Live birth rates and perinatal outcomes when all embryos are frozen compared with conventional fresh and frozen embryo transfer: a cohort study of 337,148 in vitro fertilisation cycles.


Journal

BMC medicine
ISSN: 1741-7015
Titre abrégé: BMC Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190723

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
13 11 2019
Historique:
received: 23 04 2019
accepted: 19 09 2019
entrez: 14 11 2019
pubmed: 14 11 2019
medline: 1 4 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

It is not known whether segmentation of an in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycle, with freezing of all embryos prior to transfer, increases the chance of a live birth after all embryos are transferred. In a prospective study of UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority data, we investigated the impact of segmentation, compared with initial fresh embryo followed by frozen embryo transfers, on live birth rate and perinatal outcomes. We used generalised linear models to assess the effect of segmentation in the whole cohort, with additional analyses within women who had experienced both segmentation and non-segmentation. We compared rates of live birth, low birthweight (LBW < 2.5 kg), preterm birth (< 37 weeks), macrosomia (> 4 kg), small for gestational age (SGA < 10th centile), and large for gestational age (LGA > 90th centile) for a given ovarian stimulation cycle accounting for all embryo transfers. We assessed 202,968 women undergoing 337,148 ovarian stimulation cycles and 399,896 embryo transfer procedures. Live birth rates were similar in unadjusted analyses for segmented and non-segmented cycles (rate ratio 1.05, 95% CI 1.02-1.08) but lower in segmented cycles when adjusted for age, cycle number, cause of infertility, and ovarian response (rate ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.78-0.83). Segmented cycles were associated with increased risk of macrosomia (adjusted risk ratio 1.72, 95% CI 1.55-1.92) and LGA (1.51, 1.38-1.66) but lower risk of LBW (0.71, 0.65-0.78) and SGA (0.64, 0.56-0.72). With adjustment for blastocyst/cleavage-stage embryo transfer in those with data on this (329,621 cycles), results were not notably changed. Similar results were observed comparing segmented to non-segmented within 3261 women who had both and when analyses were repeated excluding multiple embryo cycles and multiple pregnancies. When analyses were restricted to women with a single embryo transfer, the transfer of a frozen-thawed embryo in a segmented cycles was no longer associated with a lower risk of LBW (0.97, 0.71-1.33) or SGA (0.84, 0.61-1.15), but the risk of macrosomia (1.74, 1.39-2.20) and LGA (1.49, 1.20-1.86) persisted. When the analyses for perinatal outcomes were further restricted to solely frozen embryo transfers, there was no strong statistical evidence for associations. Widespread application of segmentation and freezing of all embryos to unselected patient populations may be associated with lower cumulative live birth rates and should be restricted to those with a clinical indication.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
It is not known whether segmentation of an in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycle, with freezing of all embryos prior to transfer, increases the chance of a live birth after all embryos are transferred.
METHODS
In a prospective study of UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority data, we investigated the impact of segmentation, compared with initial fresh embryo followed by frozen embryo transfers, on live birth rate and perinatal outcomes. We used generalised linear models to assess the effect of segmentation in the whole cohort, with additional analyses within women who had experienced both segmentation and non-segmentation. We compared rates of live birth, low birthweight (LBW < 2.5 kg), preterm birth (< 37 weeks), macrosomia (> 4 kg), small for gestational age (SGA < 10th centile), and large for gestational age (LGA > 90th centile) for a given ovarian stimulation cycle accounting for all embryo transfers.
RESULTS
We assessed 202,968 women undergoing 337,148 ovarian stimulation cycles and 399,896 embryo transfer procedures. Live birth rates were similar in unadjusted analyses for segmented and non-segmented cycles (rate ratio 1.05, 95% CI 1.02-1.08) but lower in segmented cycles when adjusted for age, cycle number, cause of infertility, and ovarian response (rate ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.78-0.83). Segmented cycles were associated with increased risk of macrosomia (adjusted risk ratio 1.72, 95% CI 1.55-1.92) and LGA (1.51, 1.38-1.66) but lower risk of LBW (0.71, 0.65-0.78) and SGA (0.64, 0.56-0.72). With adjustment for blastocyst/cleavage-stage embryo transfer in those with data on this (329,621 cycles), results were not notably changed. Similar results were observed comparing segmented to non-segmented within 3261 women who had both and when analyses were repeated excluding multiple embryo cycles and multiple pregnancies. When analyses were restricted to women with a single embryo transfer, the transfer of a frozen-thawed embryo in a segmented cycles was no longer associated with a lower risk of LBW (0.97, 0.71-1.33) or SGA (0.84, 0.61-1.15), but the risk of macrosomia (1.74, 1.39-2.20) and LGA (1.49, 1.20-1.86) persisted. When the analyses for perinatal outcomes were further restricted to solely frozen embryo transfers, there was no strong statistical evidence for associations.
CONCLUSIONS
Widespread application of segmentation and freezing of all embryos to unselected patient populations may be associated with lower cumulative live birth rates and should be restricted to those with a clinical indication.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31718643
doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1429-z
pii: 10.1186/s12916-019-1429-z
pmc: PMC6852977
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

