Search

Study Question: Is the embryo transfer (ET) method associated with maternal and perinatal outcomes after minimal stimulation IVF using clomiphene citrate (CC)?, Summary Answer: The incidence of pregnancy complications and adverse perinatal outcomes was influenced by the developmental stage (cleavage versus blastocyst stages) and cryopreservation (fresh versus vitrified) of the transferred embryos., What Is Known Already: Pregnancies resulting from IVF are associated with higher risks of adverse perinatal outcomes compared to natural conceptions; therefore, the next focus in reproductive medicine should be to assess whether these increased risks are attributable to IVF. Pregnancy complications and perinatal outcomes should be considered in addition to pregnancy outcomes when selecting the ET method, however, studies that describe the influence of transfer methods on perinatal and maternal outcomes are limited., Study Design Size Duration: This study retrospectively analysed a large single-centre cohort. The clinical records of 36 827 women who underwent oocyte retrieval (during a CC-based minimal stimulation cycle) followed by their first ET at the fertility treatment centre between January 2008 and December 2017 were retrospectively analysed. The patients underwent a single fresh cleavage-stage ET (SFCT), single vitrified-warmed cleavage-stage ET (SVCT) or single vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer (SVBT). This study only included one cycle per patient., Participants/materials Setting Methods: Oocyte retrieval was performed following CC-based minimal ovarian stimulation. The embryos were transferred 2-3 days after retrieval or vitrified at the cleavage or blastocyst stage. The vitrified embryos were then warmed and transferred within the natural cycles. Pregnancy complications and perinatal outcomes were stratified according to the transfer methods used. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of ET methods on the prevalence of pregnancy complications and congenital anomalies., Main Results and the Role of Chance: The rates of clinical pregnancy and delivery were significantly different among the groups. We analysed pregnancy complications in 7502 singleton births (SFCT, 3395 cycles; SVCT, 586 cycles; and SVBT, 3521 cycles). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for hypertensive disorders in pregnancy was significantly lower in the SVBT group than in the SFCT group [AOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92]. The AOR for low-lying placenta was lower in the SVBT group than in the SFCT group (AOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.19-0.60). The AOR for placenta previa was lower in the SVCT and SVBT groups than in the SFCT group (AOR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.07-0.58 versus AOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.38-0.75, respectively). A total of 7460 follow-up data on neonatal outcomes was analysed. The AOR for preterm delivery was lower in the SVBT group than in the SFCT group (AOR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.94). The AOR for low birthweight was significantly lower after SVCT and SVBT than after SFCT (AOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46-0.98 versus AOR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.48-0.66, respectively). The AOR for small for gestational age was lower in the SVCT and SVBT groups than in the SFCT group (AOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46-0.98 versus AOR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.36-0.55, respectively). The AOR for large for gestational age babies was higher in the SVBT group than in the SFCT group (AOR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.62-2.18). The incidence of each congenital anomaly was similar among the groups., Limitations Reasons for Caution: The study data were collected through self-reported parental questionnaires on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Our findings were not compared with the incidence of pregnancy complications and congenital anomalies in natural pregnancies. Furthermore, this study was retrospective in nature; therefore, further studies are required to ascertain the generalizability of these findings to other clinics with different protocols and/or different patient demographics., Wider Implications of the Findings: This study demonstrated reassuring outcomes for SVBT (in terms of a lower incidence of pregnancy complications) compared to SFCT. Our findings provide valuable knowledge that will help improve perinatal and maternal outcomes in CC-based stimulation and inform couples of the possible benefits and risks of each type of ET method., Study Funding/competing Interests: This research did not receive any specific grants from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., Trial Registration Number: N/A., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Study Question: Can preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) improve the live birth rate and reduce the miscarriage rate in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) caused by an abnormal embryonic karyotype and recurrent implantation failure (RIF)?, Summary Answer: PGT-A could not improve the live births per patient nor reduce the rate of miscarriage, in both groups., What Is Known Already: PGT-A use has steadily increased worldwide. However, only a few limited studies have shown that it improves the live birth rate in selected populations in that the prognosis has been good. Such studies have excluded patients with RPL and RIF. In addition, several studies have failed to demonstrate any benefit at all. PGT-A was reported to be without advantage in patients with unexplained RPL whose embryonic karyotype had not been analysed. The efficacy of PGT-A should be examined by focusing on patients whose previous products of conception (POC) have been aneuploid, because the frequencies of abnormal and normal embryonic karyotypes have been reported as 40-50% and 5-25% in patients with RPL, respectively., Study Design, Size, Duration: A multi-centre, prospective pilot study was conducted from January 2017 to June 2018. A total of 171 patients were recruited for the study: an RPL group, including 41 and 38 patients treated respectively with and without PGT-A, and an RIF group, including 42 and 50 patients treated respectively with and without PGT-A. At least 10 women in each age group (35-36, 37-38, 39-40 or 41-42 years) were selected for PGT-A groups., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: All patients and controls had received IVF-ET for infertility. Patients in the RPL group had had two or more miscarriages, and at least one case of aneuploidy had been ascertained through prior POC testing. No pregnancies had occurred in the RIF group, even after at least three embryo transfers. Trophectoderm biopsy and array comparative genomic hybridisation (aCGH) were used for PGT-A. The live birth rate of PGT-A and non-PGT-A patients was compared after the development of blastocysts from up to two oocyte retrievals and a single blastocyst transfer. The miscarriage rate and the frequency of euploidy, trisomy and monosomy in the blastocysts were noted., Main Result and the Role of Chance: There were no significant differences in the live birth rates per patient given or not given PGT-A: 26.8 versus 21.1% in the RPL group and 35.7 versus 26.0% in the RIF group, respectively. There were also no differences in the miscarriage rates per clinical pregnancies given or not given PGT-A: 14.3 versus 20.0% in the RPL group and 11.8 versus 0% in the RIF group, respectively. However, PGT-A improved the live birth rate per embryo transfer procedure in both the RPL (52.4 vs 21.6%, adjusted OR 3.89; 95% CI 1.16-13.1) and RIF groups (62.5 vs 31.7%, adjusted OR 3.75; 95% CI 1.28-10.95). Additionally, PGT-A was shown to reduce biochemical pregnancy loss per biochemical pregnancy: 12.5 and 45.0%, adjusted OR 0.14; 95% CI 0.02-0.85 in the RPL group and 10.5 and 40.9%, adjusted OR 0.17; 95% CI 0.03-0.92 in the RIF group. There was no difference in the distribution of genetic abnormalities between RPL and RIF patients, although double trisomy tended to be more frequent in RPL patients., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: The sample size was too small to find any significant advantage for improving the live birth rate and reducing the clinical miscarriage rate per patient. Further study is necessary., Wider Implication of the Findings: A large portion of pregnancy losses in the RPL group might be due to aneuploidy, since PGT-A reduced the overall incidence of pregnancy loss in these patients. Although PGT-A did not improve the live birth rate per patient, it did have the advantage of reducing the number of embryo transfers required to achieve a similar number live births compared with those not undergoing PGT-A., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This study was supported by the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology and grants from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology. There are no conflicts of interest to declare., Trial Registration Number: N/A., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permission@oup.com.)