Association between endometrial thickness and neonatal outcomes in intrauterine insemination cycles: a retrospective analysis of 1,016 live-born singletons.
Adult
Birth Weight
/ physiology
China
/ epidemiology
Cohort Studies
Endometrium
/ pathology
Female
Humans
Infant, Newborn
Infant, Newborn, Diseases
/ diagnosis
Infertility
/ diagnosis
Live Birth
/ epidemiology
Male
Organ Size
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Outcome
/ epidemiology
Prognosis
Retrospective Studies
Risk Factors
Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic
Treatment Outcome
Birthweight
Endometrial thickness
Gestational age
Intrauterine insemination
Neonatal outcomes
Journal
Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E
ISSN: 1477-7827
Titre abrégé: Reprod Biol Endocrinol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101153627
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 May 2020
14 May 2020
Historique:
received:
24
01
2020
accepted:
22
04
2020
entrez:
16
5
2020
pubmed:
16
5
2020
medline:
19
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Decreased endometrial thickness (EMT) has been suggested to be associated with reduced birthweight of in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) newborns. Considering the differences in ovarian stimulation degree and laboratory procedures between IVF/ICSI and IUI treatment, we aim to investigate whether EMT has any influence on IUI infant outcomes as well. This was a retrospective cohort study of 1016 patients who had singleton livebirths after IUI treatment cycles from January 2008 to December 2018 at a tertiary-care academic medical center in China. Patients were categorized into three groups by the 10th and 90th percentile of peak EMT: ≤7.6, 7.7-13.0 and ≥ 13.1 mm. The primary outcomes of the study were preterm birth (PTB), low birthweight (LBW) and small-for-gestational age (SGA). Multiple regression analyses were performed after controlling for a variety of potential confounders. No significant differences were found among the three groups in gestational age, birthweight and birthweight Z-score. Compared with the EMT 7.7-13.0 mm group, the incidences of PTB, LBW and SGA were 5.5% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-2.01), 6.4% (aOR 1.44, 95% CI 0.58-3.58) and 7.3% (aOR 1.21, 95% CI 0.53-2.76) in the EMT ≤7.6 mm group, respectively. Similarly, EMT ≥13.1 mm was not significantly associated with risks of PTB (aOR 0.63, 95% CI 0.24-1.65), LBW (aOR 0.57, 95% CI 0.17-1.95) and SGA (aOR 0.73, 95% CI 0.28-1.92). The odds of other adverse neonatal outcomes, including macrosomia, large-for-gestational age and major congenital malformations, did not show significant differences before and after adjustment in both EMT ≤7.6 and ≥ 13.1 mm groups. EMT is not independently associated with adverse perinatal outcomes in IUI cycles. This novel finding would provide reassuring information for IUI patients with thin endometrial linings regarding their neonatal health. However, further prospective cohort studies with larger datasets are needed to confirm the conclusion.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Decreased endometrial thickness (EMT) has been suggested to be associated with reduced birthweight of in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) newborns. Considering the differences in ovarian stimulation degree and laboratory procedures between IVF/ICSI and IUI treatment, we aim to investigate whether EMT has any influence on IUI infant outcomes as well.
METHODS
METHODS
This was a retrospective cohort study of 1016 patients who had singleton livebirths after IUI treatment cycles from January 2008 to December 2018 at a tertiary-care academic medical center in China. Patients were categorized into three groups by the 10th and 90th percentile of peak EMT: ≤7.6, 7.7-13.0 and ≥ 13.1 mm. The primary outcomes of the study were preterm birth (PTB), low birthweight (LBW) and small-for-gestational age (SGA). Multiple regression analyses were performed after controlling for a variety of potential confounders.
