Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2019
Increased pregnancy complications following frozen-thawed embryo transfer during an artificial cycle.
Название и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jing S, Li XF, Zhang S, Gong F, Lu G, Lin G
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study aimed to clarify the risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes in patients and their offspring after frozen embryo transfer (FET) during an artificial cycle (AC).
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study that included all FET cycles and subsequent deliveries in a single centre between August 2013 and March 2016. Pregnancy, obstetric and neonatal outcomes were compared among patients treated during an AC or a natural cycle with luteal phase support (NC-LPS). Multivariate logistic regression was performed to evaluate the relationship between endometrial preparation schemes and pregnancy, obstetric and neonatal outcomes.
RESULTS: AC-FET was not a significant risk factor for clinical pregnancy rate, multiple birth rate or miscarriage rate after adjusting for potential confounders. However, AC-FET was a significant risk factor for ectopic pregnancy rate (adjusted odds ratio (AOR), 1.738; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.086-2.781) and live birth rate (AOR, 0.709; 95% CI, 0.626-0.802). Regarding obstetric outcomes, AC-FET was found to be associated with an increased risk for hypertension disorder (AOR, 1.780; 95% CI, 1.262-2.510) and caesarean section (AOR, 1.507; 95% CI, 1.195-1.900). In multiples, birth weight (2550 g (2150-2900 g) in AC-FET vs. 2600 g (2350-2900 g) in NC-LPS; P = 0.023), gestational age (36.6 weeks (35.3-37.6 weeks) vs. 37.1 weeks (36.1-37.9 weeks); P < 0.001), and z-score (- 0.5 (- 1.1, - 0.0) vs. - 0.4 (- 1.0, 0.2); P = 0.009) were higher in the NC-LPS group than in the AC-FET group, although there were no differences in these variables among singletons.
CONCLUSION: Compared with NC-LPS, AC-FET seemed to have a negative effect on obstetric outcomes.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study that included all FET cycles and subsequent deliveries in a single centre between August 2013 and March 2016. Pregnancy, obstetric and neonatal outcomes were compared among patients treated during an AC or a natural cycle with luteal phase support (NC-LPS). Multivariate logistic regression was performed to evaluate the relationship between endometrial preparation schemes and pregnancy, obstetric and neonatal outcomes.
RESULTS: AC-FET was not a significant risk factor for clinical pregnancy rate, multiple birth rate or miscarriage rate after adjusting for potential confounders. However, AC-FET was a significant risk factor for ectopic pregnancy rate (adjusted odds ratio (AOR), 1.738; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.086-2.781) and live birth rate (AOR, 0.709; 95% CI, 0.626-0.802). Regarding obstetric outcomes, AC-FET was found to be associated with an increased risk for hypertension disorder (AOR, 1.780; 95% CI, 1.262-2.510) and caesarean section (AOR, 1.507; 95% CI, 1.195-1.900). In multiples, birth weight (2550 g (2150-2900 g) in AC-FET vs. 2600 g (2350-2900 g) in NC-LPS; P = 0.023), gestational age (36.6 weeks (35.3-37.6 weeks) vs. 37.1 weeks (36.1-37.9 weeks); P < 0.001), and z-score (- 0.5 (- 1.1, - 0.0) vs. - 0.4 (- 1.0, 0.2); P = 0.009) were higher in the NC-LPS group than in the AC-FET group, although there were no differences in these variables among singletons.
CONCLUSION: Compared with NC-LPS, AC-FET seemed to have a negative effect on obstetric outcomes.