Literature DB >> 30239732

Endometriosis and adverse maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes, a systematic review and meta-analysis.

S Lalani1, A J Choudhry2, B Firth2, V Bacal1,2, Mark Walker1,2, S W Wen1,2, S Singh1,2, A Amath2, M Hodge2, I Chen1,2.   

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: How is endometriosis associated with adverse maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes of pregnancy? SUMMARY ANSWER: Women with endometriosis are at elevated risk for serious and important adverse maternal (pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, placenta praevia and Cesarean section) and fetal or neonatal outcomes (preterm birth, PPROM, small for gestational age, stillbirth and neonatal death). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A number of studies have shown an association between endometriosis and certain adverse maternal and fetal outcomes, but the results have been conflicting with potential for confounding by the use of assisted reproductive technology. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies (1 January 1990-31 December 2017) that evaluated the effect of endometriosis on maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes was conducted. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
METHODS: Studies were considered for inclusion if they were prospective or retrospective cohort or case-control studies; included women greater than 20 weeks gestational age with endometriosis; included a control group of gravid women without endometriosis; and, reported at least one of the outcomes of interest. Each study was reviewed for inclusion, data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by two independent reviewers. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The search strategy identified 33 studies (sample size, n = 3 280 488) for inclusion. Compared with women without endometriosis, women with endometriosis had higher odds of pre-eclampsia (odds ratio [OR] = 1.18 [1.01-1.39]), gestational hypertension and/or pre-eclampsia (OR = 1.21 [1.05-1.39]), gestational diabetes (OR = 1.26 [1.03-1.55]), gestational cholestasis (OR = 4.87 [1.85-12.83]), placenta praevia (OR = 3.31 [2.37, 4.63]), antepartum hemorrhage (OR = 1.69 [1.38-2.07]), antepartum hospital admissions (OR = 3.18 [2.60-3.87]), malpresentation (OR = 1.71 [1.34, 2.18]), labor dystocia (OR = 1.45 [1.04-2.01]) and cesarean section (OR = 1.86 [1.51-2.29]). Fetuses and neonates of women with endometriosis were also more likely to have preterm premature rupture of membranes (OR = 2.33 [1.39-3.90]), preterm birth (OR = 1.70 [1.40-2.06]), small for gestational age <10th% (OR = 1.28 [1.11-1.49]), NICU admission (OR = 1.39 [1.08-1.78]), stillbirth (OR = 1.29 [1.10, 1.52]) and neonatal death (MOR = 1.78 [1.46-2.16]). Among the subgroup of women who conceived spontaneously, endometriosis was found to be associated with placenta praevia, cesarean section, preterm birth and low birth weight. Among the subgroup of women who conceived with the use of assisted reproductive technology, endometriosis was found to be associated with placenta praevia and preterm birth. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: As with any systematic review, the review is limited by the quality of the included studies. The diagnosis for endometriosis and the selection of comparison groups were not uniform across studies. However, the effect of potential misclassification would be bias towards the null hypothesis. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
FINDINGS: The association between endometriosis with the important and serious pregnancy outcomes observed in our meta-analysis, in particular stillbirth and neonatal death, is concerning and warrants further studies to elucidate the mechanisms for the observed findings. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Dr Shifana Lalani is supported by a Physicians' Services Incorporated Foundation Research Grant, and Dr Innie Chen is supported by a University of Ottawa Clinical Research Chair in Reproductive Population Health and Health Services. Dr Singh declares conflicts of interests with Bayer, Abvie, Allergan and Cooper Surgical. All other authors have no conflicts of interests to declare. REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42015013911.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30239732      PMCID: PMC6145420          DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dey269

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


Introduction

Endometriosis is a chronic inflammatory condition characterized by the presence of endometrial glands and stroma outside of the uterine cavity and diagnosed by surgery (Leyland ; Acién and Velasco, 2013). It affects 10–15% of reproductive age women (Missmer and Cramer, 2003; Macer and Taylor, 2012), and may cause dyspareunia, dysmenorrhea and infertility. As 30–50% of women with endometriosis may have difficulty conceiving (Macer and Taylor, 2012), more women with endometriosis are achieving pregnancy through ART (Stephansson ). Endometriosis may be associated with altered ovulation and oocyte production, increased inflammatory cells in the peritoneal fluid, ovarian endometriomata, and disruption of normal endometrium all of which alter the uterine environment and may compromise normal embryonic development (Koch ; Macer and Taylor, 2012; Harb ). It is possible that such disturbances in the peri-implantation period may perpetuate throughout the later stages in pregnancy resulting in adverse maternal and fetal outcomes (Maggiore ). There have been many studies in the literature, especially in more recent years, showing an association between endometriosis and certain adverse maternal and fetal outcomes such as preterm birth, pre-eclampsia, placenta praevia and postpartum hemorrhage (Hadfield ; Healy ; Kuivasaari-Pirinen ; Aris, 2014; Stern ; Berlac ; Glavind ; Saraswat ; Chen ). However, the reported findings are conflicting, as some studies have shown a positive association while others have not. Further, given that many studies include women conceiving with the use of assisted reproduction, the relationship between endometriosis and adverse perinatal outcomes may be confounded by the higher rates of endometriosis among women requiring fertility treatment (Stephansson ; Benaglia ). Given the prevalence of endometriosis and the clinical significance of adverse pregnancy outcomes, we conducted a systematic review of the literature to investigate the association between endometriosis and maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes. In addition to reviewing the outcomes frequently reported in the literature, we also performed an extensive review for less commonly reported but important fetal and neonatal outcomes, such as stillbirth and neonatal death. Where appropriate, we performed a meta-analysis to provide an estimate of the effect for each outcome. To remove the effect of potential confounding with assisted reproduction, we performed a stratified analysis, where possible, to determine the effect of endometriosis on pregnancy outcomes in the subgroup of women with spontaneous conception and the subgroup of women with assisted reproduction.

