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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |