Recurrent Pregnancy Loss
by Barry
Jacobs, M.D.
Texas Fertility, P.A.
Miscarriage
If we are to adhere to strict medical
definition, recurrent pregnancy loss is three or
more miscarriages. Purists frequently will not
start to evaluate a couple who have had only two
losses, but my feeling is that we should not be
too rigid. Certainly if the lady is over 35, she
is at greater risk for miscarriage than is her
25 year old "sister", but she is also at greater
risk of not being able to conceive again.
Couples whose only two pregnancies have been
lost are also deserving of some greater
consideration as well. In this discussion, I
would like to outline some of the causes of
recurrent pregnancy loss and offer some
suggestions as to evaluation and treatment.
Causes of Miscarriage
Probably the most common cause of any
pregnancy loss is a chromosome abnormality in
the conception. The contribution of the
inappropriate number of chromosomes usually
comes from the egg. Best estimates are today
that only about one half the eggs a woman makes
in her reproductive lifetime are capable of a
successful pregnancy. Most of these
chromosomally abnormal eggs are never identified
as pregnancies. Either they do not divide to
produce an embryo or fetus, or the conception is
lost very soon after implantation of the early
embryo. A woman is a few days late for her
menstrual period and thinks nothing of it.
Eggs and sperm, collectively known as gametes,
form differently than other cells in the body.
With the exception of gametes, all normal cells
in the human contain 46 chromosomes. There are
22 paired chromosomes called autosomes. These
direct the overall formation of the body. There
is also a twenty-third pair of chromosomes,
often referred to as sex chromosomes. In women
and girls, there is a matched pair of "X"
chromosomes, which are responsible for, among
other things, the formation of the ovaries. In
men and boys, one of the "X" chromosomes is
replaced with a much shorter "Y" chromosome. The
"Y" chromosome carries the determinants for
maleness. Formation of gametes (sperm and eggs)
requires the separation of pairs of chromosomes
into singletons, which on fertilization of the
egg recombine to form the 23 pairs of a new
individual. Some times in the formation of a
gamete, some genetic material gets lost. It may
be the result of the loss of a part of a
chromosome or even an entire chromosome. The
missing genetic material may be attached to
another chromosome and be surplus genetic
material in another gamete. Large deletions or
excesses of genetic material are lethal
conditions for the conception and it will be
lost. Examinations of products of conception,
which have been passed, are rarely helpful. For
couples with repeated losses, it is better to
evaluate their chromosomes to determine if one
of them is at increased risk of making gametes
with the improper number of chromosomes. If one
has such a problem, it is appropriate to
consider donor sperm or donor egg.
Risk of Miscarriage
There is a certain overall or background risk
to pregnancy loss. The risk increases with age.
Below is a table published in Fertility and
Sterility.
|
Maternal age
(years) |
Risk of
Miscarriage (%) |
|
15-19 |
9.9 |
|
20-24 |
9.5 |
|
25-29 |
10.0 |
|
30-34 |
11.7 |
|
35-39 |
17.7 |
|
40-44 |
33.8 |
|
44 & older |
53.2 |
Fertility and Sterility:
vol.46, p 989; 1986
Since there is a parallel increased risk of
chromosome abnormalities in live births in women
over 35, we assume the same mechanisms are
responsible for increased risk of miscarriage.
Abnormalities of the uterus may increase the
potential for pregnancy loss. Fibroid tumors of
the uterus may increase the risk to some degree,
but are not as great a risk as incomplete
formation of the uterus. The uterus is formed by
the fusion of two tubular structures in the
early fetus. It is not uncommon to find
incomplete fusion. At its most severe, there may
be complete duplication of structures as the
cervix, uterine body and cavity, as well as the
upper one third of the vagina. More commonly we
find a duplication of only the uterine body and
cavity. Such a uterus is described as "bicornuate"
or two horned. It actually looks like the horns
of a steer. The risk of pregnancy loss in this
condition is approximately one third (30%-35%,
depending on whose series you read). Still more
common is a less severe incomplete fusion
referred to as a septate uterus. The septum or
wall, which either partially or completely
divides the uterine cavity, has very poor blood
supply. We believe the poor blood supply to the
septum is responsible for the two-thirds
probability of losing a pregnancy in a septate
uterus. Where as a partial septum increases the
risk to 60%-75%; a total septum carries a risk
for loss of up to 90%. Today a relatively simple
surgical procedure can remove a uterine septum.
