The predictive value of uterine artery Doppler in the success rate of pregnancy from the first frozen embryo transfer during the implantation window.
Early pregnancy
Frozen embryo transfer
Implantation window
Ongoing pregnancy rate
Pregnancy outcome
Uterine artery Doppler
Journal
BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Nov 2023
30 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
04
04
2023
accepted:
21
11
2023
medline:
4
12
2023
pubmed:
1
12
2023
entrez:
1
12
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Worldwide, frozen embryo transfer (FET) has become a new strategy for the treatment of infertility. The success of FET is closely related to endometrial receptivity. Does uterine artery Doppler during the implantation window predict pregnancy outcome from the first FET? A total of 115 retrospectively collected cycles were included in the study, with 64 cycles of clinical pregnancy and 51 cycles of nonclinical pregnancy; There were 99 nonabsent end-diastolic flow (NAEDF) cycles and 16 absent end-diastolic flow (AEDF) cycles. The differences in uterine artery Doppler findings between different pregnancy outcomes were investigated. The clinical pregnancy rate and spontaneous abortion rate in the NAEDF and AEDF groups were compared. The predictive value of uterine artery Doppler during the implantation window in the success rate of pregnancy from the first FET was also investigated. Between the clinical pregnancy group and the nonclinical pregnancy group, there were no significant differences in the mean resistance index (mRI) (Z = -1.065, p = 0.287), mean pulsatility index (mPI) (Z = -0.340, p = 0.734), and mean peak systolic/end-diastolic velocity(mS/D) (Z = -0.953, p = 0.341); there were significant differences in the mean peak systolic velocity (mPSV) (Z = -1.982, p = 0.048) and mean end-diastolic velocity (mEDV) (Z = -2.767, p = 0.006). Between the NAEDF and AEDF groups, there was no significant difference in the clinical pregnancy rate (χ2 = 0.003, p = 0.959), and there was a significant difference in the spontaneous abortion rate (χ2 = 3.465, p = 0.019). Compared with uterine artery Doppler alone, its combination with artificial abortion history, waist-to-hip ratio, LH (Luteinizing hormone) of P (Progesterone) administration day, mPSV and mEDV had a higher predictive value regarding clinical pregnancy from the first FET [ROC-AUC 0.782, 95% CI (0.680-0.883) vs. 0.692, 95% CI (0.587-0.797)]. Uterine artery Doppler, particularly mPSV and mEDV during the implantation window, was useful for predicting clinical pregnancy, and AEDF was related to spontaneous abortion in the first trimester. Uterine artery Doppler combined with artificial abortion history, waist-to-hip ratio, LH of P administration day, mPSV and mEDV have a higher predictive value than uterine artery Doppler alone regarding the pregnancy from the first FET.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Worldwide, frozen embryo transfer (FET) has become a new strategy for the treatment of infertility. The success of FET is closely related to endometrial receptivity. Does uterine artery Doppler during the implantation window predict pregnancy outcome from the first FET?
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 115 retrospectively collected cycles were included in the study, with 64 cycles of clinical pregnancy and 51 cycles of nonclinical pregnancy; There were 99 nonabsent end-diastolic flow (NAEDF) cycles and 16 absent end-diastolic flow (AEDF) cycles. The differences in uterine artery Doppler findings between different pregnancy outcomes were investigated. The clinical pregnancy rate and spontaneous abortion rate in the NAEDF and AEDF groups were compared. The predictive value of uterine artery Doppler during the implantation window in the success rate of pregnancy from the first FET was also investigated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Between the clinical pregnancy group and the nonclinical pregnancy group, there were no significant differences in the mean resistance index (mRI) (Z = -1.065, p = 0.287), mean pulsatility index (mPI) (Z = -0.340, p = 0.734), and mean peak systolic/end-diastolic velocity(mS/D) (Z = -0.953, p = 0.341); there were significant differences in the mean peak systolic velocity (mPSV) (Z = -1.982, p = 0.048) and mean end-diastolic velocity (mEDV) (Z = -2.767, p = 0.006). Between the NAEDF and AEDF groups, there was no significant difference in the clinical pregnancy rate (χ2 = 0.003, p = 0.959), and there was a significant difference in the spontaneous abortion rate (χ2 = 3.465, p = 0.019). Compared with uterine artery Doppler alone, its combination with artificial abortion history, waist-to-hip ratio, LH (Luteinizing hormone) of P (Progesterone) administration day, mPSV and mEDV had a higher predictive value regarding clinical pregnancy from the first FET [ROC-AUC 0.782, 95% CI (0.680-0.883) vs. 0.692, 95% CI (0.587-0.797)].
