Cleavage-stage or blastocyst-stage embryo biopsy has no impact on growth and health in children up to 2 years of age.
Blastocyst
Children
Cleavage
Embryo biopsy
Health
PGT
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:
22 Sep 2023
22 Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
02
08
2023
accepted:
14
09
2023
medline:
25
9
2023
pubmed:
22
9
2023
entrez:
22
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Studies show conflicting results on neonatal outcomes following embryo biopsy for PGT, primarily due to small sample sizes and/or heterogeneity in the timing of embryo biopsy (day 3; EBD3 or day 5/6; EBD5) and type of embryo transfer. Even fewer data exist on the impact on children's health beyond the neonatal period. This study aimed to explore outcomes in children born after EBD3 or EBD5 followed by fresh (FRESH) or frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET). This single-centre cohort study compared birth data of 630 children after EBD3, of 222 EBD5 and of 1532 after non-biopsied embryo transfers performed between 2014 and 2018. Follow-up data on growth were available for 426, 131 and 662 children, respectively. Embryo biopsy, either at EBD3 or EBD5 in FET and FRESH cycles did not negatively affect anthropometry at birth, infancy or childhood compared to outcomes in non-biopsied FET and FRESH cycles. While there was no adverse effect of the timing of embryo biopsy (EBD3 versus EBD5), children born after EBD3 followed by FET had larger sizes at birth, but not thereafter, than children born after EBD3 followed by FRESH. Reassuringly, weight and height gain, proportions of major congenital malformations, developmental problems, hospital admissions and surgical interventions were similar between comparison groups. Our study indicated that neither EBD3 nor EBD5 followed by FRESH or FET had a negative impact on anthropometry and on health outcomes up to 2 years of age.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Studies show conflicting results on neonatal outcomes following embryo biopsy for PGT, primarily due to small sample sizes and/or heterogeneity in the timing of embryo biopsy (day 3; EBD3 or day 5/6; EBD5) and type of embryo transfer. Even fewer data exist on the impact on children's health beyond the neonatal period. This study aimed to explore outcomes in children born after EBD3 or EBD5 followed by fresh (FRESH) or frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET).
METHODS
METHODS
This single-centre cohort study compared birth data of 630 children after EBD3, of 222 EBD5 and of 1532 after non-biopsied embryo transfers performed between 2014 and 2018. Follow-up data on growth were available for 426, 131 and 662 children, respectively.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Embryo biopsy, either at EBD3 or EBD5 in FET and FRESH cycles did not negatively affect anthropometry at birth, infancy or childhood compared to outcomes in non-biopsied FET and FRESH cycles. While there was no adverse effect of the timing of embryo biopsy (EBD3 versus EBD5), children born after EBD3 followed by FET had larger sizes at birth, but not thereafter, than children born after EBD3 followed by FRESH. Reassuringly, weight and height gain, proportions of major congenital malformations, developmental problems, hospital admissions and surgical interventions were similar between comparison groups.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our study indicated that neither EBD3 nor EBD5 followed by FRESH or FET had a negative impact on anthropometry and on health outcomes up to 2 years of age.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37737174
doi: 10.1186/s12958-023-01140-3
pii: 10.1186/s12958-023-01140-3
pmc: PMC10515414
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
87Subventions
Organisme : EU H2020 Marie Sklodowska-Curie Innovative Training Networks (ITN) grant DohART-NET
ID : H2020-MSCA-ITN-2018 -812660
Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Hum Reprod. 1994 Sep;9(9):1765-9
pubmed: 7836535
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 Jan;33(1):3-8
pubmed: 26634257
Early Hum Dev. 2009 Dec;85(12):755-9
pubmed: 19896307
Hum Reprod Update. 2023 May 2;29(3):291-306
pubmed: 36655536
Fertil Steril. 2019 Aug;112(2):283-290.e2
pubmed: 31103283
Fertil Steril. 2016 Nov;106(6):1363-1369.e1
pubmed: 27542705
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018 Nov;35(11):1995-2002
pubmed: 30187425
Hum Reprod Update. 2018 Jan 1;24(1):35-58
pubmed: 29155965
Hum Reprod. 2012 Jan;27(1):288-93
pubmed: 22048989
Hum Reprod. 2021 Jan 25;36(2):340-348
pubmed: 33313768
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 May;224(5):500.e1-500.e18
pubmed: 33129765
Hum Reprod. 2010 Jan;25(1):275-82
pubmed: 19713301
Fertil Steril. 2019 Jul;112(1):82-88
pubmed: 31056308
Reproduction. 2020 Nov;160(5):A45-A58
pubmed: 33112789
J Hum Genet. 2020 May;65(5):445-454
pubmed: 32103123
J Clin Med. 2023 Jul 02;12(13):
pubmed: 37445479
Int J Epidemiol. 2020 Oct 1;49(5):1591-1603
pubmed: 32851407
Birth Defects Res. 2018 May 1;110(8):630-643
pubmed: 29714057
Fertil Steril. 2014 Oct;102(4):1016-21
pubmed: 25064409
Paediatr Int Child Health. 2015 May;35(2):110-23
pubmed: 25034799
Ann Hum Biol. 2009 Nov-Dec;36(6):680-94
pubmed: 19919503
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017 Feb;34(2):191-200
pubmed: 27909843
Hum Reprod. 2023 Apr 3;38(4):739-750
pubmed: 36749096
Reprod Biomed Online. 2022 Jan;44(1):151-162
pubmed: 34866000
Hum Reprod. 2021 Mar 18;36(4):1083-1092
pubmed: 33416878
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Sep;225(3):285.e1-285.e7
pubmed: 33894152