Clinical outcomes after single-versus double-embryo transfers in women with adenomyosis: a retrospective study.
Adenomyosis
In vitro fertilization
Infertility
Neonatal outcomes
Pregnancy outcomes
Single-embryo transfers
Journal
Archives of gynecology and obstetrics
ISSN: 1432-0711
Titre abrégé: Arch Gynecol Obstet
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8710213
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2021
07 2021
Historique:
received:
26
06
2020
accepted:
25
11
2020
pubmed:
3
1
2021
medline:
11
11
2021
entrez:
2
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Adenomyosis affects the outcomes of spontaneous fertility and assisted reproductive technology. The single blastocyst embryo transfer (SBT) policy is an effective strategy known to minimize the risk of multiple pregnancy for non-adenomyosis women. However, little is known about its applicability to women with adenomyosis. The purpose of this study is to compare pregnancy outcomes between SBT, double-blastocyst embryo transfer (DBT), single-cleavage-stage embryo transfer (SET) and double-cleavage-stage embryo transfer (DET) in the frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles among adenomyosis patients. This retrospective study was conducted in all frozen-thawed autologous embryo transfer cycles. 393 frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles performed in adenomyosis patients were enrolled. The major clinical outcomes were implantation rate (IR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), miscarriage rate (MR), multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) and live birth rate (LBR). The SBT and DBT groups achieved higher IR (P < 0.001), CPR (P = 0.017), LBR (P = 0.040) and lower MR (P = 0.020) than the SET and DET groups. But the SBT and DBT groups achieved similar CPR and LBR. The SBT and SET groups achieved lower MPR (P < 0.001) than the DBT and DET groups. The average birth weight (BW) of SBT groups was higher than the DBT and DET groups (P = 0.016). When compared with SBT group, low-birth-weight infants were significantly higher with DBT and DET. When performing frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles among adenomyosis patients, the SBT group has similar IR, CPR, MR, LBR but lower MPR compared to the DBT group. Therefore, SBT might be offered as standard practice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Adenomyosis affects the outcomes of spontaneous fertility and assisted reproductive technology. The single blastocyst embryo transfer (SBT) policy is an effective strategy known to minimize the risk of multiple pregnancy for non-adenomyosis women. However, little is known about its applicability to women with adenomyosis. The purpose of this study is to compare pregnancy outcomes between SBT, double-blastocyst embryo transfer (DBT), single-cleavage-stage embryo transfer (SET) and double-cleavage-stage embryo transfer (DET) in the frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles among adenomyosis patients.
METHODS
This retrospective study was conducted in all frozen-thawed autologous embryo transfer cycles. 393 frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles performed in adenomyosis patients were enrolled. The major clinical outcomes were implantation rate (IR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), miscarriage rate (MR), multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) and live birth rate (LBR).
RESULTS
The SBT and DBT groups achieved higher IR (P < 0.001), CPR (P = 0.017), LBR (P = 0.040) and lower MR (P = 0.020) than the SET and DET groups. But the SBT and DBT groups achieved similar CPR and LBR. The SBT and SET groups achieved lower MPR (P < 0.001) than the DBT and DET groups. The average birth weight (BW) of SBT groups was higher than the DBT and DET groups (P = 0.016). When compared with SBT group, low-birth-weight infants were significantly higher with DBT and DET.
