Cargando…

Perinatal outcomes of neonates born from different endometrial preparation protocols after frozen embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have focused on pregnancy outcomes after frozen embryo transfer (FET) performed using different endometrial preparation protocols. Few studies have evaluated the effect of endometrial preparation on pregnancy-related complications. This study was designed to explore the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Cheng, He, Yi-Chen, Xu, Jing-Jing, Wang, Yu, Liu, Han, Duan, Chen-Chi, Shi, Chao-Yi, Chen, Lei, Wang, Jie, Sheng, Jian-Zhong, Huang, He-Feng, Wu, Yan-Ting
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8086106/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33926401
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-03791-9
_version_ 1783686459416379392
author Li, Cheng
He, Yi-Chen
Xu, Jing-Jing
Wang, Yu
Liu, Han
Duan, Chen-Chi
Shi, Chao-Yi
Chen, Lei
Wang, Jie
Sheng, Jian-Zhong
Huang, He-Feng
Wu, Yan-Ting
author_facet Li, Cheng
He, Yi-Chen
Xu, Jing-Jing
Wang, Yu
Liu, Han
Duan, Chen-Chi
Shi, Chao-Yi
Chen, Lei
Wang, Jie
Sheng, Jian-Zhong
Huang, He-Feng
Wu, Yan-Ting
author_sort Li, Cheng
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Previous studies have focused on pregnancy outcomes after frozen embryo transfer (FET) performed using different endometrial preparation protocols. Few studies have evaluated the effect of endometrial preparation on pregnancy-related complications. This study was designed to explore the association between different endometrial preparation protocols and adverse obstetric and perinatal complications after FET. METHODS: We retrospectively included all FET cycles (n = 12,950) in our hospital between 2010 and 2017, and categorized them into three groups, natural cycles (NC), hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and ovarian stimulation (OS) protocols. Pregnancy-related complications and subsequent neonatal outcomes were compared among groups. RESULTS: Among all 12,950 FET cycles, the live birth rate was slightly lower for HRT cycles than for NC (HRT vs. NC: 28.15% vs. 31.16%, p < 0.001). The pregnancy loss rate was significantly higher in OS or HRT cycles than in NC (HRT vs. NC: 17.14% vs. 10.89%, p < 0.001; OS vs. NC: 16.44% vs. 10.89%, p = 0.001). Among 3864 women with live birth, preparing the endometrium using OS or HRT protocols increased the risk of preeclampsia, and intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) in both singleton and multiple deliveries. Additionally, OS and HRT protocols increased the risk of low birth weight (LBW) and small for gestational age (SGA) in both singletons and multiples after FET. CONCLUSION: Compared with HRT or OS protocols, preparing the endometrium with NC was associated with the decreased risk of pregnancy-related complications, as well as the decreased risk of LBW and SGA after FET. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12884-021-03791-9.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8086106
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80861062021-04-30 Perinatal outcomes of neonates born from different endometrial preparation protocols after frozen embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study Li, Cheng He, Yi-Chen Xu, Jing-Jing Wang, Yu Liu, Han Duan, Chen-Chi Shi, Chao-Yi Chen, Lei Wang, Jie Sheng, Jian-Zhong Huang, He-Feng Wu, Yan-Ting BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Research Article BACKGROUND: Previous studies have focused on pregnancy outcomes after frozen embryo transfer (FET) performed using different endometrial preparation protocols. Few studies have evaluated the effect of endometrial preparation on pregnancy-related complications. This study was designed to explore the association between different endometrial preparation protocols and adverse obstetric and perinatal complications after FET. METHODS: We retrospectively included all FET cycles (n = 12,950) in our hospital between 2010 and 2017, and categorized them into three groups, natural cycles (NC), hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and ovarian stimulation (OS) protocols. Pregnancy-related complications and subsequent neonatal outcomes were compared among groups. RESULTS: Among all 12,950 FET cycles, the live birth rate was slightly lower for HRT cycles than for NC (HRT vs. NC: 28.15% vs. 31.16%, p < 0.001). The pregnancy loss rate was significantly higher in OS or HRT cycles than in NC (HRT vs. NC: 17.14% vs. 10.89%, p < 0.001; OS vs. NC: 16.44% vs. 10.89%, p = 0.001). Among 3864 women with live birth, preparing the endometrium using OS or HRT protocols increased the risk of preeclampsia, and intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) in both singleton and multiple deliveries. Additionally, OS and HRT protocols increased the risk of low birth weight (LBW) and small for gestational age (SGA) in both singletons and multiples after FET. CONCLUSION: Compared with HRT or OS protocols, preparing the endometrium with NC was associated with the decreased risk of pregnancy-related complications, as well as the decreased risk of LBW and SGA after FET. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12884-021-03791-9. BioMed Central 2021-04-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8086106/ /pubmed/33926401 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-03791-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Li, Cheng
He, Yi-Chen
Xu, Jing-Jing
Wang, Yu
Liu, Han
Duan, Chen-Chi
Shi, Chao-Yi
Chen, Lei
Wang, Jie
Sheng, Jian-Zhong
Huang, He-Feng
Wu, Yan-Ting
Perinatal outcomes of neonates born from different endometrial preparation protocols after frozen embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study
title Perinatal outcomes of neonates born from different endometrial preparation protocols after frozen embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study
title_full Perinatal outcomes of neonates born from different endometrial preparation protocols after frozen embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study
title_fullStr Perinatal outcomes of neonates born from different endometrial preparation protocols after frozen embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Perinatal outcomes of neonates born from different endometrial preparation protocols after frozen embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study
title_short Perinatal outcomes of neonates born from different endometrial preparation protocols after frozen embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study
title_sort perinatal outcomes of neonates born from different endometrial preparation protocols after frozen embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8086106/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33926401
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-03791-9
work_keys_str_mv AT licheng perinataloutcomesofneonatesbornfromdifferentendometrialpreparationprotocolsafterfrozenembryotransferaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT heyichen perinataloutcomesofneonatesbornfromdifferentendometrialpreparationprotocolsafterfrozenembryotransferaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT xujingjing perinataloutcomesofneonatesbornfromdifferentendometrialpreparationprotocolsafterfrozenembryotransferaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT wangyu perinataloutcomesofneonatesbornfromdifferentendometrialpreparationprotocolsafterfrozenembryotransferaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT liuhan perinataloutcomesofneonatesbornfromdifferentendometrialpreparationprotocolsafterfrozenembryotransferaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT duanchenchi perinataloutcomesofneonatesbornfromdifferentendometrialpreparationprotocolsafterfrozenembryotransferaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT shichaoyi perinataloutcomesofneonatesbornfromdifferentendometrialpreparationprotocolsafterfrozenembryotransferaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT chenlei perinataloutcomesofneonatesbornfromdifferentendometrialpreparationprotocolsafterfrozenembryotransferaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT wangjie perinataloutcomesofneonatesbornfromdifferentendometrialpreparationprotocolsafterfrozenembryotransferaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT shengjianzhong perinataloutcomesofneonatesbornfromdifferentendometrialpreparationprotocolsafterfrozenembryotransferaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT huanghefeng perinataloutcomesofneonatesbornfromdifferentendometrialpreparationprotocolsafterfrozenembryotransferaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT wuyanting perinataloutcomesofneonatesbornfromdifferentendometrialpreparationprotocolsafterfrozenembryotransferaretrospectivecohortstudy