Materials and Methods

The methods for this review were developed in accordance with the Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines (Stroup ), and registered a priori in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO registration no. CRD42015013911). Two independent reviewers were available at all stages of the study, including study selection, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias, with a third reviewer available to resolve any discrepancies.

Search strategy and selection criteria

The search protocol was developed by an experienced university librarian to identify studies investigating endometriosis and various adverse maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes (Supplementary Data). The electronic bibliographic databases Embase and Medline were searched for publications 1 January 1990–31 December 2017, and reference lists of identified articles were hand-searched for additional studies (Supplementary Data).

Study selection

Studies were included if they (i) were prospective or retrospective cohort or case–control studies, (ii) included women >20 weeks gestational age with endometriosis and (iii) included a control group of gravid women without endometriosis. Studies needed to clearly describe case ascertainment for endometriosis and report at least one of the outcomes of interest. The primary outcomes of this study were determined a priori and included maternal (pre-eclampsia, placenta previa, antepartum hemorrhage, placental abruption, malpresentation, labor dystocia, cesarean section, postpartum hemorrhage), fetal and neonatal (preterm birth, preterm premature rupture of membranes, intrauterine growth restriction, neonatal compromise, APGAR and fetal/neonatal death) outcomes. The secondary outcomes were to assess for the presence of any other clinically important adverse pregnancy outcomes reported in the literature. Studies were excluded from the review if the data were not extractable. Abstracts, reviews, letters to the editor, case reports and case series were also excluded.

Data extraction

A standardized data extraction form was used to extract information on study design; patient characteristics (age, gravidity, parity, body mass index, race); the diagnosis of endometriosis (mode of diagnosis, severity); use of assisted reproductive technology; and details regarding any reported adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Data analysis

Data for adverse outcomes were collected as dichotomous data, and the results were given as odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI. Where appropriate, study results were combined in meta-analysis using a random-effects model for a pooled OR and 95% CI. Where possible, subgroup analyses were performed for women who conceived spontaneously and for women who conceived by assisted reproduction. Forest plots and I2 statistic were calculated for each study outcome for each group. All analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3.

Risk of bias

The risk of bias was assessed for each study using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for the selection of study groups (up to 4 stars/points); comparability of groups (up to 2 stars/points); and, the ascertainment of either the exposure or outcome of interest for case–control or cohort studies, respectively (up to 3 stars/points) (Wells ).

Results

The electronic search strategy identified 3925 records, and 2794 studies were identified following the removal of duplicates. Following title and abstract screen, 117 studies were included for full text review, and 33 studies (sample size, n = 3 280 488) were included in the meta-analysis (Fig. 1) (Kortelahti ; Omland ; Brosens ; Fernando ; Hadfield ; Healy ; Kuivasaari-Pirinen ; Takemura ; Aris, 2014; Conti ; Mekaru ; Rombauts ; Baggio ; Lin ; Messerlian ; Stern , 2015; Benaglia , 2016; Exacoustos ; Fujii ; Guo ; Harada ; Jacques ; Morassutto ; Berlac ; Glavind ; Li ; Mannini ; Pan ; Saraswat ; Tzur ; Chen ).
Figure 1

PRISMA diagram for selection of included studies for endometriosis and adverse maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes—a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PRISMA diagram for selection of included studies for endometriosis and adverse maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Of the included studies, thirteen studies (n = 70 306) only included women who conceived by ART, and two studies (n = 586) only included women who conceived spontaneously. Five studies (n = 1 735 474) included women stratified by spontaneous and assisted reproduction. Overall, 12 studies (n = 1 473 747) did not identify or separate patients according to the method of conception. The remaining one study (n = 375) had two subsets of analyses whereas one was for women without identification of method of conception and another with documented ART and no-ART (Table I).
Table I