CONCLUSIONS
When performing frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles among adenomyosis patients, the SBT group has similar IR, CPR, MR, LBR but lower MPR compared to the DBT group. Therefore, SBT might be offered as standard practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33386415
doi: 10.1007/s00404-020-05924-5
pii: 10.1007/s00404-020-05924-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
263-270Références
Maheshwari A, Gurunath S, Fatima F, Bhattacharya S (2012) Adenomyosis and subfertility: a systematic review of prevalence, diagnosis, treatment and fertility outcomes. Hum Reprod Update 18(4):374–392. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dms006 (Human reproduction update)
doi: 10.1093/humupd/dms006
pubmed: 22442261
Yu O, Schulze-Rath R, Grafton J, Hansen K, Scholes D, Reed SD (2020) Adenomyosis incidence, prevalence and treatment: United States population-based study 2006–2015. Am J Obstet Gynecol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2020.01.016
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.01.016
pubmed: 32335053
pmcid: 7177142
Naftalin J, Hoo W, Pateman K, Mavrelos D, Holland T, Jurkovic D, Human reproduction (2012) How common is adenomyosis? A prospective study of prevalence using transvaginal ultrasound in a gynaecology clinic. Hum Reprod 27(12):3432–3439. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des332
doi: 10.1093/humrep/des332
pubmed: 23001775
Di Donato N, Montanari G, Benfenati A, Leonardi D, Bertoldo V, Monti G, Raimondo D, Seracchioli R (2014) Prevalence of adenomyosis in women undergoing surgery for endometriosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 181:289–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.08.016 (European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, reproductive biology)
doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.08.016
pubmed: 25201608
Puente J, Fabris A, Patel J, Patel A, Cerrillo M, Requena A, Garcia-Velasco J, Reproductive biology, RB e (2016) Adenomyosis in infertile women: prevalence and the role of 3D ultrasound as a marker of severity of the disease. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 14(1):60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-016-0185-6
doi: 10.1186/s12958-016-0185-6
pubmed: 27645154
pmcid: 5029059
Chapron C, Tosti C, Marcellin L, Bourdon M, Lafay-Pillet M, Millischer A, Streuli I, Borghese B, Petraglia F, Santulli P (2017) Relationship between the magnetic resonance imaging appearance of adenomyosis and endometriosis phenotypes. Hum Reprod 32(7):1393–1401. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex088 (Human reproduction)
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex088
pubmed: 28510724
Kunz G, Leyendecker G (2002) Uterine peristaltic activity during the menstrual cycle: characterization, regulation, function and dysfunction. Reprod Biomed. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1472-6483(12)60108-4 (Reproductive biomedicine online)
doi: 10.1016/s1472-6483(12)60108-4
Ota H, Igarashi S, Hatazawa J, Tanaka T (1999) Immunohistochemical assessment of superoxide dismutase expression in the endometrium in endometriosis and adenomyosis. Fertil Steril 72(1):129–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(99)00152-1
doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(99)00152-1
pubmed: 10428161
Ota H, Igarashi S, Sato N, Tanaka H, Tanaka T (2002) Involvement of catalase in the endometrium of patients with endometriosis and adenomyosis. Fertil Steril 78(4):804–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(02)03344-7
doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(02)03344-7
pubmed: 12372460
Goteri G, Lucarini G, Montik N, Zizzi A, Stramazzotti D, Fabris G, Tranquilli AL, Ciavattini A (2009) Expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), hypoxia inducible factor-1alpha (HIF-1alpha), and microvessel density in endometrial tissue in women with adenomyosis. Int J Gynecol Pathol Off J Int Soc Gynecol Pathol 28(2):157–163. https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0b013e318182c2be
doi: 10.1097/PGP.0b013e318182c2be
Xiao Y, Sun X, Yang X, Zhang J, Xue Q, Cai B, Zhou Y (2010) Leukemia inhibitory factor is dysregulated in the endometrium and uterine flushing fluid of patients with adenomyosis during implantation window. Fertil Steril 94(1):85–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.03.012
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.03.012
pubmed: 19361790
Mehasseb MK, Panchal R, Taylor AH, Brown L, Bell SC, Habiba M (2011) Estrogen and progesterone receptor isoform distribution through the menstrual cycle in uteri with and without adenomyosis. Fertil Steril 95(7):2228–2235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.02.051 (2235.e2221)
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.02.051
pubmed: 21444077
Davis O, The New England journal of medicine (2004) Elective single-embryo transfer–has its time arrived? N Engl J Med 351(23):2440–2442. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe048268
doi: 10.1056/NEJMe048268
pubmed: 15575063
