS IV期;8. 严重的产妇心脏病。

2.2. 减胎方式

1) 胸腔或者心脏内注射氯化钾:在单绒毛膜妊娠中,胎盘有多血管吻合可能导致 TTTS,或者胎间输血,致使突然胎死宫内。或者血管吻合血管血液被分流,可能导致存活胎儿发生低灌注、低血压导致神经受损。故而单绒毛膜多胎和复杂性双胎妊娠是氯化钾注射的禁忌。该操作在超声引导下在胎儿心脏或者胸腔内注射氯化钾进行选择性减胎,多数在注射一分钟后胎儿心脏发生骤停,术后动态检测剩余胎儿心脏活动。这种方法的成功率高达99.5%~100%,且相对来说并发症较少 [30] 。

2) 双极脐带凝固(Bipolar Cord Coagulation, BPC):在超声引导下用10-F一次性套管针插入目标胎儿的羊膜囊,用3 mm双极钳钳夹脐带,设置30~50瓦的功率进行30秒的电凝。术后使用彩色多普勒超声确认血流停止。相关研究表明同卵双胞胎的存活率约为80%,32周前胎膜早破和早产的风险为20% [31] 。

3) 射频消融(Radiofrequency Frequency Ablation, RAF):使用200~1200 kHZ的交流电产生热能,使得组织温度升高,平均约110℃,持续约3分钟,进而组织凝固坏死。

4) 胎儿镜和胎内激光消融:该技术是相对较新,已用于单绒毛膜妊娠,原理是超声引导激光消融其中一个单绒毛膜胎儿的盆腔血管。首先进行超声检查,获得胎儿下腹部横切面,并显示髂内动脉和腹腔内脐静脉。其次局部麻醉母体皮肤、皮下组织和子宫肌层。然后将18号针头在超声引导下插入胎儿腹部,针尖抵达骨盆血管附近,将激光纤维插入针中并持续向前推进至超过针尖几毫米处,随之进行激光凝固,导致髂动脉和脐静脉血流停止。但胎儿心脏活动仍可持续几分钟。约60分钟后,再次进行超声检查,以确认单绒毛膜双胞胎中的一个胎儿死亡,另一个胎儿存活。

5) 其它方法:微波消融(Microwave Ablation, MWA):是胎儿手术中的一种全新的技术方法。MWA用于通过同轴天线传输能量。天线集中在异常胎儿的腹部,靠近脐带的插入,并提供单微波能量应用。高强度聚焦超声旨在为胎儿治疗带来一种无创技术。目标超声能量通过放置在女性腹部的换能器通过腹壁和子宫传输,从而引起血管阻塞。但目前该方法仅适用于极少数的TRAP序列和TTTS病例,但由于存在大量不完全血管闭塞,尚未证明其优于其他方法 [32] 。

2.3. 目标胎儿选择

在所有胎儿结构正常的情况下,一般选择最接近操作胎儿,如经腹壁操作时选择靠近腹壁的胎儿,经阴道操作时选择靠近宫颈口的胎儿。当怀疑有遗传性疾病史,可以进行羊膜腔穿刺术或者绒毛膜绒毛取样(chorionic villus sampling, CVS)形式进行产前检查,并且做好标记。由基因检测结果与胎儿匹配不正确或者抽样错误而导致的减胎胎儿选择错误也偶有报道,双胎中约为0.6%~0.8%,在双胎以上的多胎妊娠中约占1.2% [33] 。所以胎儿的正确抽样及标记至关重要。大多数FR医生仅通过超声评估来决定保留或减少哪些胎儿。即使有了增强的超声能力,分子检测提供了更多的信息,这也是患者和医生决策的重要组成部分。在FR之前进行CVS,并使用夜荧光原位杂交(Fluorescence in situ hybridization, FISH)来指导FR决策。随着FISH技术发展,现在FR之前行CVS检测的患者数量稳步上升,由2000年的20%上升到目前的85% [34] [35] 。这反映了人们对年龄和其遗传相关风险认识增加。选择性终止妊娠是诊断出胎儿畸形患者选择性减胎,还有部分患者因染色体异常根据胎儿性别进行选择。现行FR之前建议综合考虑颈项透明层超声检查、无创产前检查、胎儿位置和分子检测等因素进行抉择。

2.4. 减胎时机

减胎术是多胎妊娠在早期或中期选择性减掉一名胎儿以减少母儿并发症的一种补救措施。妊娠早期超声监测经阴道选择性减胎术操作相对简单、机械创伤小、术后恢复快等优点,在国内被普遍推广 [36] 。