Characteristics of included studies for endometriosis and adverse maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes—a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors(s) (year)Study designEndometriosisNon-endometriosisMode of conceptionCase ascertainment for endometriosis
Aris (2014)Retrospective cohort78430 284Combined spontaneous and assistedSurgical/Histological
Baggio et al. (2015)Retrospective cohort3093Combined spontaneous and assistedSurgical/Histological
Benaglia et al. (2012)Retrospective cohort61130Assisted reproductionClinical
Benaglia et al. (2016)Case–control239239Assisted reproductionSurgical/Histological or clinical
Berlac et al. (2017)Retrospective cohort193311 071 920Combined spontaneous and assistedExisting database codes
Brosens et al. (2007)Retrospective cohort245274Assisted reproductionSurgical/Histological or existing record
Chen et al. (2018)Retrospective cohort46951 733Combined spontaneous and assistedExisting database codes
Conti et al. (2014)Prospective cohort2191331Combined spontaneous and assistedSurgical/Histological
Exacoustos et al. (2016)Prospective cohort41300Stratified by spontaneous and assistedSurgical/Histological
Fernando et al. (2009)Retrospective cohort6301140Assisted reproductionClinical or existing record
Fuji et al. (2016)Retrospective cohort92512Assisted reproductionSurgical/Histological
Glavind et al. (2017)Retrospective cohort171981 074Stratified by spontaneous and assistedExisting database codes
Guo et al. (2016)Retrospective cohort129145Assisted reproductionSurgical/Histological
Hadfield et al. (2009)Retrospective cohort3239205 640Stratified by spontaneous and assistedExisting database codes
Harada et al. (2016)Prospective cohort3308856Combined spontaneous and assistedClinical
Healy et al. (2010)Retrospective cohort12655465Assisted reproductionNot described
Jacques et al. (2016)Case–control113113Assisted reproductionExisting record in files
Kortelahti et al. (2003)Case–control137137Combined spontaneous and assistedSurgical/Histological
Kuivasaari-Pirinen et al. (2012)Retrospective cohort4926 870Assisted reproductionSurgical/Histological or clinical
Li et al. (2017)Retrospective cohort75300Stratified by spontaneous and assistedSurgical/Histological
Lin et al. (2015)Retrospective cohort249249SpontaneousSurgical/Histological
Mannini et al. (2017)Retrospective cohort262524Stratified by spontaneous and assistedSurgical/Histological
Mekaru et al. (2014)Retrospective cohort4048SpontaneousSurgical/Histological
Messerlian et al. (2015)Retrospective cohort26916 712Combined spontaneous and assistedNot described
Omland et al. (2005)Retrospective cohort212274Assisted reproductionSurgical/Histological
Pan et al. (2017)Retrospective cohort257810 312Combined spontaneous and assistedSurgical/Histological
Rombauts et al. (2014)Retrospective cohort3764016Assisted reproductionClinical
Saraswat et al. (2017)Retrospective cohort42326707Combined spontaneous and assistedSurgical/Histological
Stephansson et al. (2009)Retrospective cohort130901 429 585Stratified by spontaneous and assistedExisting database codes
Stern et al. (2013)Retrospective cohort793719 475Assisted reproductionNot described
Stern et al. (2015)Retrospective cohort996297 987Combined spontaneous and assistedExisting database codes
Takemura et al. (2013)Case–control44261Assisted reproductionSurgical/Histological or MRI
Tzur et al. (2018)Retrospective cohort35467Combined spontaneous and assistedSurgical/Histological
Characteristics of included studies for endometriosis and adverse maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes—a systematic review and meta-analysis.

All included women

Compared with women without endometriosis, women with endometriosis had higher odds of pre-eclampsia (13 studies; OR = 1.18 [1.01–1.39]), gestational hypertension and/or pre-eclampsia (24 studies; OR = 1.21 [1.05, 1.39]), gestational diabetes (12 studies; OR = 1.26 [1.03–1.55]), gestational cholestasis (1 study; OR = 4.87 [1.85–12.83]), placenta praevia (18 studies; OR = 3.31 [2.37, 4.63]) (Fig. 2), antepartum hemorrhage (5 studies; OR = 1.69 [1.38–2.07]), antepartum hospital admissions (1 study; OR = 3.18 [2.60–3.87]), malpresentation (1 study; OR = 1.71 [1.34, 2.18]), labor dystocia (1 study; OR = 1.45 [1.04–2.01]) and cesarean section (20 studies; OR = 1.86 [1.51–2.29]) (Fig. 3 and Table II).
Figure 2

Forest plot for association between endometriosis and placenta praevia by mode of conception.

Figure 3

Forest plot for association between endometriosis and cesarean section by mode of conception.

Table II

Association between endometriosis and adverse maternal outcomes.