Kulkarni A, Jamieson D, Jones H, Kissin D, Gallo M, Macaluso M, Adashi E, The New England journal of medicine (2013) Fertility treatments and multiple births in the United States. N Engl J Med 369(23):2218–2225. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1301467
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1301467
pubmed: 24304051
Qin J, Sheng X, Wang H, Chen G, Yang J, Yu H, Yang T, Archives of gynecology, obstetrics (2017) Worldwide prevalence of adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection among multiple births: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on cohort studies. Arch Gynecol Obstet 295(3):577–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4291-2
doi: 10.1007/s00404-017-4291-2
pubmed: 28168654
Bergh C, Human reproduction (2005) Single embryo transfer: a mini-review. Hum Reprod 20(2):323–327. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh744
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh744
pubmed: 15665008
Kwek L, Saffari S, Tan H, Chan J, Nada S, Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore (2018) Comparison between single and double cleavage-stage embryo transfers, single and double blastocyst transfers in a south east asian in vitro fertilisation centre. Ann Acad Med Singap 47(11):451–454
pubmed: 30578424
Racca A, Drakopoulos P, Van Landuyt L, Willem C, Santos-Ribeiro S, Tournaye H, Blockeel C (2020) Polyzos NP (2020) Single and double embryo transfer provide similar live birth rates in frozen cycles. Gynecol Endocrinol Off J Int Soc Gynecol Endocrinol. https://doi.org/10.1080/095135901712697
doi: 10.1080/095135901712697
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2017) Guidance on the limits to the number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 107(4):901–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.02.107
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.02.107
Steer CV, Mills CL, Tan SL, Campbell S, Edwards RG (1992) The cumulative embryo score: a predictive embryo scoring technique to select the optimal number of embryos to transfer in an in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer programme. Human Reprod (Oxford Engl) 7(1):117–119. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137542
doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137542
Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB (1999) Culture and transfer of human blastocysts. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 11(3):307–311. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001703-199906000-00013
doi: 10.1097/00001703-199906000-00013
pubmed: 10369209
Vercellini P, Consonni D, Dridi D, Bracco B, Frattaruolo M, Somigliana E, Human reproduction (2014) Uterine adenomyosis and in vitro fertilization outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 29(5):964–977. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu041
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu041
pubmed: 24622619
Mavrelos D, Holland T, O’Donovan O, Khalil M, Ploumpidis G, Jurkovic D, Khalaf Y (2017) The impact of adenomyosis on the outcome of IVF-embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online 35(5):549–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.06.026 (Reproductive biomedicine online)
doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.06.026
pubmed: 28802706
Younes G, Tulandi T, Fertility, sterility (2017) Effects of adenomyosis on in vitro fertilization treatment outcomes: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 108(3):483-490.e483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.06.025
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.06.025
pubmed: 28865548
Horton J, Sterrenburg M, Lane S, Maheshwari A, Li T, Cheong Y (2019) Reproductive, obstetric, and perinatal outcomes of women with adenomyosis and endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 25(5):592–632. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmz012 (Human reproduction update)
doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmz012
pubmed: 31318420
Thurin A, Hausken J, Hillensjö T, Jablonowska B, Pinborg A, Strandell A, Bergh C, England TN, journal of medicine (2004) Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 351(23):2392–2402. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa041032
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa041032
pubmed: 15575055
Campo S, Campo V, Benagiano G (2012) Adenomyosis and infertility. Reproductive Biomed Online 24(1):35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.10.003
doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.10.003
Khan KN, Kitajima M, Hiraki K, Fujishita A, Sekine I, Ishimaru T, Masuzaki H (2010) Changes in tissue inflammation, angiogenesis and apoptosis in endometriosis, adenomyosis and uterine myoma after GnRH agonist therapy. Human Reprod (Oxford, Engl) 25(3):642–653. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep437
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dep437
Tesone M, Bilotas M, Barañao RI, Meresman G (2008) The role of GnRH analogues in endometriosis-associated apoptosis and angiogenesis. Gynecol Obstet Invest 66(Suppl 1):10–18. https://doi.org/10.1159/000148026
doi: 10.1159/000148026