MFPR通常在12~13周进行,主要是为自然流产的发生、妊娠早期的超声检查、排除胎儿异常、非整倍体标记及计算常染色体风险留出时间 [28] 。不同时间段减胎相应的流产及早产的风险不尽相同,有研究指出妊娠中期减胎与妊娠早期相比,流产和早产的风险分别为7%和14%,故部分学者建议如在妊娠中期发现胎儿异常,建议在妊娠晚期行选择性减胎术,以减少流产风险 [37] 。早期妊娠者可采用经阴道或者经腹抽吸胎芽或胎心注射氯化钾减胎。有研究显示6~8周经阴道和11~14周经腹减胎的妊娠结局相似 [38] 。中期及以上妊娠者则采用经腹减胎。经腹减胎术适用孕周较广,目前其最佳减胎孕周尚无统一结论。

3. 减胎对妊娠结局的影响

MFPR可以改善妊娠结局,如早产、LBW和SGA但不能完全逆转多胎妊娠不良结局。大量研究对比三胞胎减胎为双胞胎与原始三胎未减胎者相比妊娠结局更好 [39] [40] 。平均而言,三胞胎妊娠周期约33.5周,三胞胎及以上的多胞胎妊娠减为双胎分娩时的胎龄可增加4周 [41] 。Vieira等人比较了选择性双绒毛膜双胎妊娠减胎和未减胎双胎妊娠的结局和流产率。其结论表明,减胎的孕妇分娩时的胎龄较高,早产和妊娠并发症的发生率较低,但流产的风险没有增加。此外,发现剖腹产、先兆子痫、未足月胎膜早破(PPROM)和低出生体重的风险降低 [42] 。但是也有研究显示对于 < 34周的早产没有明显差异 [43] 。一项队列研究表明与原发性双胎相比,减为单胎的双胎妊娠者有更长的GA、更低的早产率、剖宫产率、LBW及SGA、更高的出生体重,且减为单胎并未增加 < 24周的流产风险 [44] 。Arie研究表明MFPR后三胞胎的平均胎龄为32.3周,双胞胎为35.6周。重度早产(妊娠32周前分娩)分别发生率为37.5%和7%。因此,未减胎的三胞胎严重新生儿发病率(如呼吸窘迫综合征、支气管肺发育不良、脑室内出血等)和新生儿死亡率更高,MFPR后三胞胎的新生儿重症监护病房的住院时间也明显长于MFPR后双胞胎,分别为31.4和15.7天 [45] 。

目前多胎减为双胎的妊娠结局有明显改善,但双胎是否减为单胎及多胎是否减为单胎的妊娠结局研究结果不一,仍然存在争议。如何提高ART妊娠率、降低多胎妊娠发生率及并发症,是医学界尤其是辅助医学技术过程中值得广泛关注的重要问题,目前SET被大部分医者接纳和推崇,与选择性减胎术相比,SET更为可行有效安全,从根本上降低多胎妊娠率及改善多胎妊娠带来的一系列不良结局。但仍需优化移植或促排方案,提高和创新技术支持,争取早日突破瓶颈,以保障生殖健康及以后的安全。

