PURPOSE: To estimate the prevalence of chromosomally abnormal related miscarriages in an infertile population. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of cytogenetics obtained by chorionic villi harvesting of the first miscarriage cycle of infertile patients at our center from 2001-2010 were reviewed. Abnormal results were characterized as trisomy, monosomy X, structural, or other. Age, # of eggs, #2PN, # embryos transferred, day of transfer, and performance of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) were recorded. RESULTS: In a study population of 299 patients with a mean age of 38.0 ± 4.5 y, 276(92 %) patients had some form of assisted reproductive technologies (ART), and 244(82 %) had IVF. Of all results, 71.6 % had an abnormal karyotype. Patients with abnormal cytogenetics were older (38.6 ± 4.1 vs. 36.3 ± 4.9, p < 0.001), and more likely to have a day 3 transfer (age < 38 ( 20.7 %) vs. age 38 (46.3 %), p = <0.001) with more embryos transferred (3.0 ± 1.2, vs. 2.3 ± 0.9, p < 0.001). The performance of ICSI did not affect the rate of cytogenetically abnormal products of conception (ICSI 68.3 % vs. no ICSI 70.7 %). In comparing patients, monosomy X was more common in <38 y. Rates of trisomy, although not statistically significant, were higher in older patients. CONCLUSIONS: The classic associations between advancing age and chromosomal abnormalities, and younger age and monosomy X, are affirmed in our infertile population. There was no increase in chromosomal abnormalities in cycles where ICSI was performed. Older patients are more likely to have day 3 transfers and more embryos transferred. Our chromosomal abnormality rates are higher than classic estimates but comparable to recent studies. The limitation of this study was a lack in uniformity among practitioners in recommending all patients have a Dilation and Curettage (D&C) at time of diagnosis. Such information may serve to improve the counseling of patients after miscarriage.
PURPOSE: To estimate the prevalence of chromosomally abnormal related miscarriages in an infertile population. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of cytogenetics obtained by chorionic villi harvesting of the first miscarriage cycle of infertile patients at our center from 2001-2010 were reviewed. Abnormal results were characterized as trisomy, monosomy X, structural, or other. Age, # of eggs, #2PN, # embryos transferred, day of transfer, and performance of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) were recorded. RESULTS: In a study population of 299 patients with a mean age of 38.0 ± 4.5 y, 276(92 %) patients had some form of assisted reproductive technologies (ART), and 244(82 %) had IVF. Of all results, 71.6 % had an abnormal karyotype. Patients with abnormal cytogenetics were older (38.6 ± 4.1 vs. 36.3 ± 4.9, p < 0.001), and more likely to have a day 3 transfer (age < 38 ( 20.7 %) vs. age 38 (46.3 %), p = <0.001) with more embryos transferred (3.0 ± 1.2, vs. 2.3 ± 0.9, p < 0.001). The performance of ICSI did not affect the rate of cytogenetically abnormal products of conception (ICSI 68.3 % vs. no ICSI 70.7 %). In comparing patients, monosomy X was more common in <38 y. Rates of trisomy, although not statistically significant, were higher in older patients. CONCLUSIONS: The classic associations between advancing age and chromosomal abnormalities, and younger age and monosomy X, are affirmed in our infertile population. There was no increase in chromosomal abnormalities in cycles where ICSI was performed. Older patients are more likely to have day 3 transfers and more embryos transferred. Our chromosomal abnormality rates are higher than classic estimates but comparable to recent studies. The limitation of this study was a lack in uniformity among practitioners in recommending all patients have a Dilation and Curettage (D&C) at time of diagnosis. Such information may serve to improve the counseling of patients after miscarriage.
Authors: Carme Morales; Aurora Sánchez; Jordi Bruguera; Ester Margarit; Antoni Borrell; Virginia Borobio; Anna Soler Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2008-01-01 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: T Hassold; N Chen; J Funkhouser; T Jooss; B Manuel; J Matsuura; A Matsuyama; C Wilson; J A Yamane; P A Jacobs Journal: Ann Hum Genet Date: 1980-10 Impact factor: 1.670
Authors: A Hagman; U-B Wennerholm; K Källén; M-L Barrenäs; K Landin-Wilhelmsen; C Hanson; I Bryman Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: M Brandes; J C M Verzijden; C J C M Hamilton; N P C de Weys; J P de Bruin; R S G M Bots; W L D M Nelen; J A M Kremer Journal: Reprod Biomed Online Date: 2010-10-31 Impact factor: 3.828
Authors: Ji Won Kim; Woo Sik Lee; Tae Ki Yoon; Hyun Ha Seok; Jung Hyun Cho; You Shin Kim; Sang Woo Lyu; Sung Han Shim Journal: BMC Med Genet Date: 2010-11-03 Impact factor: 2.103
Authors: Anna A Pendina; Olga A Efimova; Olga G Chiryaeva; Andrei V Tikhonov; Lubov' I Petrova; Vera S Dudkina; Natalia A Sadik; Irina D Fedorova; Ilona A Galembo; Tatyana V Kuznetzova; Alexander M Gzgzyan; Vladislav S Baranov Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2013-12-10 Impact factor: 3.412