Outcome indicatorStudy populationNo. of studiesPatients with endometriosisPatients without endometriosisI2OR [95% CI]
Pre-eclampsiaCombined spontaneous and assisted1339 6532 857 04563%1.18 [1.01, 1.39]
Spontaneous only2363626567251%1.21 [0.94, 1.56]
Assisted reproduction only71741734859%0.89 [0.48, 1.67]
Gestational hypertension and/or pre-eclampsiaCombined spontaneous and assisted2448 6603 225 76577%1.21 [1.05, 1.39]
Spontaneous only53298499 28933%1.12 [0.90, 1.39]
Assisted reproduction only51792747952%0.79 [0.56, 1.11]
Gestational diabetesCombined spontaneous and assisted123275367 53731%1.26 [1.03, 1.55]
Spontaneous only22097660%1.30 [0.85, 1.98]
Assisted reproduction only5881244434%1.08 [0.73, 1.60]
Gestational cholestasisCombined spontaneous and assisted12625244.87 [1.85, 12.83]
Placenta praeviaCombined spontaneous and assisted1827 3951 178 42577%3.31 [2.37, 4.63]
Spontaneous only3458101549%6.83 [2.10, 22.24]
Assisted reproduction only81937691170%3.33 [1.52, 7.30]
Antepartum hemorrhageCombined spontaneous and assisted538 0552 513 81483%1.69 [1.38, 2.07]
Assisted reproduction only1126554651.21 [0.96, 1.52]
Subchorionic hematomaCombined spontaneous and assisted140482.47 [0.22, 28.33]
Placental abruptionCombined spontaneous and assisted1225 2481 167 90853%1.46 [0.98, 2.19]
Spontaneous only227054971%2.53 [0.08, 79.34]
Assisted reproduction only33494120%0.35 [0.09, 1.32]
Antepartum hospital admissionsCombined spontaneous and assisted1996297 9873.18 [2.60, 3.87]
Induction of laborCombined spontaneous and assisted2578244794%1.23 [0.44, 3.44]
MalpresentationCombined spontaneous and assisted1996297 9871.71 [1.34, 2.18]
Labor dystociaCombined spontaneous and assisted1996297 9871.45 [1.04, 2.01]
Operative vaginal deliveryCombined spontaneous and assisted55722307 05469%1.05 [0.70, 1.57]
Cesarean sectionCombined spontaneous and assisted2041 9742 952 65998%1.86 [1.51, 2.29]
Spontaneous only62326364 01739%1.76 [1.51, 2.06]
Assisted reproduction only71295441978%1.24 [0.89, 1.71]
Postpartum hemorrhageCombined spontaneous and assisted1027 8171 220 22695%1.19 [0.89, 1.59]
Spontaneous only2142665 4330%0.85 [0.70, 1.04]
Assisted reproduction only338018750%1.21 [0.86, 1.71]

–Pooled analysis was not performed for single studies.

Association between endometriosis and adverse maternal outcomes. –Pooled analysis was not performed for single studies. Forest plot for association between endometriosis and placenta praevia by mode of conception. Forest plot for association between endometriosis and cesarean section by mode of conception. Fetuses and neonates of women with endometriosis were also more likely to have preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) (7 studies; OR = 2.33 [1.39–3.90]), preterm birth (23 studies; OR = 1.70 [1.40–2.06]) (Fig. 4), small for gestational age < 10th percentile (19 studies; OR = 1.28 [1.11–1.49]), NICU admission (7 studies; OR = 1.39 [1.08–1.78]), stillbirth (7 studies; OR = 1.29 [1.10, 1.52]) (Fig. 5) and neonatal death (3 studies; OR = 1.78 [1.46–2.16]). Maternal endometriosis had borderline asociation with infant low birth weight <2500 g (12 studies; OR = 1.13 [1.00–1.27]) (Table III).
Figure 4

Forest plot for association between endometriosis and preterm birth by mode of conception.

Figure 5

Forest plot for association between endometriosis and stillbirth by mode of conception.

Table III

Association between endometriosis and adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes.