参考文献

NOTES

*通讯作者。

参考文献

[1] Martin, J.A., Hamilton, B.E., Ventura, S.J., et al. (2002) Births: Final Data for 2000. National Vital Statistics Reports, 50, 1-101.
[2] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2002) From the Centers of Disease Control and Pre-vention. Use of Assisted Reproductive Technology—United States, 1996 and 1998. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 51, 97-101.
[3] 李艳梅, 马晓玲, 张学红, 等. 辅助生殖技术中多胎妊娠减胎术后妊娠结局的比较[J]. 生殖医学杂志, 2017, 26(9): 874-879.
[4] Devine, K., Mumford, S.L., Wu, M., et al. (2015) Diminished Ovar-ian Reserve in the United States Assisted Reproductive Technology Population: Diagnostic Trends among 181, 536 Cy-cles from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcomes Reporting System. Fertility and Sterility, 104, 612-19.e3.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.05.017
[5] Kissin, D.M., Kulkarni, A.D., Mneimneh, A., et al. (2015) Embryo Transfer Practices and Multiple Births Resulting from Assisted Reproductive Technology: An Opportunity for Prevention. Fertility and Sterility, 103, 954-961.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.12.127
[6] Chambers, G.M., Paul, R.C., Harris, K., et al. (2017) Assisted Reproductive Technology in Australia and New Zealand: Cumulative Live Birth Rates as Measures of Success. Medical Journal of Australia, 207, 114-118.
https://doi.org/10.5694/mja16.01435
[7] The European IVF-Monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European So-ciety of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), De Geyter, C., et al. (2020) Corrigendum. ART in Europe, 2015: Results Generated from European Registries by ESHRE. Human Reproduction Open, 2020, hoaa038.
https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaa038
[8] Gerris, J., De Neubourg, D., Mangelschots, K., et al. (1999) Preven-tion of Twin Pregnancy after in-Vitro Fertilization or Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Based on Strict Embryo Criteria: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial. Human Reproduction, 14, 2581-2587.
https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/14.10.2581
[9] The European IVF-Monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the Euro-pean Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), Calhaz-Jorge, C., et al. (2016) Assisted Reproductive Technology in Europe, 2012: Results Generated from European Registers by ESHRE. Human Reproduction, 31, 1638-1652.
https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew151
[10] De Geyter, C., Calhaz-Jorge, C., Kupka, M.S., et al. (2020) ART in Europe, 2015: Results Generated from European Registries by ESHRE. Human Reproduction Open, 2020, hoz038.
https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoz044
[11] Mclernon, D.J., Harrild, K., Bergh, C., et al. (2010) Clinical Effectiveness of Elective Single versus Double Embryo Transfer: Meta-Analysis of Individual Patient Data from Randomised Trials. BMJ, 341, c6945.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6945
[12] Sunderam, S., et al. (2015) Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveil-lance—United States, 2013. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 64, 1-25.
https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6411a1
[13] Adamson, G.D., De Mouzon, J., Chambers, G.M., et al. (2018) In-ternational Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology: World Report on Assisted Reproductive Technology, 2011. Fertility and Sterility, 110, 1067-1080.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.06.039
[14] Maheshwari, A., Pandey, S., Shetty, A., et al. (2012) Obstetric and Perinatal Outcomes in Singleton Pregnancies Resulting from the Transfer of Frozen Thawed versus Fresh Embryos Generated through in Vitro Fertilization Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Fertility and Sterility, 98, 368-77.e1-9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.05.019
[15] Kansal Kalra, S., Ratcliffe, S.J., Milman, L., et al. (2011) Peri-natal Morbidity After in Vitro Fertilization Is Lower with Frozen Embryo Transfer. Fertility and Sterility, 95, 548-553.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.05.049
[16] Belva, F., Henriet, S., Van Den Abbeel, E., et al. (2008) Neo-natal Outcome of 937 Children Born after Transfer of Cryopreserved Embryos Obtained by ICSI and IVF and Compari-son with Outcome Data of Fresh ICSI and IVF Cycles. Human Reproduction, 23, 2227-2238.
https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den254
[17] Gupta, R., Sardana, P., Arora, P., et al. (2020) Maternal and Neonatal Complications in Twin Deliveries as Compared to Singleton Deliveries Following in Vitro Fertilization. Journal of Hu-man Reproductive Sciences, 13, 56-64.
https://doi.org/10.4103/jhrs.JHRS_105_19
[18] Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics; Society for Mater-nal-Fetal Medicine (2016) Practice Bulletin No. 169: Multifetal Gestations: Twin, Triplet, and Higher-Order Multifetal Pregnancies. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 128, E131-E146.
[19] Spittle, A., Orton, J., Anderson, P.J., et al. (2015) Early Developmental Intervention Programmes Provided Post Hospital Discharge to Prevent Motor and Cognitive Impairment in Preterm Infants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 11, CD005495.
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005495.pub4
[20] Van Naarden Braun, K., Doernberg, N., Schieve, L., et al. (2016) Birth Prevalence of Cerebral Palsy: A Population-Based Study. Pediatrics, 137, e20152872.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-2872
[21] Martin, J.A., Hamilton, B.E., Sutton, P.D., et al. (2006) Births: Final Data for 2004. National Vital Statistics Reports, 55, 1-101.