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Uterine artery Doppler, particularly mPSV and mEDV during the implantation window, was useful for predicting clinical pregnancy, and AEDF was related to spontaneous abortion in the first trimester. Uterine artery Doppler combined with artificial abortion history, waist-to-hip ratio, LH of P administration day, mPSV and mEDV have a higher predictive value than uterine artery Doppler alone regarding the pregnancy from the first FET.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38037011
doi: 10.1186/s12884-023-06150-y
pii: 10.1186/s12884-023-06150-y
pmc: PMC10688035
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
825Subventions
Organisme : Project founded by Basic Research Plan (free exploration)
ID : 20210302124305
Organisme : Project founded by Health Commission of Shanxi Province
ID : 2021132
Organisme : Shanxi reproductive and genetic research and technology cultivation Team
ID : 2020TD19
Organisme : National Key Research and Development Program
ID : 2018YFC1002103
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Sep 1;4(5):421-427
pubmed: 12797153
Hum Reprod Open. 2020 Jul 31;2020(3):hoaa032
pubmed: 32760812
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2020 Dec 10;6(1):98
pubmed: 33303732
Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1979 Mar;34(3):177-91
pubmed: 107500
BMJ Open. 2022 Apr 26;12(4):e051489
pubmed: 35473741
Front Med (Lausanne). 2022 Mar 03;9:813343
pubmed: 35308523
Placenta. 2021 Feb;105:78-84
pubmed: 33556717
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2020 Jun;36(6):479-483
pubmed: 32188299
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2019 Jul;45(7):1230-1235
pubmed: 30977230
Ann Transl Med. 2020 Aug;8(15):944
pubmed: 32953744
Fertil Steril. 1995 Jan;63(1):101-8
pubmed: 7805896
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Jun;15(6):527-30
pubmed: 11005123
Fertil Steril. 2005 Mar;83(3):598-605
pubmed: 15749487
Fertil Steril. 2010 Feb;93(2):416-22
pubmed: 19171338
Reprod Fertil. 2021 Aug 23;2(3):231-235
pubmed: 35118393
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2021 Nov;50(9):102167
pubmed: 34015549
Lancet. 1983 Mar 26;1(8326 Pt 1):675-7
pubmed: 6132039
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Feb 4;2:CD011184
pubmed: 33539543
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2021 Dec 14;19(1):186
pubmed: 34906128
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018 Mar;35(3):449-455
pubmed: 29147846
Hum Reprod. 2004 Apr;19(4):874-9
pubmed: 15016780
Hum Reprod. 2019 Apr 1;34(4):679-688
pubmed: 30811549
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2018 May;40(5):287-293
pubmed: 29913544
Hum Reprod Open. 2021 Aug 05;2021(3):hoab026
pubmed: 34377841
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022 May;226(5):683-699
pubmed: 34437863
Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 23;11(1):6674
pubmed: 33758274
Australas J Ultrasound Med. 2015 May;18(2):60-66
pubmed: 28191242
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 15;8(11):e80940
pubmed: 24260517
Fertil Steril. 1992 Feb;57(2):372-6
pubmed: 1735490
Reprod Med Biol. 2021 May 21;20(3):327-333
pubmed: 34262401