Outcome indicatorStudy populationNo. of studiesPatients with endometriosisPatients without endometriosisI2OR [95% CI]
Preterm birthCombined spontaneous and assisted2343 2673 019 05892%1.70 [1.40, 2.06]
Spontaneous only711 2641 435 62457%1.70 [1.38, 2.10]
Assisted reproduction only10307220 60041%1.27 [1.04, 1.55]
Premature preterm rupture of membranes (PPROM)Combined spontaneous and assisted7175163 58064%2.33 [1.39, 3.90]
Small for gestational age <10th percentileCombined spontaneous and assisted1938 5142 952 40964%1.28 [1.11, 1.49]
Spontaneous only623263 64 0170%1.13 [0.92, 1.40]
Assisted reproduction only91857590112%1.04 [0.83, 1.30]
Low birth weight <2500 gCombined spontaneous and assisted127597414 8037%1.13 [1.00, 1.27]
Spontaneous only3879298 2840%1.52 [1.13, 2.05]
Assisted reproduction only61096273241%0.87 [0.59, 1.27]
APGAR <7 at 1 minCombined spontaneous and assisted21726040%0.75 [0.34, 1.68]
APGAR <7 at 5 minCombined spontaneous and assisted42879520%0.65 [0.20, 2.11]
Low venous pH (<7.15)Combined spontaneous and assisted11371372.01 [0.18, 22.48]
NICU admissionCombined spontaneous and assisted7137181 07423%1.39 [1.08, 1.78]
Spontaneous only140480.81 [0.28, 2.36]
Assisted reproduction only340940624%1.58 [0.91, 2.75]
StillbirthCombined spontaneous and assisted738 0092 547 7565%1.29 [1.10, 1.52]
Assisted reproduction only22424040%7.16 [0.74, 69.57]
Neonatal deathCombined spontaneous and assisted323 7001 078 7640%1.78 [1.46, 2.16]

–Pooled analysis was not performed for single studies.

Association between endometriosis and adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes. –Pooled analysis was not performed for single studies. Forest plot for association between endometriosis and preterm birth by mode of conception. Forest plot for association between endometriosis and stillbirth by mode of conception. Endometriosis was not found to be associated with subchorionic hematoma (1 study; OR = 2.47 [0.22–28.33]), placental abruption (12 studies; OR = 1.46 [0.98–2.19]), induction of labor (2 studies; OR = 1.23 [0.44–3.44]), operative vaginal delivery (5 studies; OR = 1.05 [0.70–1.57]), postpartum hemorrhage (10 studies; OR = 1.19 [0.89–1.59]), APGAR <7 at 5 min (4 studies; OR = 0.65 [0.20–2.11]), APGAR <7 at 1 min (2 studies; OR = 0.75 [0.34–1.68]) and low venous pH <7.15 (1 study; OR = 2.01 [0.18–22.48]) (Tables II and III).

Subgroup of women with known spontaneous conception

Among the subgroup of women who conceived spontaneously, the presence of endometriosis was found to be associated with placenta praevia (3 studies; OR = 6.83 [2.10–22.24]) (Fig. 2), cesarean section (6 studies; OR = 1.76 [1.51–2.06]) (Fig. 3), preterm birth (7 studies; OR = 1.70 [1.38–2.10]) (Fig. 4) and low birth weight <2500 g (3 studies; OR = 1.52 [1.13, 2.05]) (Tables II and III). For women who conceived spontaneously, endometriosis was not found to be associated with pre-eclampsia (2 studies; OR = 1.21 [0.94, 1.56]), gestational hypertension and/or pre-eclampsia (5 studies; OR = 1.12 [0.90, 1.39]), gestational diabetes (2 studies; OR = 1.30 [0.85, 1.98]), placental abruption (2 studies; OR = 2.53 [0.08, 79.34]), postpartum hemorrhage (2 studies; OR = 0.85 [0.70, 1.04]), small for gestational age <10th percentile (6 studies; OR = 1.13 [0.92, 1.40]) and NICU admission (1 studies; OR = 0.81 [0.28, 2.36]) (Tables II and III).

Subgroup of women with known assisted reproduction

Among the subgroup of women who conceived with the use of assisted reproductive technology, the presence of endometriosis was found to be associated with placenta praevia (8 studies; OR = 3.33 [1.52–7.30]) (Fig. 2) and preterm birth (10 studies; OR = 1.27 [1.04–1.55]) (Fig. 4) (Tables II and III). For women with assisted reproduction, endometriosis was not found to be associated with pre-eclampsia (7 studies; OR = 0.89 [0.48–1.67]), gestational hypertension and/or pre-eclampsia (5 studies; OR = 0.79 [0.56, 1.11]), gestational diabetes (5 studies; OR = 1.08 [0.73–1.60]), gestational cholestasis (2 studies; OR = 1.01 [0.05–21.97]), antepartum hemorrhage (1 studies; OR = 1.21 [0.96–1.52]), placental abruption (3 studies; OR = 0.35 [0.09–1.32]), cesarean section (7 studies; OR = 1.24 [0.89–1.71]) (Fig. 3), postpartum hemorrhage (3 studies; OR = 1.21 [0.86–1.71]), small for gestational age <10th percentile (9 studies; OR = 1.04 [0.83–1.30]), low birthweight <2500 g (6 studies; OR = 0.87 [0.59–1.27]), NICU admission (3 studies; OR = 1.58 [0.91–2.75]) and stillbirth (2 studies; OR = 7.16 [0.74–69.57]) (Fig. 5) (Tables II and III). There was insufficient information specific to either of these subgroups of women to assess the association with antepartum admission, PPROM, malpresentation, labor dystocia, induction of labor, operative vaginal delivery, low APGAR, low venous pH, subchorionic hematoma and neonatal death. Following assessment using the NOS, three studies had a medium risk of bias, with stars/scores of NOS 4 (Takemura ; Baggio ) and NOS 6 (Kuivasaari-Pirinen ). The remaining 30 studies had an NOS stars/scores of 7 or greater, indicating low risk of bias (Supplementary Table SI).