pubmed: 18936547
Guo S, Li Z, Yan L, Sun Y, Feng Y (2018) GnRH agonist improves pregnancy outcome in mice with induced adenomyosis by restoring endometrial receptivity. Drug Design Develop Therapy 12:1621–1631. https://doi.org/10.2147/dddt.S162541
doi: 10.2147/dddt.S162541
Martikainen H, Tiitinen A, Tomás C, Tapanainen J, Orava M, Tuomivaara L, Vilska S, Hydén-Granskog C, Hovatta O, reproduction H (2001) One versus two embryo transfer after IVF and ICSI: a randomized study. Hum Reprod 16(9):1900–1903. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.9.1900
doi: 10.1093/humrep/16.9.1900
pubmed: 11527895
Martin AS, Chang J, Zhang Y, Kawwass JF, Boulet SL, McKane P, Bernson D, Kissin DM, Jamieson DJ (2017) Perinatal outcomes among singletons after assisted reproductive technology with single-embryo or double-embryo transfer versus no assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 107(4):954–960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.01.024
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.01.024
pubmed: 28292615
Nohuz E, Albaut M, Bayeh S, Tamburro S, Chêne G, Journal of gynecology obstetrics, reproduction h (2020) Adenomyosis and pregnant uterus: An alliance doomed to rupture? J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 49(2):101632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2019.101632
doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2019.101632
pubmed: 31499284
Wang P, Liu W, Fuh J, Cheng M, Chao H (2009) Comparison of surgery alone and combined surgical-medical treatment in the management of symptomatic uterine adenomyoma. Fertil Steril 92(3):876–885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.07.1744 (Fertility sterility)
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.07.1744
pubmed: 18774566
Zhihong N, Yun F, Pinggui Z, Sulian Z, Zhang A (2016) Cytokine profiling in the eutopic endometrium of adenomyosis during the implantation window after ovarian stimulation. Reprod Sci (Thousand Oaks Calif) 23(1):124–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719115597761
doi: 10.1177/1933719115597761
Papanikolaou E, Camus M, Kolibianakis E, Van Landuyt L, Van Steirteghem A, Devroey P, England TN, journal of medicine (2006) In vitro fertilization with single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryos. N Engl J Med 354(11):1139–1146. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa053524
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa053524
pubmed: 16540614
Li XL, Huang R, Fang C, Liang XY (2018) Basal serum anti-mullerian hormone level as a predictor of clinical outcomes in freezing-all embryo transfer program. Curr Med Sci 38(5):861–867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11596-018-1954-6
doi: 10.1007/s11596-018-1954-6
pubmed: 30341521
Alviggi C, Conforti A, Carbone I, Borrelli R, de Placido G, Guerriero S (2018) Influence of cryopreservation on perinatal outcome after blastocyst- vs cleavage-stage embryo transfer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 51(1):54–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.18942 (Ultrasound in obstetrics, Obstetrics gtojotISoUi, Gynecology)
doi: 10.1002/uog.18942
pubmed: 29077229
Berin I, McLellan S, Macklin E, Toth T, Wright D (2011) Frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: clinical outcomes of single and double blastocyst transfers. J Assist Reprod Genet 28(7):575–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-011-9551-7 (Journal of assisted reproduction, genetics)
doi: 10.1007/s10815-011-9551-7
pubmed: 21373800
pmcid: 3162061
Glujovsky D, Farquhar C, Quinteiro Retamar A, Alvarez Sedo C, Blake D, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews (2016) Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 6:CD002118. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub5
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub5
Martins W, Nastri C, Rienzi L, van der Poel S, Gracia C, Racowsky C, Ultrasound in obstetrics, Obstetrics gtojotISoUi, Gynecology (2017) Blastocyst vs cleavage-stage embryo transfer: systematic review and meta-analysis of reproductive outcomes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 49(5):583–591. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.17327
doi: 10.1002/uog.17327
pubmed: 27731533
Holden E, Kashani B, Morelli S, Alderson D, Jindal S, Ohman-Strickland P, McGovern P, Fertility, sterility (2018) Improved outcomes after blastocyst-stage frozen-thawed embryo transfers compared with cleavage stage: a society for assisted reproductive technologies clinical outcomes reporting system study. Fertil Steril 110(1):89-94.e82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.03.033
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.03.033
pubmed: 29908769
Zhu Q, Zhu J, Wang Y, Wang B, Wang N, Yin M, Zhang S, Lyu Q, Kuang Y, Reproductive biomedicine online (2019) Live birth rate and neonatal outcome following cleavage-stage embryo transfer versus blastocyst transfer using the freeze-all strategy. Reprod Biomed Online 38(6):892–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.12.034
doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.12.034
pubmed: 30954432