RESULTS
RESULTS
No significant differences were found among the three groups in gestational age, birthweight and birthweight Z-score. Compared with the EMT 7.7-13.0 mm group, the incidences of PTB, LBW and SGA were 5.5% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-2.01), 6.4% (aOR 1.44, 95% CI 0.58-3.58) and 7.3% (aOR 1.21, 95% CI 0.53-2.76) in the EMT ≤7.6 mm group, respectively. Similarly, EMT ≥13.1 mm was not significantly associated with risks of PTB (aOR 0.63, 95% CI 0.24-1.65), LBW (aOR 0.57, 95% CI 0.17-1.95) and SGA (aOR 0.73, 95% CI 0.28-1.92). The odds of other adverse neonatal outcomes, including macrosomia, large-for-gestational age and major congenital malformations, did not show significant differences before and after adjustment in both EMT ≤7.6 and ≥ 13.1 mm groups.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
EMT is not independently associated with adverse perinatal outcomes in IUI cycles. This novel finding would provide reassuring information for IUI patients with thin endometrial linings regarding their neonatal health. However, further prospective cohort studies with larger datasets are needed to confirm the conclusion.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32410619
doi: 10.1186/s12958-020-00597-w
pii: 10.1186/s12958-020-00597-w
pmc: PMC7222451
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
48Subventions
Organisme : National Key Research and Development Program of China
ID : 2018YFC1003000
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 81771533
Organisme : Elite Group Project of Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital
ID : JY201801
Organisme : Latitudinal Research Project of Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine
ID : 2017hx005/DK3-0601-17-0007
Références
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014 Nov;182:160-6
pubmed: 25282539
Reprod Biomed Online. 2018 Apr;36(4):416-426
pubmed: 29361452
Fertil Steril. 2006 Dec;86(6):1634-41
pubmed: 17074345
Fertil Steril. 2015 May;103(5):1194-1201.e2
pubmed: 25813280
Ann Epidemiol. 2016 Jul;26(7):474-481.e9
pubmed: 27262817
Hum Reprod. 2019 Sep 29;34(9):1707-1715
pubmed: 31398256
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jan;51(1):64-76
pubmed: 29055102
Hum Reprod Update. 2012 Jul;18(4):350-9
pubmed: 22523111
PLoS One. 2014 Aug 15;9(8):e104779
pubmed: 25127131
BJOG. 2016 Sep;123 Suppl 3:70-5
pubmed: 27627603
Hum Reprod Update. 2014 Jul-Aug;20(4):530-41
pubmed: 24664156
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jan;51(1):54-63
pubmed: 29077229
Reprod Biomed Online. 2018 Sep;37(3):341-348
pubmed: 30146441
Hum Reprod. 2017 Nov 1;32(11):2298-2304
pubmed: 29025107
Fertil Steril. 2010 Jan;93(1):79-88
pubmed: 18996517
BJOG. 2014 Oct;121(11):1395-402
pubmed: 24506582
Drug Des Devel Ther. 2019 Jul 26;13:2553-2563
pubmed: 31440037
Hum Reprod Update. 2019 Mar 1;25(2):137-158
pubmed: 30753453
Fertil Steril. 2011 Sep;96(3):519-21
pubmed: 21880272
Hum Reprod Update. 2002 Jul-Aug;8(4):373-84
pubmed: 12206471
Hum Reprod Update. 2013 Mar-Apr;19(2):87-104
pubmed: 23154145
Hum Reprod. 2017 May 1;32(5):1009-1018
pubmed: 28333207
Hum Reprod. 2016 Mar;31(3):491-7
pubmed: 26724793
Hum Reprod. 2006 Apr;21(4):1025-32
pubmed: 16339165
Hum Reprod. 2017 Jul 1;32(7):1410-1417
pubmed: 28505290
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Mar;204(3):193-201
pubmed: 21094932
Fertil Steril. 2012 Jun;97(6):1374-9
pubmed: 22494926
Hum Reprod. 2005 Oct;20(10):2821-9
pubmed: 15979998
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jan 8;360(2):111-20
pubmed: 19129525
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Mar;188(3):611-6
pubmed: 12634629
Hum Reprod Update. 2019 Mar 1;25(2):202-223
pubmed: 30624659
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Jan;186(1):77-83
pubmed: 11810089
Fertil Steril. 2014 Oct;102(4):1110-1116.e2
pubmed: 25064412
Hum Reprod. 2000 Jul;15 Suppl 2:199-206
pubmed: 11041525
Hum Reprod. 2007 Oct;22(10):2707-14
pubmed: 17728356
Fertil Steril. 2000 Jan;73(1):106-13
pubmed: 10632422
Hum Reprod. 2016 Oct;31(10):2219-30
pubmed: 27554441
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017 Jul;296(1):115-122
pubmed: 28589476