Discussion

In our systematic search of the literature, we found that the number of studies investigating the effect of endometriosis on pregnancy outcomes has risen substantially in recent years, verifying the growing relevance of this topic in an era of increasing use of assisted conception.

Maternal outcomes

The relationship between endometriosis and pre-eclampsia has been reported in the literature with conflicting findings, with some studies reporting increased risk (Berlac ), no risk (Hadfield ; Harada ) and even decreased risk (Brosens ). Our pooled results suggest that there is an association between endometriosis and pre-eclampsia. Similarly, endometriosis was also found to be associated with gestational diabetes. This stands in contrast to another review specific to this outcome, which did not find an association, possibly due to a smaller number of included studies and smaller sample size (Pérez-López ). When subgroup analysis was performed for both of these outcomes, no association was seen in either subgroup. Given the lack of association on subgroup analysis and the modest effect sizes observed, the findings are difficult to interpret in light of the observational nature of the included studies. Only one study reported outcomes for gestational cholestasis (Mannini ), an interesting finding that warrants further exploration. The finding of the association between endometriosis and placenta praevia is well-documented (Maggiore ) and may explain other less reported findings, such as the increased odds of antepartum hemorrhage and antepartum admission. While it has been suggested that the relationship may be confounded by the increased use of assisted reproduction in women with endometriosis, we found that the association was observed in both women who had spontaneous conception and assisted reproduction. The findings of malpresentation and cesarean section may be explained in part by the association with placenta praevia, though one study reported increased risk of labor dystocia as well. However, this latter finding may require further corroboration, as pooled results from five studies did not detect increased odds of operative vaginal delivery.

Fetal and neonatal conditions

The association between endometriosis and preterm birth observed in our review is consistent with the literature (Kuivasaari-Pirinen ; Conti ; Exacoustos ; Berlac ). While one potential explanation could be confounding with assisted reproduction, we found that this relationship was observed in both women with spontaneous conception and assisted reproduction (Stephansson ; Exacoustos ; Glavind ; Mannini ). Our findings are also consistent with the observation that endometriosis was associated with other adverse neonatal outcomes that have not been as extensively reported in the literature, including preterm premature rupture of membranes, small for gestational age, low birth weight and admission to neonatal intensive care.

Stillbirth and neonatal death

Stillbirth and neonatal death are uncommon but morbid adverse pregnancy outcome affecting <1% of all pregnancies (Say ). Due to the low frequency of this event, the detection of statistically significant differences for this outcome requires large sample sizes that are difficult to achieve through individual studies. One consistent finding between studies was that all studies reporting these outcomes had odds ratios greater than one, despite variable confidence intervals. When pooled, we found that women with endometriosis had 1.29-fold (95% CI: 1.10–1.52) increased odds of stillbirth and 1.78-fold (95% CI: 1.46–2.16) increased odds of neonatal death compared with women without endometriosis.

Postulated mechanisms

Several postulated mechanisms for these observations have been presented in the literature. Mechanisms involving altered vascular endothelial growth factor and angiogenesis (Palei ; Laschke and Menger, 2018), deferred implantation due to altered contractility and increased progesterone resistance (Maggiore ), altered eutopic endometrium due to increased secretion of interleukins and chronic inflammation (Brosens ), and increased history of uterine trauma from increased pregnancy loss among women with endometriosis (Chen ) help explain the findings of altered placentation and pre-eclampsia. In addition to suboptimal placentation, the increased expression of Cox-2, secretion of prostaglandins and chronic inflammation at the eutopic endometrium (Harada ; Maggiore ), early cervical ripening and increased uterine tone and contractilility (Brosens ) in women with endometriosis can lead to a variety of adverse fetal and neonatal effects.

Differences in subgroup analysis

For the pregnancy outcomes of cesarean section and low birth weight, we found an association with endometriosis among women with spontaneous conception but not women with assisted reproduction. While this may seem counter-intuitive, one potential explanation may be that assisted reproduction may be an independent risk factor for such adverse pregnancy outcomes for both women with and without endometriosis, so fewer adverse pregnancy complications can be attributed to endometriosis alone. However, it is also possible that the lack of statistically significant associations in the subgroup of women with assisted reproduction may be due in part to beta-error.

