Kazuki Saito1,2,3, Kenji Miyado4, Kenji Yamatoya1,4, Akira Kuwahara5, Eisuke Inoue6, Mami Miyado3, Maki Fukami3, Tomonori Ishikawa2, Takakazu Saito1, Toshiro Kubota2, Hidekazu Saito7. 1. Department of Perinatal Medicine and Maternal Care, National Center for Child Health and Development, 2-10-1 Okura, Setagaya, Tokyo, 157-8535, Japan. 2. Department of Comprehensive Reproductive Medicine, Graduate School, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, 113-8510, Japan. 3. Department of Molecular Endocrinology, National Research Institute for Child Health and Development, Tokyo, 157-8535, Japan. 4. Department of Reproductive Biology, National Research Institute for Child Health and Development, Tokyo, 157-8535, Japan. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Health Biosciences, The University of Tokushima Graduate School, Tokushima, 770-8503, Japan. 6. Division of Statistical Analysis, Center for Clinical Research and Development, National Center for Child Health and Development, Tokyo, 157-8535, Japan. 7. Department of Perinatal Medicine and Maternal Care, National Center for Child Health and Development, 2-10-1 Okura, Setagaya, Tokyo, 157-8535, Japan. saitou-hi@ncchd.go.jp.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to clarify the risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes in patients who conceive singletons after frozen embryo transfer (FET) during a hormone replacement cycle and their offspring. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients who conceived after FET, based on the Japanese-assisted reproductive technology registry for 2013. The perinatal outcomes in cases with live-born singletons achieved through natural ovulatory cycle FET (NC-FET) (n = 6287) or hormone replacement cycle FET (HRC-FET) (n = 10,235) were compared. Multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the potential confounding factors. RESULTS: The frequencies of macrosomia (1.1% in NC-FET and 1.4% in HRC-FET; P = 0.058) were comparable between patients after NC-FET and HRC-FET. The proportions of post-term delivery (0.2% in NC-FET and 1.3% in HRC-FET; P < 0.001) and Cesarean section (33.6% in NC-FET and 43.0% in HRC-FET; P < 0.001) were higher in patients after HRC-FET than in patients after NC-FET. The risks of post-term delivery (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 5.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.30-9.80) and Cesarean section (AOR 1.64, 95% CI 1.52-1.76) were also higher in patients after HRC-FET than in patients after NC-FET. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who conceived singletons after HRC-FET were at increased risk of post-term delivery and Cesarean section compared with those who conceived after NC-FET.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to clarify the risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes in patients who conceive singletons after frozen embryo transfer (FET) during a hormone replacement cycle and their offspring. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients who conceived after FET, based on the Japanese-assisted reproductive technology registry for 2013. The perinatal outcomes in cases with live-born singletons achieved through natural ovulatory cycle FET (NC-FET) (n = 6287) or hormone replacement cycle FET (HRC-FET) (n = 10,235) were compared. Multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the potential confounding factors. RESULTS: The frequencies of macrosomia (1.1% in NC-FET and 1.4% in HRC-FET; P = 0.058) were comparable between patients after NC-FET and HRC-FET. The proportions of post-term delivery (0.2% in NC-FET and 1.3% in HRC-FET; P < 0.001) and Cesarean section (33.6% in NC-FET and 43.0% in HRC-FET; P < 0.001) were higher in patients after HRC-FET than in patients after NC-FET. The risks of post-term delivery (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 5.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.30-9.80) and Cesarean section (AOR 1.64, 95% CI 1.52-1.76) were also higher in patients after HRC-FET than in patients after NC-FET. CONCLUSIONS:Patients who conceived singletons after HRC-FET were at increased risk of post-term delivery and Cesarean section compared with those who conceived after NC-FET.
Authors: S Opdahl; A A Henningsen; A Tiitinen; C Bergh; A Pinborg; P R Romundstad; U B Wennerholm; M Gissler; R Skjærven; L B Romundstad Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Carolina O Nastri; Sarah F Lensen; Ahmed Gibreel; Nick Raine-Fenning; Rui A Ferriani; Siladitya Bhattacharya; Wellington P Martins Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-03-22
Authors: Carolyn R Givens; Leslie C Markun; Isabelle P Ryan; Philip E Chenette; Carl M Herbert; Eldon D Schriock Journal: Reprod Biomed Online Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 3.828
Authors: Puja S Gera; Laura L Tatpati; Michael C Allemand; Mark A Wentworth; Charles C Coddington Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2009-04-07 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Ye Pan; Bo Li; Ze Wang; Ying Wang; Xiaoshu Gong; Wenqing Zhou; Yuhua Shi Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2020-09-30 Impact factor: 5.555