| Literature DB >> 30291693 |
Maryam Jahangirifar1, Mahboubeh Taebi2, Mohammad Hossein Nasr-Esfahani3, G Holamreza Askari4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infertility is one of the most common challenges that women in reproductive age would encounter today. The maternal nutritional status could be a determinant of oocyte quality and embryonic growth. This study was conducted to assess the relationship between dietary patterns and reproductive outcomes in infertile women.Entities:
Keywords: Assisted Reproductive Technique; In vitro Fertilization; Infertility; Nutrition
Year: 2018 PMID: 30291693 PMCID: PMC6186288 DOI: 10.22074/ijfs.2019.5373
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Fertil Steril ISSN: 2008-0778
Factor loading for food groups of the three dietary patterns identified from food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) in 140 infertile women
| Food groups | Healthy | Western | Unhealthy |
|---|---|---|---|
| dietary pattern | |||
| Fruits | 0.750 | - | - |
| Nuts | 0.672 | - | - |
| Vegetables | 0.597 | - | - |
| Meat | 0.535 | - | - |
| Dairy | 0.418 | - | - |
| Green olive | 0.443 | - | - |
| Cream | 0.272 | - | - |
| Legume | 0.142 | - | - |
| Sweet drinks | - | 0.782 | - |
| Sweets | - | 0.519 | - |
| Caffeinated drinks | - | 0.480 | - |
| Potato | - | 0.416 | - |
| Fast foods | - | 0.344 | - |
| Whole grain | - | -0.334 | - |
| Refined grain | - | 0.303 | - |
| Liquid oil | - | 0.298 | - |
| Salt | - | 0.237 | - |
| Mayonnaise sauce | - | - | 0.777 |
| Butter | - | - | 0.738 |
| Egg | - | - | 0.509 |
| Junk foods | - | - | 0.320 |
| Solid oil | - | - | 0.279 |
| Variance explained (%) | 12.679 | 8.892 | 7.133 |
Comparison of the assisted reproductive technology outcomes by tertiles of the dietary patterns in infertile women
| Variables | Helthy pattern | Western pattern | Unhelthy pattern | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | T2 | T3 | P valuec | T1 | T2 | T3 | P value | T1 | T2 | T3 | P value | |
| The average number of total oocyte | ||||||||||||
| Model1a (mean ± SD) | 7.1 ± 6.1 | 10.6 ± 8.6 | 12.2 ± 9 | 0.009 | 12 ± 9.3 | 8.7 ± 6.7 | 9.2 ± 8.3 | 0.119 | 9.8 ± 7.9 | 9.8 ± 8.8 | 10.4 ± 8.1 | 0.929 |
| Model2b (mean ± SE) | 7.4 ± 1.2 | 11.1 ± 1.2 | 11.4 ± 1.3 | 0.053 | 12.1 ± 1.2 | 9.5 ± 1.1 | 8.4 ± 1.2 | 0.088 | 9.8 ± 1.2 | 10.5 ± 1.2 | 9.6 ± 1.2 | 0.837 |
| The average number of metaphase II oocyte | ||||||||||||
| Model1 (mean ± SD) | 6.1 ± 5.3 | 8.6 ± 6.8 | 10.6 ± 7.9 | 0.006 | 10 ± 7.4 | 7.5 ± 6.3 | 7.9 ± 7.1 | 0.184 | 8.6 ± 7 | 8.2 ± 7.6 | 8.6 ± 6.4 | 0.956 |
| Model2 (mean ± SE) | 6.2 ± 1 | 8.9 ± 1 | 10.2 ± 1.1 | 0.034 | 9.9 ± 1 | 8.1 ± 1 | 7.4 ± 1 | 0.225 | 8.6 ± 1 | 8.8 ± 1 | 7.9 ± 1 | 0.824 |
| The fertilization rate | ||||||||||||