Strengths

There are several methodologic strengths to our review. First, it was registered a priori in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), thereby reducing risk of reporting bias. Second, the search strategy includes the results of an extensive and updated search of the literature with over 3000 records, and resulted in the identification of several additional papers compared with a previous review whose electronic search included 250 records (Zullo ). Third, it included several important pregnancy outcomes that have not yet been reported as pooled outcomes in prior reviews (Maggiore ; Zullo ), especially for serious fetal and neonatal outcomes, such as stillbirth and neonatal death, and also. In addition to describing the pregnancy outcomes associated with endometriosis, we have also included outcomes that were found not to be associated, as well as outcomes for which there was insufficient evidence. Fourth, in addition to providing a descriptive review on the topic (Maggiore ), we have also performed meta-analysis to provide a more precise estimate of the effect of endometriosis on various pregnancy outcomes. Fifth, where possible, subgroup analyses for spontaneous and assisted conception were performed to remove the effect of confounding by assisted reproduction and to enable comparison of the effect sizes between the two groups. While this type of subgroup analysis for women with assisted reproduction has been performed for preterm birth (Zullo ), we were able to perform this type of stratified analyses for many other outcomes other than preterm birth. Finally, when necessary, authors of original studies were contacted to provide additional information to assist with the interpretation, synthesis and analysis of their study results.

Limitations

As with any systematic review on observational studies, the review is limited by the quality and heterogeneity of the studies included. One finding was that the diagnosis for endometriosis was not uniform between the studies. While smaller studies using surgical data were able to confirm a surgical diagnosis of endometriosis, large population-based studies used International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes to identify endometriotic patients. Despite the potential lack of specificity with the use of ICD codes compared with surgical records, the effect of potential misclassification would be bias towards the null hypothesis. Also, selection of control groups was not uniform across studies, with some studies using fertile patients, subfertile patients or patients affected by male factor infertility as non-endometriotic controls. Despite these limitations, most studies adjusted for or restricted according to age, parity or number of gestations in pregnancy. These factors contributed towards the heterogeneity between the studies, which is generally expected for a systematic review on observational studies. Finally, although this review fulfills its purpose of providing a synthesis of the current literature on this important topic, the exact mechanism of how the presence of endometriosis leads to adverse pregnancy outcomes has yet to be elucidated.

Conclusion

Women with endometriosis are at elevated risk for serious and important adverse maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes. Though effect sizes for specific outcomes may differ between the two subgroups, both women with spontaneous conception and assisted reproduction are at elevated risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes. The association of endometriosis with morbid fetal and neonatal outcomes, such as stillbirth and neonatal death, is concerning and warrants further study. Click here for additional data file. Click here for additional data file.
  43 in total

1.  A 12-year cohort study on adverse pregnancy outcomes in Eastern Townships of Canada: impact of endometriosis.

Authors:  Aziz Aris
Journal:  Gynecol Endocrinol       Date:  2013-10-17       Impact factor: 2.260

2.  Women with endometriosis at first pregnancy have an increased risk of adverse obstetric outcome.

Authors:  Nathalie Conti; Gabriele Cevenini; Silvia Vannuccini; Cinzia Orlandini; Herbert Valensise; Maria Teresa Gervasi; Fabio Ghezzi; Mariarosaria Di Tommaso; Filiberto Maria Severi; Felice Petraglia
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2014-10-09

3.  Do the causes of infertility play a direct role in the aetiology of preterm birth?

Authors:  Carmen Messerlian; Robert W Platt; Baris Ata; Seang-Lin Tan; Olga Basso
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 3.980

4.  Endometriosis and pregnancy complications: a Danish cohort study.

Authors:  Maria Tølbøll Glavind; Axel Forman; Linn Håkonsen Arendt; Karsten Nielsen; Tine Brink Henriksen
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2016-10-12       Impact factor: 7.329

5.  Pregnancy outcome in women with endometriosis achieving pregnancy with IVF.

Authors:  Laura Benaglia; Giorgio Candotti; Enrico Papaleo; Luca Pagliardini; Marta Leonardi; Marco Reschini; Lavinia Quaranta; Maria Munaretto; Paola Viganò; Massimo Candiani; Paolo Vercellini; Edgardo Somigliana
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2016-09-24       Impact factor: 6.918

6.  Complications during pregnancy and delivery in women with untreated rectovaginal deep infiltrating endometriosis.

Authors:  Caterina Exacoustos; Ilaria Lauriola; Lucia Lazzeri; Giovanna De Felice; Errico Zupi
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2016-07-18       Impact factor: 7.329

7.  Pregnancy outcomes in women with endometriosis.

Authors:  Tamar Tzur; Adi Y Weintraub; Orly Arias Gutman; Yael Baumfeld; David Soriano; Salvatore A Mastrolia; Eyal Sheiner
Journal:  Minerva Ginecol       Date:  2017-10-23

8.  Endometriosis, assisted reproduction technology, and risk of adverse pregnancy outcome.

Authors:  Olof Stephansson; Helle Kieler; Fredrik Granath; Henrik Falconer
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2009-05-12       Impact factor: 6.918

Review 9.  Endometriosis and infertility: a review of the pathogenesis and treatment of endometriosis-associated infertility.

