Neonatal outcomes following different ovarian stimulation protocols in fresh single embryo transfer.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 02 2019
28 02 2019
Historique:
received:
19
07
2018
accepted:
07
01
2019
entrez:
1
3
2019
pubmed:
1
3
2019
medline:
2
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Previous studies suggested ovarian stimulation was associated with lower birth weight and higher risk of preterm delivery (PTD) from fresh embryo transfers (ETs). However, whether the increased risk differs between distinct ovarian stimulation protocols remains unknown. A retrospective cohort study of 38,220 singleton deliveries after fresh single ETs from 2007 to 2013 was conducted. Main outcomes were birth weight and gestational length. Compared with the natural cycle, all ovarian stimulation protocols were associated with a significantly increased risk for PTD, low birth weight (LBW) and small for gestational age (SGA). In subgroup analysis of maternal age under 35 years, luteal support using progesterone, and early cleavage ETs, the significant associations remained for LBW and SGA in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol and for LBW in GnRH agonist protocol. Ovarian stimulation using clomiphene citrate (CC) had the highest increased risks for LBW (Adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.58, 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.43-1.73) and SGA (AOR, 1.65, 95% CI, 1.50-1.82) compared with natural cycles, and was further associated with PTD and cesarean section. These findings suggest ovarian stimulation was associated with lower birth weight, and CC may have adverse effect on neonatal outcomes in fresh cycles.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30816139
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-38724-2
pii: 10.1038/s41598-019-38724-2
pmc: PMC6395801
doi:
Substances chimiques
Fertility Agents, Female
0
Clomiphene
1HRS458QU2
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3076Références
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004 Jul 1;115 Suppl 1:S44-56
pubmed: 15196716
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014 Jun;99(6):2217-24
pubmed: 24606075
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2006 Sep;22(9):506-10
pubmed: 17071535
Fertil Steril. 2016 Feb;105(2):337-46.e3
pubmed: 26518122
Fertil Steril. 2012 Aug;98(2):368-77.e1-9
pubmed: 22698643
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 29;4:CD001750
pubmed: 27126581
Reprod Biomed Online. 2014 May;28(5):572-81
pubmed: 24631167
Fertil Steril. 1986 Sep;46(3):392-6
pubmed: 3091405
Fertil Steril. 2005 Mar;83(3):587-93
pubmed: 15749485
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2012 Apr 27;10:35
pubmed: 22541043
Fertil Steril. 2014 Oct;102(4):1110-1116.e2
pubmed: 25064412
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 11;378(2):137-147
pubmed: 29320655
Reprod Biomed Online. 2007 Aug;15(2):134-48
pubmed: 17697488
Am J Epidemiol. 2012 Sep 15;176(6):506-11
pubmed: 22904203
Fertil Steril. 2000 Feb;73(2):287-91
pubmed: 10685531
Fertil Steril. 2013 Aug;100(2):341-8
pubmed: 23809505
Reprod Sci. 2016 Jun;23(6):748-55
pubmed: 26603317
Hum Reprod. 2016 Apr;31(4):789-94
pubmed: 26908846
Hum Reprod Update. 2014 Nov-Dec;20(6):808-21
pubmed: 24916455
Reprod Biomed Online. 2010 Aug;21(2):245-51
pubmed: 20538525
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jan;214(1):96.e1-8
pubmed: 26259908
Hum Reprod. 2016 Jul;31(7):1588-609
pubmed: 27207175
N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 11;375(6):523-33
pubmed: 27509101
PLoS One. 2014 Oct 01;9(10):e108219
pubmed: 25272289
Fertil Steril. 2015 Aug;104(2):333-8
pubmed: 26051093
Fertil Steril. 2013 Aug;100(2):392-5
pubmed: 23623475
Lancet. 1984 Dec 1;2(8414):1284-5
pubmed: 6150318
Reprod Med Biol. 2017 Nov 29;17(1):20-28
pubmed: 29371817