202

Subventions

Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_00011/3
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_00011/6
Pays : United Kingdom

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Références

Hum Reprod. 2011 Jul;26(7):1813-25
pubmed: 21540246
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 11;378(2):126-136
pubmed: 29320646
Int J Epidemiol. 2019 Aug 1;48(4):1294-1304
pubmed: 30879056
Ann Hum Biol. 2011 Jan;38(1):7-11
pubmed: 21175302
Hum Reprod. 2018 Oct 1;33(10):1883-1888
pubmed: 30239738
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014 Jun;99(6):2217-24
pubmed: 24606075
Hum Reprod. 2013 Sep;28(9):2545-53
pubmed: 23832793
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 11;378(2):137-147
pubmed: 29320655
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jul 05;7:CD003414
pubmed: 28675921
Reprod Biomed Online. 2010 Feb;20(2):209-22
pubmed: 20113959
Hum Reprod. 2018 May 1;33(5):924-929
pubmed: 29534178
Fertil Steril. 2011 Aug;96(2):344-8
pubmed: 21737072
Hum Reprod. 2011 Oct;26(10):2593-7
pubmed: 21828116
Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2012 Nov;8(11):679-88
pubmed: 23007319
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014 Jul 26;12:69
pubmed: 25064138
Fertil Steril. 2012 Aug;98(2):368-77.e1-9
pubmed: 22698643
Fertil Steril. 2016 Dec;106(7):1703-1708
pubmed: 27678031
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2016 Aug 30;14(1):51
pubmed: 27577996
JAMA. 2015 Dec 22-29;314(24):2654-2662
pubmed: 26717030
Lancet. 2012 Feb 11;379(9815):521-7
pubmed: 22243709
Fertil Steril. 2014 Jan;101(1):128-33
pubmed: 24268706
Fertil Steril. 2017 Feb;107(2):397-404.e3
pubmed: 27916206
Hum Reprod. 2013 Jan;28(1):6-9
pubmed: 23148202
Hum Reprod Update. 2006 Jan-Feb;12(1):13-21
pubmed: 16123051
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015 Feb;32(2):171-6
pubmed: 25428436
Hum Reprod Update. 2013 Mar-Apr;19(2):87-104
pubmed: 23154145
Fertil Steril. 1995 Jul;64(1):128-31
pubmed: 7789547
Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019 Feb;33(1):61-75
pubmed: 30770200
Hum Reprod Update. 2015 Sep-Oct;21(5):575-92
pubmed: 26117684
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 08;10(4):e0121357
pubmed: 25853703
Fertil Steril. 2008 Jul;90(1):186-93
pubmed: 17980870
Fertil Steril. 2011 Aug;96(2):516-8
pubmed: 21737071
Hum Reprod. 2017 Jul 1;32(7):1410-1417
pubmed: 28505290
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017 Feb;34(2):191-200
pubmed: 27909843
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jun 30;(6):CD002118
pubmed: 27357126
Lancet. 2019 Mar 30;393(10178):1310-1318
pubmed: 30827784
N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 11;375(6):523-33
pubmed: 27509101
Int J Epidemiol. 2018 Feb 1;47(1):226-235
pubmed: 29040562
JAMA. 2015 Jan 6;313(1):88-90
pubmed: 25562272
PLoS Med. 2011 Jan 04;8(1):e1000386
pubmed: 21245905
Hum Reprod Open. 2019 Mar 05;2019(2):hoz004
pubmed: 30895269
Endocrinology. 2008 Oct;149(10):5078-87
pubmed: 18566115

Auteurs

Andrew D A C Smith (ADAC)

Applied Statistics Group, University of the West of England, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK.

Kate Tilling (K)

MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2BN, UK.
Population Health Science, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.
NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol, UK.

Deborah A Lawlor (DA)

MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2BN, UK.
Population Health Science, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.
NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol, UK.

Scott M Nelson (SM)

NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol, UK. Scott.Nelson@glasgow.ac.uk.
School of Medicine, New Lister Building, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G31 2ER, UK. Scott.Nelson@glasgow.ac.uk.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH