Cargando…

Comparison of neonatal outcomes and live-birth defects after progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: A large retrospective cohort study

Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is a new ovarian stimulation regimen for in vitro fertilization (IVF), with the advantages of an oral administration route and more control over preovulatory luteinizing hormone (LH) levels. Assessing the safety of this novel regimen is an important premis...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Ningling, Lin, Jiaying, Zhu, Qianqian, Fan, Yong, Wang, Yun, Fu, Yonglun, Kuang, Yanping
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6112954/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30142796
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000011906
_version_ 1783350939234598912
author Wang, Ningling
Lin, Jiaying
Zhu, Qianqian
Fan, Yong
Wang, Yun
Fu, Yonglun
Kuang, Yanping
author_facet Wang, Ningling
Lin, Jiaying
Zhu, Qianqian
Fan, Yong
Wang, Yun
Fu, Yonglun
Kuang, Yanping
author_sort Wang, Ningling
collection PubMed
description Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is a new ovarian stimulation regimen for in vitro fertilization (IVF), with the advantages of an oral administration route and more control over preovulatory luteinizing hormone (LH) levels. Assessing the safety of this novel regimen is an important premise for its routine practice. We conducted a large retrospective cohort study for infants born between August 2014 and April 2017 from IVF and embryo transfer cycles after either PPOS and the conventional gonadotropin-releasing hormone-agonist (GnRH-a) short protocol at our center. Around 1589 live-born infants were finally enrolled, corresponding to 1258 frozen-thawed (FET) cycles, which led to 855 live-born infants from PPOS (659 FET cycles) and 734 live-born infants from the short protocol (599 FET cycles). Birth characteristics regarding gestational age, birth weight and length, infant sex, and early neonatal death were comparable between the 2 groups. The incidence of live-birth defects in the PPOS group (1.52%) was similar to that in the short protocol group (1.63%) and was not statistically significant. For birth defects, the risk significantly increased for multiple births, and the adjusted odds ratio was 3.14 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25–7.88). No associations were found between congenital birth defects and maternal age, body mass index (BMI), the duration of infertility, method of insemination, infant sex, embryo stage at transfer, the number of embryos transferred or ovarian stimulation regimen. Our study shows that the neonatal outcomes and risk of congenital malformations were similar between the PPOS and conventional GnRH-a short protocol. However, multiple pregnancy led to a higher likelihood of birth defects.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6112954
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61129542018-09-07 Comparison of neonatal outcomes and live-birth defects after progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: A large retrospective cohort study Wang, Ningling Lin, Jiaying Zhu, Qianqian Fan, Yong Wang, Yun Fu, Yonglun Kuang, Yanping Medicine (Baltimore) Research Article Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is a new ovarian stimulation regimen for in vitro fertilization (IVF), with the advantages of an oral administration route and more control over preovulatory luteinizing hormone (LH) levels. Assessing the safety of this novel regimen is an important premise for its routine practice. We conducted a large retrospective cohort study for infants born between August 2014 and April 2017 from IVF and embryo transfer cycles after either PPOS and the conventional gonadotropin-releasing hormone-agonist (GnRH-a) short protocol at our center. Around 1589 live-born infants were finally enrolled, corresponding to 1258 frozen-thawed (FET) cycles, which led to 855 live-born infants from PPOS (659 FET cycles) and 734 live-born infants from the short protocol (599 FET cycles). Birth characteristics regarding gestational age, birth weight and length, infant sex, and early neonatal death were comparable between the 2 groups. The incidence of live-birth defects in the PPOS group (1.52%) was similar to that in the short protocol group (1.63%) and was not statistically significant. For birth defects, the risk significantly increased for multiple births, and the adjusted odds ratio was 3.14 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25–7.88). No associations were found between congenital birth defects and maternal age, body mass index (BMI), the duration of infertility, method of insemination, infant sex, embryo stage at transfer, the number of embryos transferred or ovarian stimulation regimen. Our study shows that the neonatal outcomes and risk of congenital malformations were similar between the PPOS and conventional GnRH-a short protocol. However, multiple pregnancy led to a higher likelihood of birth defects. Wolters Kluwer Health 2018-08-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6112954/ /pubmed/30142796 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000011906 Text en Copyright © 2018 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
spellingShingle Research Article
Wang, Ningling
Lin, Jiaying
Zhu, Qianqian
Fan, Yong
Wang, Yun
Fu, Yonglun
Kuang, Yanping
Comparison of neonatal outcomes and live-birth defects after progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: A large retrospective cohort study
title Comparison of neonatal outcomes and live-birth defects after progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: A large retrospective cohort study
title_full Comparison of neonatal outcomes and live-birth defects after progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: A large retrospective cohort study
title_fullStr Comparison of neonatal outcomes and live-birth defects after progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: A large retrospective cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of neonatal outcomes and live-birth defects after progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: A large retrospective cohort study
title_short Comparison of neonatal outcomes and live-birth defects after progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: A large retrospective cohort study
title_sort comparison of neonatal outcomes and live-birth defects after progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a large retrospective cohort study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6112954/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30142796
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000011906
work_keys_str_mv AT wangningling comparisonofneonataloutcomesandlivebirthdefectsafterprogestinprimedovarianstimulationversusconventionalovarianstimulationforinvitrofertilizationalargeretrospectivecohortstudy
AT linjiaying comparisonofneonataloutcomesandlivebirthdefectsafterprogestinprimedovarianstimulationversusconventionalovarianstimulationforinvitrofertilizationalargeretrospectivecohortstudy
AT zhuqianqian comparisonofneonataloutcomesandlivebirthdefectsafterprogestinprimedovarianstimulationversusconventionalovarianstimulationforinvitrofertilizationalargeretrospectivecohortstudy
AT fanyong comparisonofneonataloutcomesandlivebirthdefectsafterprogestinprimedovarianstimulationversusconventionalovarianstimulationforinvitrofertilizationalargeretrospectivecohortstudy
AT wangyun comparisonofneonataloutcomesandlivebirthdefectsafterprogestinprimedovarianstimulationversusconventionalovarianstimulationforinvitrofertilizationalargeretrospectivecohortstudy
AT fuyonglun comparisonofneonataloutcomesandlivebirthdefectsafterprogestinprimedovarianstimulationversusconventionalovarianstimulationforinvitrofertilizationalargeretrospectivecohortstudy
AT kuangyanping comparisonofneonataloutcomesandlivebirthdefectsafterprogestinprimedovarianstimulationversusconventionalovarianstimulationforinvitrofertilizationalargeretrospectivecohortstudy