Index pregnancy versus post-index pregnancy in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss

Tzlil Greenberg, Liliana Tzivian, Avi Harlev, Ruslan Serjienko, Moshe Mazor, Asher Bashiri

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Scopus citations


Objective: To compare pregnancy outcomes of two consecutive pregnancies in a cohort of women with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), in order to determine the long-term prognosis of women with RPL managed in a dedicated RPL clinic. Methods: A retrospective cohort study including 262 patients with two or more consecutive pregnancy losses followed by two subsequent pregnancies-index pregnancy (IP) and post-index pregnancy (PIP). All patients were evaluated and treated in the RPL clinic in the Soroka University Medical Center. Results: Comparing IP with PIP, no significant difference in perinatal outcome was observed. The perinatal outcome remained encouraging with approximately 73% birth rate (73.7% versus 72.5%; p=0.83). Only 11% of the women with RPL continued to experience pregnancy losses for two subsequent pregnancies. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, number of miscarriages pre-Index was the only factor independently associated with birth in the PIP. Conclusion: There is no significant difference between IP and PIP regarding perinatal outcome. Appropriate management in the RPL clinic conferred a significant beneficial effect on long-term pregnancy outcome of a cohort of women with RPL.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)63-67
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine
Issue number1
StatePublished - 1 Jan 2015
Externally publishedYes


  • Birth rate
  • Index pregnancy
  • Long-term outcome
  • Post-index pregnancy
  • Pregnancy outcome
  • Recurrent miscarriage
  • Recurrent pregnancy loss

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology


Dive into the research topics of 'Index pregnancy versus post-index pregnancy in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this