[22] Stromberg, B., Dahlquist, G., Ericson, A., et al. (2002) Neurological Sequelae in Children Born after In-Vitro Fertilisation: A Population-Based Study. The Lancet, 359, 461-465.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07674-2
[23] Behrman, R.E. and Butler, A.S. (2007) Preterm Birth: Caus-es, Consequences, and Prevention. Preterm Birth, Washington DC.
[24] De Sutter, P. (2006) Single Embryo Transfer (Set) Not Only Leads to a Reduction in Twinning Rates after IVF/ICSI, But Also Improves Obstetrical and Perinatal Outcome of Singletons. Koninklijke Academie voor Geneeskunde van België, 68, 319-327.
[25] Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Tech-nology (2017) Guidance on the Limits to the Number of Embryos to Transfer: A Committee Opinion. Fertility and Steril-ity, 107, 901-903.
[26] Chaveeva, P., Kosinski, P., Puglia, D., et al. (2013) Trichorionic and Dichorionic Triplet Preg-nancies at 10-14 Weeks: Outcome after Embryo Reduction Compared to Expectant Management. Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy, 34, 199-205.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000356170
[27] Anthoulakis, C., Dagklis, T., Mamopoulos, A., et al. (2017) Risks of Miscarriage or Preterm Delivery in Trichorionic and Dichorionic Triplet Pregnancies with Embryo Reduction versus Ex-pectant Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Human Reproduction, 32, 1351-1359.
https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex084
[28] Sebghati, M. and Khalil, A. (2021) Reduction of Multiple Pregnancy: Counselling and Techniques. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 70, 112-122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2020.06.013
[29] 李红燕, 李善玲, 王谢桐, 等. 多胎妊娠中孕期选择性减胎术[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志, 2015, 31(7): 602-607.
[30] Sfakianaki, A.K., Davis, K.J., Copel, J.A., et al. (2014) Potassium Chloride-Induced Fetal Demise: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Efficacy and Safety. Journal of Ul-trasound in Medicine, 33, 337-341.
https://doi.org/10.7863/ultra.33.2.337
[31] Roman, A., Papanna, R., Johnson, A., et al. (2010) Selective Reduction in Complicated Monochorionic Pregnancies: Radiofrequency Ablation vs. Bipolar Cord Coagulation. Ultrasound in Ob-stetrics & Gynecology, 36, 37-41.
https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.7567
[32] Ichizuka, K., Matsuoka, R., Aoki, H., et al. (2016) Basic Study of Less In-vasive High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) in Fetal Therapy for Twin Reversed Arterial Perfusion (TRAP) Se-quence. Journal of Medical Ultrasonics, 43, 487-492.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10396-016-0725-x
[33] Eddleman, K.A., Stone, J.L., Lynch, L., et al. (2000) Chorionic Villus Sampling before Multifetal Pregnancy Reduction. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 183, 1078-1081.
https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2000.108868
[34] Evans, M.I., Andriole, S. and Britt, D.W. (2014) Fetal Reduction: 25 Years’ Experience. Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy, 35, 69-82.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000357974
[35] Rosner, M., Pergament, E., Andriole, S., et al. (2013) Detection of Genetic Abnormalities by Using CVS and FISH Prior to Fetal Reduction in Sonographically Normal Appearing Fetuses. Prena-tal Diagnosis, 33, 940-944.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4213
[36] 胡琳莉, 黄国宁, 孙海翔, 等. 多胎妊娠减胎术操作规范(2016) [J]. 生殖医学杂志, 2017, 26(3): 193-198.
[37] Khalil, A., Rodgers, M., Baschat, A., et al. (2016) ISUOG Practice Guidelines: Role of Ultrasound in Twin Pregnancy. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 47, 247-263.
https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15821
[38] Haas, J., Barzilay, E., Hourvitz, A., et al. (2016) Outcome of Early versus Late Multifetal Pregnancy Reduction. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 33, 629-634.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2016.08.015
[39] Zipori, Y., Haas, J., Berger, H., et al. (2017) Multifetal Pregnancy Reduction of Triplets to Twins Compared with Non-Reduced Triplets: A Meta-Analysis. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 35, 296-304.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.05.012
[40] Van De Mheen, L., Everwijn, S.M., Knapen, M.F., et al. (2014) The Effectiveness of Multifetal Pregnancy Reduction in Trichorionic Triplet Gestation. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 211, 536.E1-536.E6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.04.023
[41] Obican, S., Brock, C., Berkowitz, R. and Wapner, R.J. (2015) Multifetal Pregnancy Reduction. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 58, 574-584.
https://doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0000000000000119
[42] Vieira, L.A., Warren, L., Pan, S., et al. (2019) Comparing Pregnancy Outcomes and Loss Rates in Elective Twin Pregnancy Reduction with Ongoing Twin Gestations in a Large Contemporary Cohort. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 221, 253.E1-253.E8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.04.001
[43] Gupta, S., Fox, N.S., Feinberg, J., et al. (2015) Outcomes in Twin Pregnancies Reduced to Singleton Pregnancies Compared with Ongoing Twin Pregnancies. American Journal of Obstet-rics & Gynecology, 213, 580.E1-580.E5.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.06.018
[44] Yimin, Z., Minyue, T., Yanling, F., et al. (2022) Fetal Reduction Could Improve But Not Completely Reverse the Pregnancy Outcomes of Multiple Pregnancies: Experience from a Single Center. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 13, Article 851167.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2022.851167
[45] Drugan, A., Ulanovsky, I., Burke, Y., et al. (2013) Fetal Reduction in Triplet Gestations: Twins Still Fare Better. The Israel Med-ical Association Journal, 15, 745-747.