Jeani Chang1, Sheree L Boulet2, Gary Jeng2, Lisa Flowers2, Dmitry M Kissin2. 1. Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: jchang@cdc.gov. 2. Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the characteristics of IVF cycles for which preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) was used and to evaluate indications for PGD and treatment outcomes associated with this procedure as compared with cycles without PGD with the data from the U.S. National ART Surveillance System. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: None. PATIENT(S): Fresh autologous cycles that involved transfer of at least one embryo at blastocyst when available. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): PGD indications and age-specific reproductive outcomes. RESULT(S): There were a total of 97,069 non-PGD cycles and 9,833 PGD cycles: 55.6% were performed for aneuploidy screening (PGD Aneuploidy), 29.1% for other reasons (PGD Other), and 15.3% for genetic testing (PGD Genetic). In comparison to non-PGD cycles, PGD Aneuploidy cycles showed a decreased odds of miscarriage among women 35-37 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45-0.87) and women >37 years (aOR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.43-0.70); and an increased odds of clinical pregnancy (aOR 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05-1.34), live-birth delivery (aOR 1.43; 95% CI, 1.26-1.62), and multiple-birth delivery (aOR 1.98; 95% CI, 1.52-2.57) among women >37 years. CONCLUSION(S): Aneuploidy screening was the most common indication for PGD. Use of PGD was not observed to be associated with an increased odds of clinical pregnancy or live birth for women <35 years. PGD for aneuploidy was associated with a decreased odds of miscarriage for women >35 years, but an increased odds of a live-birth and a multiple live-birth delivery among women >37 years. Published by Elsevier Inc.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the characteristics of IVF cycles for which preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) was used and to evaluate indications for PGD and treatment outcomes associated with this procedure as compared with cycles without PGD with the data from the U.S. National ART Surveillance System. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: None. PATIENT(S): Fresh autologous cycles that involved transfer of at least one embryo at blastocyst when available. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): PGD indications and age-specific reproductive outcomes. RESULT(S): There were a total of 97,069 non-PGD cycles and 9,833 PGD cycles: 55.6% were performed for aneuploidy screening (PGD Aneuploidy), 29.1% for other reasons (PGD Other), and 15.3% for genetic testing (PGD Genetic). In comparison to non-PGD cycles, PGD Aneuploidy cycles showed a decreased odds of miscarriage among women 35-37 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45-0.87) and women >37 years (aOR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.43-0.70); and an increased odds of clinical pregnancy (aOR 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05-1.34), live-birth delivery (aOR 1.43; 95% CI, 1.26-1.62), and multiple-birth delivery (aOR 1.98; 95% CI, 1.52-2.57) among women >37 years. CONCLUSION(S): Aneuploidy screening was the most common indication for PGD. Use of PGD was not observed to be associated with an increased odds of clinical pregnancy or live birth for women <35 years. PGD for aneuploidy was associated with a decreased odds of miscarriage for women >35 years, but an increased odds of a live-birth and a multiple live-birth delivery among women >37 years. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: J C Harper; L Wilton; J Traeger-Synodinos; V Goossens; C Moutou; S B SenGupta; T Pehlivan Budak; P Renwick; M De Rycke; J P M Geraedts; G Harton Journal: Hum Reprod Update Date: 2012-02-16 Impact factor: 15.610
Authors: Elizabeth S Ginsburg; Valerie L Baker; Catherine Racowsky; Ethan Wantman; James Goldfarb; Judy E Stern Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2011-08-26 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Zhihong Yang; Jiaen Liu; Gary S Collins; Shala A Salem; Xiaohong Liu; Sarah S Lyle; Alison C Peck; E Scott Sills; Rifaat D Salem Journal: Mol Cytogenet Date: 2012-05-02 Impact factor: 2.009
Authors: Karen Sermon; Antonio Capalbo; Jacques Cohen; Edith Coonen; Martine De Rycke; Anick De Vos; Joy Delhanty; Francesco Fiorentino; Norbert Gleicher; Georg Griesinger; Jamie Grifo; Alan Handyside; Joyce Harper; Georgia Kokkali; Sebastiaan Mastenbroek; David Meldrum; Marcos Meseguer; Markus Montag; Santiago Munné; Laura Rienzi; Carmen Rubio; Katherine Scott; Richard Scott; Carlos Simon; Jason Swain; Nathan Treff; Filippo Ubaldi; Rita Vassena; Joris Robert Vermeesch; Willem Verpoest; Dagan Wells; Joep Geraedts Journal: Mol Hum Reprod Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 4.025