Literature DB >> 24480786

Neonatal outcomes among singleton births after blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

S Dar1, T Lazer, P S Shah, C L Librach.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several studies have evaluated outcomes of singleton pregnancies after blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer. Higher incidences of preterm birth (PTB), very preterm birth (VPTB), low birthweight (LBW) and congenital malformations were identified in a few of them. The objective of our study was to systematically review and meta-analyze pregnancy and neonatal outcomes among singleton births following blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer. METHODS EMBASE, MEDLINE, EBM Reviews and bibliographies of included studies were searched from their inception until March 2013. Observational studies or clinical trials comparing blastocyst with cleavage stage embryo transfer and reporting on outcomes of PTB (<37 weeks), VPTB (<32 weeks), LBW (<2500 g), very low birthweight (VLBW) (<1500 g) and/or congenital anomalies in singleton neonates were included. Data on the outcomes were extracted by two reviewers. Statistical heterogeneity among studies was evaluated by calculating I(2) values and χ(2) statistics. Meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the pooled unadjusted odds ratio (OR) and the adjusted OR (AOR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random effect model. RESULTS Six observational studies, of low to moderate risk of bias, were included in this review. There were significantly higher odds of PTB (four studies, 54 792 cleavage stage and 20 724 blastocyst stage births; AOR 1.32, 95% CI 1.19-1.46) and congenital anomalies (two studies, 22 068 cleavage stage and 4517 blastocyst stage births; AOR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03-1.62) among births after blastocyst transfer compared with cleavage stage transfer. There was no difference in the adjusted odds of VPTB (four studies, 54 792 cleavage stage and 20 724 blastocyst stage births; AOR 1.18, 95% CI 0.93-1.49), LBW (four studies, 54 109 cleavage stage and 20 392 blastocyst stage births; AOR 1.06, 95% CI 0.99-1.15) or VLBW (three studies, 22 088 cleavage stage and 5772 blastocyst stage births; AOR 1.01, 95% CI 0.73-1.38). CONCLUSIONS Risk of PTB in IVF singleton pregnancies is significantly higher following blastocyst transfer compared with cleavage stage transfer. Risk of congenital anomalies may also be higher but further studies are needed to confirm this finding and to identify reasons for such outcomes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  blastocyst; cleavage stage embryo; congenital anomalies; neonatal outcomes; preterm labor

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24480786     DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmu001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod Update        ISSN: 1355-4786            Impact factor:   15.610


  33 in total

Review 1.  Day three versus day two embryo transfer following in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

Authors:  Julie Brown; Salim Daya; Phill Matson
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-12-14

Review 2.  Preimplantation genetic screening 2.0: the theory.

Authors:  Joep Geraedts; Karen Sermon
Journal:  Mol Hum Reprod       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 4.025

3.  No advantage of fresh blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer in women under the age of 39: a randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Paolo Emanuele Levi-Setti; Federico Cirillo; Antonella Smeraldi; Emanuela Morenghi; Giulia E G Mulazzani; Elena Albani
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 3.412

4.  Birthweight of singletons born after blastocyst-stage or cleavage-stage transfer: analysis of a data set from three randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Anick De Vos; Samuel Dos Santos-Ribeiro; Herman Tournaye; Greta Verheyen
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-12-13       Impact factor: 3.412

5.  Ratio of progesterone-to-number of follicles as a prognostic tool for in vitro fertilization cycles.

Authors:  Matheus Roque; Marcello Valle; Marcos Sampaio; Selmo Geber; Miguel Angel Checa
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 6.  Child Health: Is It Really Assisted Reproductive Technology that We Need to Be Concerned About?

Authors:  Edwina H Yeung; Keewan Kim; Alexandra Purdue-Smithe; Griffith Bell; Jessica Zolton; Akhgar Ghassabian; Yassaman Vafai; Sonia L Robinson; Sunni L Mumford
Journal:  Semin Reprod Med       Date:  2019-03-13       Impact factor: 1.303

7.  Morphometric and morphokinetic differences in the sperm- and oocyte-originated pronuclei of male and female human zygotes: a time-lapse study.

Authors:  Lee-Sarose Orevich; Kate Watson; Kee Ong; Irving Korman; Ross Turner; David Shaker; Yanhe Liu
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2022-01-07       Impact factor: 3.412

8.  Building a model to increase live birth rate through patient-specific optimization of embryo transfer day.

Authors:  R H Goldman; D J Kaser; S A Missmer; S S Srouji; L V Farland; C Racowsky
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2016-09-10       Impact factor: 3.412

9.  Comparative intrauterine development and placental function of ART concepti: implications for human reproductive medicine and animal breeding.

Authors:  Enrrico Bloise; Sky K Feuer; Paolo F Rinaudo
Journal:  Hum Reprod Update       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 15.610

10.  Embryonic Cell-free DNA in Spent Culture Medium: A Non-invasive Tool for Aneuploidy Screening of the Corresponding Embryos.

Authors:  Afrodite Sialakouma; Ioannis Karakasiliotis; Vaia Ntala; Nikolaos Nikolettos; Byron Asimakopoulos
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2021 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.155

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.