|
ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
|
|
Year : 2013 |
Volume
: 6 | Issue : 4 | Page
: 263-266 |
|
Anesthetic management for oocyte retrieval: An exploratory analysis comparing outcome in in vitro fertilization cycles with and without pre-implantation genetic diagnosis
Alexander Ioscovich1, Talia Eldar-Geva2, Marina Weitman1, Gheona Altarescu3, Alina Rivilis4, Deborah Elstein5
1 Department of Anesthesia, Shaare Zedek Medical Center (affiliated with the Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School), Jerusalem, Israel 2 IVF Unit, Shaare Zedek Medical Center (affiliated with the Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School), Jerusalem, Israel 3 IVF Unit; Medical Genetics Institute; ZOHAR PGD Lab, Shaare Zedek Medical Center (affiliated with the Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School), Jerusalem, Israel 4 Private Statistical Consultant, Toronto, Canada 5 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shaare Zedek Medical Center (affiliated with the Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School), Jerusalem, Israel
Correspondence Address:
Deborah Elstein Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, (Affiliated with the Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School), P.O. Box 3235, Jerusalem Israel
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0974-1208.126303
|
|
Purpose: To date, there has been no comparison of outcomes in women undergoing anesthesia for in vitro fertilization (IVF) oocyte retrieval for the purpose of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) because of their or their partner's genetic disease relative to the outcome in women requiring IVF because of fertility issues. Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study, wherein all demographic and anesthetic management data were collected from IVF and PGD units' records for a 6-month period. Descriptive analyses and parametric tests were employed. Results: There were 307 cases IVF and 76 cases PGD: most (97.4% and 99.7%, respectively) received general anesthesia with propofol and fentanyl ± dipyrone (90.5% and 93.3%, respectively) with no adverse effects. The only statistically significant difference between IVF and PGD groups that was potentially clinically significant was post-procedure recovery time (23.0 ± 20.4 vs. 29.4 ± 35.8 min, respectively; P < 0.0001), but is explainable as greater caution by Anesthesiologists for higher-risk PGD cases having autosomal dominant diseases that may impact anesthesia management (myotonic dystrophy, neurofibromatosis, Marfan's); two of these cases also recovered in the general post-anesthesia care unit, as a precaution for early diagnosis and treatment of potential post-procedural complication. Conclusions: Results of this first-ever survey of anesthesia for PGD compared with IVF cases imply that propofol-and-fentanyl-based anesthesia is safe and can be recommended, bearing in mind that with patients who have autosomal dominant diseases impacting anesthetic management it is prudent to be more cautious post-recovery. |
|
|
|
[FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
|