Maternal body mass index affects embryo morphokinetics: a time-lapse study.
Adult
Blastocyst
/ physiology
Body Mass Index
Embryo Transfer
Embryonic Development
/ genetics
Female
Fetus
/ diagnostic imaging
Humans
Infertility, Female
/ diagnostic imaging
Maternal Age
Obesity
/ diagnostic imaging
Oocytes
/ growth & development
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Rate
Retrospective Studies
Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic
/ methods
Time-Lapse Imaging
BMI
Embryo development
Morphokinetics
Time-lapse
Journal
Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics
ISSN: 1573-7330
Titre abrégé: J Assist Reprod Genet
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9206495
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2019
Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
03
02
2019
accepted:
18
04
2019
pubmed:
8
5
2019
medline:
18
12
2019
entrez:
8
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To assess the effect of body mass index (BMI) on morphokinetic parameters of human embryos evaluated with time-lapse technology during in vitro culture. A retrospective analysis of ART cycles utilizing time-lapse technology was undertaken to assess the potential impact of maternal BMI on morphokinetic and static morphological parameters of embryo development. The cohort of patients was divided into four groups: 593 embryos from 128 underweight women in group A; 5248 embryos from 1107 normal weight women in group B; 1053 embryos from 226 overweight women in group C; and 286 embryos from 67 obese women in group D. After adjusting for maternal age, paternal age, and cause of infertility, time to reach five blastomeres (t5) and time to reach eight blastomeres (t8) were longer in obese women compared with normoweight women [50.84 h (46.31-55.29) vs. 49.24 h (45.69-53.22) and 57.89 h (51.60-65.94) vs. 55.66 h (50.89-62.89), adjusted p < 0.05 and adjusted p < 0.01, respectively]. In addition, t8 was also delayed in overweight compared with normoweight women [56.72 h (51.83-63.92) vs. 55.66 h (50.89-62.89), adjusted p < 0.01]. No significant differences were observed among groups with regard to embryo morphology and pregnancy rate. Miscarriage rate was higher in underweight compared with normoweight women (OR = 2.1; 95% CI 1.12-3.95, adjusted p < 0.05). Assessment with time-lapse technology but not by classical static morphology evidences that maternal BMI affects embryo development. Maternal obesity and overweight are associated with slower embryo development.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31062218
doi: 10.1007/s10815-019-01456-3
pii: 10.1007/s10815-019-01456-3
pmc: PMC6603074
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1109-1116Références
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015 Feb;32(2):255-61
pubmed: 25449291
Fertil Steril. 2010 Apr;93(6):2004-11
pubmed: 19185860
Nutrients. 2016 Feb 23;8(3):109
pubmed: 26907340
Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jul;118(1):63-70
pubmed: 21691164
Epidemiology. 2002 Mar;13(2):184-90
pubmed: 11880759
Fertil Steril. 2008 Jun;89(6):1606-8
pubmed: 17531230
Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 1999 Feb;50(2):211-6
pubmed: 10396364
Hum Reprod. 2008 Apr;23(4):878-84
pubmed: 18281684
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 Jan;104(1):53-5
pubmed: 18957271
Hum Reprod. 2001 Sep;16(9):2008-13
pubmed: 11527914
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009 May;94(5):1533-40
pubmed: 19223519
Fertil Steril. 2013 Oct;100(4):1050-8
pubmed: 23830106
Fertil Steril. 2006 May;85(5):1319-40
pubmed: 16647374
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2015 May;29(4):498-506
pubmed: 25619586
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2010 Nov;32(11):536-40
pubmed: 21271164
Fertil Steril. 2016 Mar;105(3):663-669
pubmed: 26627120
Hum Reprod. 2015 Jan;30(1):122-32
pubmed: 25391239
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 May;188(5):1169-70
pubmed: 12748467
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Apr;190(4):1091-7
pubmed: 15118648
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Apr;200(4):395.e1-9
pubmed: 19200933
Hum Reprod. 2002 Aug;17(8):2043-8
pubmed: 12151434
Reprod Biomed Online. 2012 Nov;25(5):474-80
pubmed: 22995750
PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49217
pubmed: 23152876
Hum Reprod. 2013 Mar;28(3):794-800
pubmed: 23293223
Semin Reprod Med. 2016 Jan;34(1):5-10
pubmed: 26696274
Hum Reprod. 2015 Feb;30(2):276-83
pubmed: 25527613
Fertil Steril. 2012 Dec;98(6):1481-9.e10
pubmed: 22975113
Reprod Biomed Online. 2008 Jun;16(6):778-83
pubmed: 18549686
Dev Biol. 1991 Jan;143(1):162-72
pubmed: 1985016
Hum Reprod. 2012 Jul;27(7):2130-45
pubmed: 22556376
Cell Res. 2006 Oct;16(10):841-50
pubmed: 16983401
PLoS One. 2010 Apr 09;5(4):e10074
pubmed: 20404917
Hum Reprod. 1999 Mar;14(3):712-5
pubmed: 10221701
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004 May;89(5):2442-51
pubmed: 15126576
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012 Jun;29(6):513-9
pubmed: 22527899
Mol Hum Reprod. 2015 Jan;21(1):23-30
pubmed: 24923276
Hum Reprod. 2011 Oct;26(10):2658-71
pubmed: 21828117
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012 Jun;52(3):270-6
pubmed: 22694077
Hum Reprod. 2008 Feb;23(2):324-8
pubmed: 18077317
Fertil Steril. 2013 Jan;99(1):44-46
pubmed: 23095140
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018 Nov;35(11):2013-2023
pubmed: 30132171
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018 Jul;35(7):1295-1300
pubmed: 29808381
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018 Nov;35(11):2081
pubmed: 30171514
Fertil Steril. 2010 Feb;93(2):447-54
pubmed: 19171335
Reprod Biomed Online. 2007 Nov;15(5):532-8
pubmed: 18044034
Lancet. 2014 Aug 30;384(9945):766-81
pubmed: 24880830
Circ Res. 1998 Nov 16;83(10):1059-66
pubmed: 9815153
Hum Reprod. 2011 Jun;26(6):1270-83
pubmed: 21502182
Hum Reprod. 2011 Jan;26(1):245-52
pubmed: 21071489
Eur J Med Genet. 2020 Feb;63(2):103638
pubmed: 30862510
Fertil Steril. 2008 Sep;90(3):714-26
pubmed: 18068166
JAMA. 2012 Feb 1;307(5):491-7
pubmed: 22253363
Reprod Biomed Online. 2011 Oct;23(4):421-39
pubmed: 21885344
Semin Reprod Med. 2011 Nov;29(6):507-13
pubmed: 22161463
Fertil Steril. 2014 Dec;102(6):1769-76.e1
pubmed: 25256931
Hum Reprod. 2012 Dec;27(12):3531-9
pubmed: 23019302
Biochim Biophys Acta. 2010 Mar;1801(3):338-49
pubmed: 20056169
Hum Reprod. 2001 Dec;16(12):2606-9
pubmed: 11726582