DES and Miscarriage
Diethylstilbestrol (DES) was used many years
ago with the mistaken belief that it could
prevent miscarriages. We know today, that in
addition to increasing the risk of a very rare
vaginal cancer in exposed women, there is
decreased fertility and increased risk of
pregnancy loss. Diagnosis of the uterine
abnormality associated with DES can be easily
accomplished with a properly done
hysterosalpingogram (HSG, X-ray of the uterus
and fallopian tubes).
Other Miscarriage Information
So far our discussion has been about first
trimester loss. A common cause of second
trimester loss is an "incompetent cervix". The
incompetent cervix painlessly dilates in early
to mid second trimester and the pregnancy
literally falls out. The woman has a gush of
water and then begins to cramp as the uterus
begins to contract, expelling what remains of
the pregnancy. Placing special sutures in a
purse string fashion around the cervix helps
prevent a future loss.
Some infectious agents have been incriminated in
pregnancy loss, but the evidence that they are
guilty is open to many questions. The focus has
primarily been on Mycoplasma hominis, and
Ureaplasma urealyticum. The studies in which
these bacteria are incriminated are interesting,
but have some significant weakness from the
standpoint of study design. Another germ, which
has been blamed, is Chlamydia. The data
supporting Chlamydia's role as a cause for
pregnancy loss is even less strong than for the
other two.
Approximately 10% of couples with recurrent
pregnancy loss have recognized immune problems.
The immunology problem is tagged with the
misnomer "lupus anticoagulant". It is not
related to the disease lupus and it is not an
anticoagulant. Instead, the immunology problem
actually enhances clotting. As such it may cause
clotting in small blood vessels of the placenta.
Testing for lupus is not helpful in making a
diagnosis. We must test for clotting activity.
The best treatment to date seems to be low dose
aspirin and low dose heparin. Cortisol and
related drugs have been tried, but are of no
greater benefit and significantly increase the
risks to the woman's health.
Several years ago, much discussion was
publicized about "blocking factor" and how
inadequate "blocking factor" increased the risk
of miscarriage. Forget it! We have never been
able to find blocking factor. The original
studies cited the Hutterite communities of the
mid-west and their high rate of pregnancy loss.
They have a very high compatibility of
tissue-typing antigens (HLA) and, therefore,
make fairly good organ donors for each other.
The hypothesis arose that husband and wife were
immunologicly too similar and for that reason,
she did not produce adequate "blocking factor"
to protect the early placenta and fetus from
maternal antibodies. None of this could be
proven. A carefully done genetic study hints
that there may be a lethal mutant gene in the
same area on the chromosome that carries the
genes for the HLA antigens.
Many OB-GYN's have guessed that some women do
not make enough progesterone to support an early
pregnancy. Although this seems to be unusual, I
believe it may, on some occasions, be
responsible for pregnancy loss. In a few of my
patients I have been able to find no other cause
for repetitive loss except low progesterone
levels in early pregnancy. I supplemented them
with progesterone and the pregnancy was
successful. Did I really help with the
progesterone? I don't know! I will, however,
take the credit. There are times we can identify
poor preparation of the endometrium (uterine
lining) to support a new pregnancy. Hormonal
evaluation, such as thyroid function,
progesterone secretion by the ovary after
ovulation, and prolactin levels, need to be
evaluated. Specific treatment can then be
designed.
Very poorly understood and worse documented is
the observation that delayed ovulation, beyond
cycle day 16, seems to be associated with poor
retention of the early pregnancy. Is the egg too
old by the time it is released from the ovary
and then fertilized? Again, using the anecdotal
discussion, ovulation induction to move egg
release forward to cycle day 13 or 14 seems to
be helpful.
The information provided is neither exhaustive
nor detailed. It is meant as an overview of a
serious problem for those who experience it.
Please contact a well trained Reproductive
Endocrinologist for assistance if you are having
a problem.
 |