Georgina M Chambers1, Abrar A Chughtai2, Cynthia M Farquhar3, Yueping A Wang4. 1. National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit, Center for Big Data Research in Health, School of Women's and Children's Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: g.chambers@unsw.edu.au. 2. National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit, Center for Big Data Research in Health, School of Women's and Children's Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 4. Faculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether there is an increased risk of preterm birth with blastocyst transfer compared with cleavage-stage embryo transfer (ET) after assisted reproductive technology (ART). DESIGN: A retrospective, population-based study. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): A total of 50,788 infants conceived after ART treatment performed from 2009 to 2012. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The rates of preterm birth, low birth weight (LBW), and small for gestational age (SGA) for 43,952 singleton and 3,418 twin deliveries after transfers of blastocyst or cleavage-stage embryos. RESULT(S): Among singletons, there was no significant difference in the odds of preterm birth between blastocyst and cleavage-stage ET (9.1% compared with 9.3%, respectively, adjusted odds ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.94-1.08). Among twins, the crude rates of preterm birth were similar after blastocyst and cleavage-stage ETs (61.5% and 64.4%, respectively). However, after adjusting for potential confounders, blastocyst transfer was associated with a lower odds of preterm birth among twins (adjusted odds ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.70-0.93). There was no difference in risks of LBW and SGA between blastocyst and cleavage-stage ETs for both singletons and twins after adjusting for potential confounders. CONCLUSION(S): In contrast with the findings from a number of other studies, blastocyst culture in Australian and New Zealand is not associated with an increased risk of preterm, LBW, and SGA for singletons. Further studies are needed to assess longer-term outcomes of children born after ART treatment and possible biological or treatment factors related to adverse outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether there is an increased risk of preterm birth with blastocyst transfer compared with cleavage-stage embryo transfer (ET) after assisted reproductive technology (ART). DESIGN: A retrospective, population-based study. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): A total of 50,788 infants conceived after ART treatment performed from 2009 to 2012. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The rates of preterm birth, low birth weight (LBW), and small for gestational age (SGA) for 43,952 singleton and 3,418 twin deliveries after transfers of blastocyst or cleavage-stage embryos. RESULT(S): Among singletons, there was no significant difference in the odds of preterm birth between blastocyst and cleavage-stage ET (9.1% compared with 9.3%, respectively, adjusted odds ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.94-1.08). Among twins, the crude rates of preterm birth were similar after blastocyst and cleavage-stage ETs (61.5% and 64.4%, respectively). However, after adjusting for potential confounders, blastocyst transfer was associated with a lower odds of preterm birth among twins (adjusted odds ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.70-0.93). There was no difference in risks of LBW and SGA between blastocyst and cleavage-stage ETs for both singletons and twins after adjusting for potential confounders. CONCLUSION(S): In contrast with the findings from a number of other studies, blastocyst culture in Australian and New Zealand is not associated with an increased risk of preterm, LBW, and SGA for singletons. Further studies are needed to assess longer-term outcomes of children born after ART treatment and possible biological or treatment factors related to adverse outcomes.
Authors: Julia F Litzky; Sheree L Boulet; Navid Esfandiari; Yujia Zhang; Dmitry M Kissin; Regan N Theiler; Carmen J Marsit Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2018-04-10 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Vitaly A Kushnir; David H Barad; David F Albertini; Sarah K Darmon; Norbert Gleicher Journal: Reprod Biol Endocrinol Date: 2017-01-10 Impact factor: 5.211
Authors: Catherine M Castillo; Joyce Harper; Stephen A Roberts; Helen C O'Neill; Edward D Johnstone; Daniel R Brison Journal: Hum Reprod Open Date: 2020-02-10