Spontaneous and in vitro fertilization pregnancies have comparable first trimester screening profiles for Down syndrome

First trimester screening pregnancy pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A beta-human chorionic gonadotrophin nuchal translucency in vitro fertilization intracytoplasmic sperm injection

Journal

Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association
ISSN: 1309-0399
Titre abrégé: J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc
Pays: Turkey
ID NLM: 101272522

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
28 05 2019
Historique:
entrez: 13 9 2018
pubmed: 13 9 2018
medline: 13 9 2018
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

We aimed to compare the first trimester screening profiles of spontaneous (n=972) and in in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancies (n=339) in a population of patients who had uncomplicated singleton pregnancies comparable for maternal age, gestation, body mass index, and ethnicity. A non-interventional analysis of retrospective cohort data and review of the literature. All IVF pregnancies were achieved via intracytoplasmic sperm injection using the same ovarian stimulation protocol with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, cetrorelix acetate. The means of the multiple of median (MoM) of pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) were slightly lower in the fresh (1.19±0.6 vs 1.33±0.7, respectively; p=0.056) and frozen embryo transfer (1.03±0.5 vs 1.33±0.7, respectively; p=0.036) IVF pregnancies compared with natural conceptions. However, when the medians of the MoMs of PAPP-A and beta-human chorionic gonadotrophin (β-hCG), and their distributions were compared across the mode of conception, there were no differences between IVF pregnancies spontaneous pregnancies. Furthermore, the scatterplot diagram and curve fitting regression analyses revealed no difference in the temporal relations of β-hCG and PAPP-A with each other and gestational age between spontaneous and IVF pregnancies. These results support the notion that uncomplicated singleton IVF pregnancies have similar first trimester screening profiles to spontaneous conceptions.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30206047
doi: 10.4274/jtgga.galenos.2018.2017.0133
pmc: PMC6558359
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

97-105

Références

Prenat Diagn. 2000 Aug;20(8):652-6
pubmed: 10951476
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2000 Oct;85(10):3700-7
pubmed: 11061527
Hum Reprod. 2001 Jul;16(7):1501-4
pubmed: 11425838
Prenat Diagn. 2001 Jul;21(7):563-5
pubmed: 11494292
Fertil Steril. 2001 Dec;76(6):1282-3
pubmed: 11730770
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2002 May;87(5):2359-66
pubmed: 11994388
Prenat Diagn. 2002 Aug;22(8):718-21
pubmed: 12210583
Placenta. 2003 Oct;24 Suppl B:S99-S103
pubmed: 14559038
Prenat Diagn. 2004 Feb;24(2):125-9
pubmed: 14974121
Prenat Diagn. 2004 Jun;24(6):471-7
pubmed: 15229849
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Jul;191(1):45-67
pubmed: 15295343
Prenat Diagn. 2005 May;25(5):390-3
pubmed: 15906430
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Jul;195(1):236-9
pubmed: 16626615
Prenat Diagn. 2006 Aug;26(8):672-8
pubmed: 16764012
Prenat Diagn. 2006 Dec;26(13):1206-11
pubmed: 17075793
Hum Reprod. 2007 Oct;22(10):2707-14
pubmed: 17728356
Fertil Steril. 2008 Oct;90(4):1206-10
pubmed: 18164000
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 May;31(5):493-502
pubmed: 18432600
Prenat Diagn. 2008 Dec;28(12):1131-5
pubmed: 19003798
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jan;33(1):8-17
pubmed: 19115229
Hum Reprod. 2009 Jun;24(6):1330-8
pubmed: 19246467
Hum Reprod. 2010 Feb;25(2):412-7
pubmed: 19945962
Reprod Biomed Online. 2010 Apr;20(4):516-22
pubmed: 20133199
Prenat Diagn. 2010 Apr;30(4):372-7
pubmed: 20225232
Fertil Steril. 2011 Jan;95(1):378-81
pubmed: 20723891
Prenat Diagn. 2011 Jan;31(1):7-15
pubmed: 21210475
Hum Reprod Update. 2012 Jul;18(4):350-9
pubmed: 22523111
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012 Aug;97(8):E1429-39
pubmed: 22689691
Fetal Diagn Ther. 2013;34(4):217-24
pubmed: 24192610
Hum Reprod. 2014 Dec;29(12):2644-9
pubmed: 25336709
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014 Dec 28;12:129
pubmed: 25543334
Prenat Diagn. 2017 Jun;37(6):540-555
pubmed: 28419502

Auteurs

Yılmaz Güzel (Y)

Assisted Reproduction Unit, American Hospital, Women’s Health Center, İstanbul, Turkey

Engin Türkgeldi (E)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Koç University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey

Hande Yağmur (H)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Koç University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey

Zeki Salar (Z)

Assisted Reproduction Unit, American Hospital, Women’s Health Center, İstanbul, Turkey

Başak Balaban (B)

Assisted Reproduction Unit, American Hospital, Women’s Health Center, İstanbul, Turkey

Bülent Urman (B)

Assisted Reproduction Unit, American Hospital, Women’s Health Center, İstanbul, Turkey
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Koç University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey

Özgür Öktem (Ö)

Assisted Reproduction Unit, American Hospital, Women’s Health Center, İstanbul, Turkey
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Koç University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey

Classifications MeSH