Authors:  Matthew Latham Macer; Hugh S Taylor
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 2.844

10.  Obstetric outcomes in Chinese women with endometriosis: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Hong Lin; Jin-Hua Leng; Jun-Tao Liu; Jing-He Lang
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2015-02-20       Impact factor: 2.628

View more
  27 in total

1.  Evidence for shared molecular pathways of dysregulated decidualization in preeclampsia and endometrial disorders revealed by microarray data integration.

Authors:  Maria Belen Rabaglino; Kirk P Conrad
Journal:  FASEB J       Date:  2019-08-07       Impact factor: 5.191

2.  Diagnosis and Treatment of Endometriosis. Guideline of the DGGG, SGGG and OEGGG (S2k Level, AWMF Registry Number 015/045, August 2020).

Authors:  Stefanie Burghaus; Sebastian D Schäfer; Matthias W Beckmann; Iris Brandes; Christian Brünahl; Radek Chvatal; Jan Drahoňovský; Wojciech Dudek; Andreas D Ebert; Christine Fahlbusch; Tanja Fehm; Peter Martin Fehr; Carolin C Hack; Winfried Häuser; Katharina Hancke; Volker Heinecke; Lars-Christian Horn; Christian Houbois; Christine Klapp; Heike Kramer; Harald Krentel; Jan Langrehr; Heike Matuschewski; Ines Mayer; Sylvia Mechsner; Andreas Müller; Armelle Müller; Michael Müller; Peter Oppelt; Thomas Papathemelis; Stefan P Renner; Dietmar Schmidt; Andreas Schüring; Karl-Werner Schweppe; Beata Seeber; Friederike Siedentopf; Horia Sirbu; Daniela Soeffge; Kerstin Weidner; Isabella Zraik; Uwe Andreas Ulrich
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2021-04-14       Impact factor: 2.915

3.  Endometriosis Increases the Risk of Placenta Previa in Both IVF Pregnancies and the General Obstetric Population.

Authors:  Eider Gómez-Pereira; Jorge Burgos; Rosario Mendoza; Irantzu Pérez-Ruiz; Fátima Olaso; David García; Iker Malaina; Roberto Matorras
Journal:  Reprod Sci       Date:  2022-08-23       Impact factor: 2.924

4.  Endometriosis and cardiovascular disease.

Authors:  Benjamin Marchandot; Anais Curtiaud; Kensuke Matsushita; Antonin Trimaille; Aline Host; Emilie Faller; Olivier Garbin; Chérif Akladios; Laurence Jesel; Olivier Morel
Journal:  Eur Heart J Open       Date:  2022-02-02

Review 5.  Endometriosis and Risk of Adverse Pregnancy Outcome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Kjerstine Breintoft; Regitze Pinnerup; Tine Brink Henriksen; Dorte Rytter; Niels Uldbjerg; Axel Forman; Linn Håkonsen Arendt
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-02-09       Impact factor: 4.241

6.  Endometriosis and Risk of Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes.

Authors:  Leslie V Farland; Jennifer Prescott; Naoko Sasamoto; Deirdre K Tobias; Audrey J Gaskins; Jennifer J Stuart; Daniela A Carusi; Jorge E Chavarro; Andrew W Horne; Janet W Rich-Edwards; Stacey A Missmer
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 7.623

7.  Pregnancy outcomes among women with endometriosis and fibroids: registry linkage study in Massachusetts.

Authors:  Leslie V Farland; Judy E Stern; Chia-Ling Liu; Howard J Cabral; Charles C Coddington; Hafsatou Diop; Dmitry Dukhovny; Sunah Hwang; Stacey A Missmer
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2022-01-31       Impact factor: 10.693

8.  Impact of Endometriomas and Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis on Pregnancy Outcomes and on First and Second Trimester Markers of Impaired Placentation.

Authors:  Carolina Scala; Umberto Leone Roberti Maggiore; Fabio Barra; Matteo Tantari; Simone Ferrero
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2019-08-30       Impact factor: 2.430

9.  Adverse effects of endometriosis on pregnancy: a case-control study.

Authors:  Mayo Miura; Takafumi Ushida; Kenji Imai; Jingwen Wang; Yoshinori Moriyama; Tomoko Nakano-Kobayashi; Satoko Osuka; Fumitaka Kikkawa; Tomomi Kotani
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 3.007

10.  Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in Endometriosis - Myths and Realities.

Authors:  Leslie V Farland; Samantha Davidson; Naoko Sasamoto; Andrew W Horne; Stacey A Missmer
Journal:  Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep       Date:  2020-01-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.