Prognosis of Congenital Anomalies in Conceptions Following
congenital anomalies
fertilization failure
in vitro fertilization
pregnancy outcome
prognosis
Journal
Frontiers in endocrinology
ISSN: 1664-2392
Titre abrégé: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101555782
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
20
03
2022
accepted:
17
06
2022
entrez:
1
8
2022
pubmed:
2
8
2022
medline:
3
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Conceptions following In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, we followed 405,473 embryo transfer cycles at 15 reproductive centers between January 2010 and December 2019 and enrolled 2,006 intrauterine pregnancies with congenital anomalies. The relatively positive prognosis group with one or more live births and neonatal survival for more than 7 days was compared with the poor prognosis group with poorer outcomes. Among the 168,270 ongoing intrauterine pregnancy cycles, the prevalence of congenital anomalies was 1.19%, wherein the malformation rates of cycles with late abortion and delivery were 2.37% (716/30,202) and 0.93% (1,290/138,068), respectively. Among all IVF/ICSI cycles with congenital anomalies, the relatively positive prognosis rate was 61.39%. Moreover, the fertilization failure rate (2 pro-nuclei rate < 25%) in the poor prognosis group was significantly higher than that in the relatively positive prognosis group (10.89% vs. 5.09%, Poor fertilization rates during IVF/ICSI treatments are more likely to have poor prognosis in fetuses or neonates with congenital anomalies, and obstetric management should be strengthened in pregnant women, with which pregnant women should be recommended to strengthen obstetric management.
Sections du résumé
Background
Conceptions following
Methods
In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, we followed 405,473 embryo transfer cycles at 15 reproductive centers between January 2010 and December 2019 and enrolled 2,006 intrauterine pregnancies with congenital anomalies. The relatively positive prognosis group with one or more live births and neonatal survival for more than 7 days was compared with the poor prognosis group with poorer outcomes.
Results
Among the 168,270 ongoing intrauterine pregnancy cycles, the prevalence of congenital anomalies was 1.19%, wherein the malformation rates of cycles with late abortion and delivery were 2.37% (716/30,202) and 0.93% (1,290/138,068), respectively. Among all IVF/ICSI cycles with congenital anomalies, the relatively positive prognosis rate was 61.39%. Moreover, the fertilization failure rate (2 pro-nuclei rate < 25%) in the poor prognosis group was significantly higher than that in the relatively positive prognosis group (10.89% vs. 5.09%,
Conclusion
Poor fertilization rates during IVF/ICSI treatments are more likely to have poor prognosis in fetuses or neonates with congenital anomalies, and obstetric management should be strengthened in pregnant women, with which pregnant women should be recommended to strengthen obstetric management.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35909529
doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.900499
pmc: PMC9331169
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
900499Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Bao, Chen, Hao, Wu, He, Lu, Ji, Qiao, Wang and Chi.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017 Jul;34(7):867-876
pubmed: 28444613
Fertil Steril. 2005 Nov;84(5):1318-9; discussion 1327
pubmed: 16275221
Fertil Steril. 2012 Jun;97(6):1331-7.e1-4
pubmed: 22480819
BMJ Open. 2021 Jun 23;11(6):e044385
pubmed: 34162637
Fertil Steril. 2012 Aug;98(2):368-77.e1-9
pubmed: 22698643
Front Pediatr. 2021 Sep 16;9:705385
pubmed: 34604138
Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res. 2020 Jul - Sep;785:108320
pubmed: 32800274
J Int Med Res. 2021 Jul;49(7):3000605211028028
pubmed: 34264137
Fertil Steril. 2011 Jan;95(1):458-60
pubmed: 20850722
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 Jun;33(6):711-7
pubmed: 27116010
Hum Reprod Update. 2013 Jul-Aug;19(4):330-53
pubmed: 23449641
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Jun;26(3):210-21
pubmed: 24752003
N Engl J Med. 2012 May 10;366(19):1803-13
pubmed: 22559061
JAMA Pediatr. 2020 May 1;174(5):446-454
pubmed: 32091547
J Clin Med. 2021 Nov 18;10(22):
pubmed: 34830645
Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Mar;131(3):457-463
pubmed: 29420406
Fertil Steril. 2009 Nov;92(5):1520-4
pubmed: 19828144
Exp Ther Med. 2018 Oct;16(4):3179-3185
pubmed: 30214541
JAMA Pediatr. 2016 Jun 6;170(6):e154934
pubmed: 27043648
Fertil Steril. 2015 Apr;103(4):1001-1010.e3
pubmed: 25624190
Eur J Med Genet. 2020 Feb;63(2):103644
pubmed: 30991114
Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2019 Aug 31;20:21-40
pubmed: 30917080
Fertil Steril. 2012 Feb;97(2):324-31
pubmed: 22177461
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021 May;38(5):993-1002
pubmed: 33895934
Birth Defects Res. 2017 Aug 15;109(14):1144-1153
pubmed: 28635008
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2021 Jan;70:51-62
pubmed: 32739290
Reprod Biomed Online. 2019 Dec;39(6):981-989
pubmed: 31606300
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018 Jun;297(6):1397-1403
pubmed: 29450693
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 17;12(10):e0186287
pubmed: 29040334
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jan;51(1):33-42
pubmed: 29164811
Nucleic Acids Res. 2021 Jan 8;49(D1):D1218-D1224
pubmed: 32941628
Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Feb;123(2 Pt 1):239-247
pubmed: 24402601
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015 Oct;292(4):777-98
pubmed: 25877221
Clin Epigenetics. 2019 Feb 7;11(1):21
pubmed: 30732658