Body mass index is not associated with donor oocyte recipient success: an ideal study using a paired analysis of sibling-oocytes.
Obesity
donor oocyte recipient
endometrial receptivity
sibling-oocytes
Journal
F&S reports
ISSN: 2666-3341
Titre abrégé: F S Rep
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101766618
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
05
01
2020
revised:
28
04
2020
accepted:
01
05
2020
entrez:
5
7
2021
pubmed:
6
7
2021
medline:
6
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To determine whether a higher body mass index (BMI) adversely affects endometrial receptivity. Retrospective cohort study. Academic medical center. All donor egg recipients (DERs) who received fresh sibling-oocytes (oocytes from a donor that were retrieved from a single controlled ovarian hyperstimulation [COH] cycle and split between two recipients) at our center over a 7-year period were included. COH of a donor with fresh embryo transfer to recipients of differing BMI. The two recipients of the sibling-oocytes were paired and categorized based on BMI: group A (normal weight, BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m The primary outcome was implantation rate. Secondary outcomes were positive pregnancy rate and live birth rate. A total of 408 patients had received oocytes from a split donor oocyte cycle. There were 71 pairs of patients (142 recipients) that had discrepant BMI categories and were analyzed. Implantation rates were similar for the two groups (54.5%±5.3% vs. 56.3%±4.8% for group A and B, respectively, In this idealized model that controls to the greatest degree possible for factors that would impact implantation, we found that a higher BMI did not reduce implantation, positive pregnancy, or delivery rates. These findings suggest that a higher BMI does not adversely affect uterine receptivity.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34223208
doi: 10.1016/j.xfre.2020.05.001
pii: S2666-3341(20)30012-X
pmc: PMC8244354
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
25-29Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Author(s).
Références
Reprod Biomed Online. 2014 Jul;29(1):72-9
pubmed: 24813759
Methods Mol Biol. 2014;1154:171-231
pubmed: 24782010
Matern Child Health J. 2009 Mar;13(2):268-73
pubmed: 18415671
J Reprod Med. 2004 Dec;49(12):973-7
pubmed: 15656214
Epidemiology. 1994 Mar;5(2):247-50
pubmed: 8173001
Am J Clin Nutr. 1998 Oct;68(4):899-917
pubmed: 9771869
Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Jul;33(7):673-89
pubmed: 25471927
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018 Mar;35(3):435-440
pubmed: 29143944
Fertil Steril. 2015 Nov;104(5):1116-26
pubmed: 26434804
Fertil Steril. 2010 Feb;93(3):1008-10
pubmed: 19733847
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1999 Mar;84(3):1072-6
pubmed: 10084597
Fertil Steril. 2017 Apr;107(4):831-832
pubmed: 28366410
BMJ. 1993 Feb 20;306(6876):484-7
pubmed: 8448457
Reprod Biomed Online. 2001;3(2):109-111
pubmed: 12513872
Prev Med. 2013 Jun;56(6):372-8
pubmed: 23454595
Fertil Steril. 2011 Jun;95(7):2335-41, 2341.e1-8
pubmed: 21481376
Hum Reprod Update. 2003 Jul-Aug;9(4):359-72
pubmed: 12926529
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Dec;203(6):525-30
pubmed: 20739012
Hum Reprod. 2007 Feb;22(2):414-20
pubmed: 17095518
Hum Reprod. 2012 Feb;27(2):457-67
pubmed: 22144420
Lancet. 2014 Aug 30;384(9945):766-81
pubmed: 24880830
Methods Mol Biol. 2014;1154:385-405
pubmed: 24782020
Hum Reprod. 2013 Oct;28(10):2720-7
pubmed: 23847110
Reprod Biomed Online. 2011 Oct;23(4):421-39
pubmed: 21885344
Semin Reprod Med. 2011 Nov;29(6):507-13
pubmed: 22161463
N Engl J Med. 2016 May 19;374(20):1942-53
pubmed: 27192672
Nutrition. 2003 Apr;19(4):317-20
pubmed: 12679164