• Features of the course of labor in women with a history of perinatal loss
To content

Features of the course of labor in women with a history of perinatal loss

HEALTH OF WOMAN. 2018.7(133):66–68; doi 10.15574/HW.2018.133.66

Vorobey L. I.
Shupyk National Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, Kiev

The objective: was to determine the features of the course of labor in women with a history of perinatal lesions.

Materials and methods. A prospective, concurrent, controlled, randomized study was conducted involving 68 women aged 26.8 ±0.5 years, with a gestation period of 28.1 ±0.56 weeks, 41 of whom had perinatal history lesions (main group) and comparable for anthropodemographic indicators and terms of gestation of 27 women with a repeat pregnancy without abortion or unsuccessful childbirth (child death) in the history (comparison group).

Results. In the anamnestic aspect, the characteristics of pregnant women with a history of perinatal losses are a relatively shorter interval between repeated pregnancies, a more frequent development of extragenital pathology – the respiratory, nervous, endocrine, cardiovascular and orthopedic disorders, and a higher incidence of gynecological anamnesis. In the context of complications of delivery, women with perinatal losses are characterized by premature birth, anomalies of labor, early discharge of amniotic fluid, ruptures of soft tissues.

Conclusion. It is necessary to make a comparative analysis of the course of pregnancy, childbirth and the state of health of newborns in women with a history of obstetrical anamnesis in connection with violations of neurovegetative regulation.

Key words: perinatal losses, anamnesis, childbirth, current.


1. Toth B, Würfel W, Bohlmann M et al. (2018). Recurrent Miscarriage: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures. Guidelineofthe DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S2k-Level, AWMF RegistryNumber 015/050). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 78; 4: 364–381. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0586-4568.

2. Lv S, Yu J, Xu X. (2018). A comparison of effectiveness among frequent treatments of recurrent spontaneous abortion: A Bayesiannetwork meta-analysis. Am J Reprod Immunol: e12856. https://doi.org/10.1111/aji.12856.

3. Lusink V, Wong C, deVries B, Ludlow J. (2018). Medical management of miscarriage: Predictive factors of success. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12808.

4. Huberty J, Matthews J, Leiferman JA, Lee C. (2018). Use of complementary approaches in pregnant women with a history of miscarriage. Complement Ther Med. 36:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2017.11.003.

5. Barthes C, Mezan De Malartic C, Baumann C et al. (2018). Echographic diagnosis of missed early miscarriage: Assessment of image quality. Gynecol ObstetFertil Senol. 46; 2: 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gofs.2017.12.002.

6. Cohain JS, Buxbaum RE, Mankuta D. (2017). Spontaneous first trimester miscarriage ratesper woman among parous women with 1 or more pregnancies of 24 weeksor more. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 17; 1: 437. doi 10.1186/s12884-017-1620-1.

7. Clinical Aspects of Miscarriage. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. (2018). 43; 1: E1-E2. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMC.0000000000000414.

8. Pillai RN, Konje JC, Richardson M et al. (2018). Prediction of miscarriage in women with viable intrauterine pregnancy-A systematic review and diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 220:122–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.10.024.

9. Smith P, Cooper N, Dhillon-Smith R et al. (2017). Core Outcome Setsin Miscarriage Trials (COSMisT) study: a studyprotocol. BMJ Open. 7; 11: e018535. doi 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018535.