| Model1 (mean ± SD) | 0.61 ± 0.4 | 0.7 ± 0.3 | 0.7 ± 0.2 | 0.168 | 0.7 ± 0.3 | 0.7 ± 0.3 | 0.7 ± 0.3 | 0.776 | 0.7 ± 0.3 | 0.7 ± 0.3 | 0.6 ± 0.3 | 0.649 |
| Model2 (mean ± SE) | 0.6 ± 0.05 | 0.7 ± 0.05 | 0.7 ± 0.05 | 0.310 | 0.7 ± 0.05 | 0.7 ± 0.05 | 0.7 ± 0.05 | 0.545 | 0.7 ± 0.05 | 0.7 ± 0.05 | 0.6 ± 0.05 | 0.536 |
| The ratio of good quality embryo | ||||||||||||
| Model1 (mean ± SD) | 0.2 ± 0.3 | 0.2 ± 0.2 | 0.2 ± 0.3 | 0.705 | 0.2 ± 0.3 | 0.2 ± 0.3 | 0.2 ± 0.3 | 0.870 | 0.2 ± 0.3 | 0.2 ± 0.3 | 0.2 ± 0.3 | 0.433 |
| Model2 (mean ± SE) | 0.2 ± 0.05 | 0.2 ± 0.04 | 0. 2 ± 0.05 | 0.874 | 0.2 ± 0.04 | 0.2 ± 0.04 | 0.2 ± 0.04 | 0.656 | 0.2 ± 0.04 | 0.2 ± 0.04 | 0.2 ± 0.04 | 0.352 |
| The ratio of bad quality embryo | ||||||||||||
| Model1 (mean ± SD) | 0.2 ± 0.3 | 0.4 ± 0.3 | 0.3 ± 0.3 | 0.159 | 0.3 ± 0.3 | 0.3 ± 0.3 | 0.3 ± 0.3 | 0.559 | 0.3 ± 0.3 | 0.3 ± 0.3 | 0.3 ± 0.3 | 0.733 |
| Model2 (mean ± SE) | 0.3 ± 0.05 | 0.4 ± 0.05 | 0.3 ± 0.05 | 0.425 | 0.3 ± 0.05 | 0.3 ± 0.05 | 0.4 ± 0.05 | 0.653 | 0.3 ± 0.05 | 0.3 ± 0.05 | 0.3 ± 0.05 | 0.923 |
| The biochemical pregnancy [OR (IC)]d | ||||||||||||
| Model1 (mean ± SD) | 1 | 1.5 (0.4-5.3) | 1.1 (0.3-4.2) | 0.816 | 1 | 1.4 (0.3-5.5) | 1.4 (0.4-5.1) | 0.858 | 1 | 0.14 (0.3-0.7) | 0.72 (0.2-2.6) | 0.036 |
| Model2 (mean ± SE) | 1 | 1.3 (0.3-5.8) | 1.3 (0.3-6.7) | 0.914 | 1 | 1.8 (0.3-9.4) | 1.1 (0.2-5.9) | 0.749 | 1 | 0.09 (0.01-0.6) | 0.9 (0.1-5.9) | 0.022 |
| The clinical pregnancy[OR (IC)] | ||||||||||||
| Model1 (mean ± SD) | 1 | 1.5(0.4-5.3) | 1.1(0.3-4.2) | 0.816 | 1 | 1.4(0.3-5.5) | 1.4(0.4-5.1) | 0.858 | 1 | 0.14 (0.3-0.7) | 0.72(0.2-2.6) | 0.036 |
| Model2 (mean ± SE) | 1 | 1.3(0.3-5.8) | 1.3(0.3-6.7) | 0.914 | 1 | 1.8(0.3-9.4) | 1.1(0.2-5.9) | 0.749 | 1 | 0.09 (0.01-0.6) | 0.9(0.1-5.9) | 0.022 |
Model1a; Crude, Model2b; Adjusted for age, marriage age, BMI, waist circumference, physical activity, total energy intake, supplement consumption, duration of metformin consumption, c; P trends from ANOVA analysis for model1 and from ANCOVA analysis for model2 in quantitative variables and p trends from logistic regression analysis for qualitative variables, and d; OR (CI): Odds ratio and 95% interval confidence calculated by logistic regression analysis.
Demographic characteristics by tertiles of the dietary patterns
| Characteristic | n=140 | Tertile of healthy pattern | Tertile of western pattern | Tertile of unhealthy pattern | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | T2 | T3 | P valuea | T1 | T2 | T3 | P value | T1 | T2 | T3 | P value | ||
| n=46 | n=47 | n=47 | n=46 | n=47 | n=47 | n=46 | n=47 | n=47 | |||||
| Age (Y), mean ± SD | 32.4 ± 5.2 | 32.4 ± 5.6 | 33.2 ± 5.2 | 31.6 ± 4.7 | 0.294 | 31.3 ± 5 | 33.6 ± 5 | 32.3 ± 5.4 | 0.106 | 32.7 ± 4.7 | 33 ± 5.3 | 31.5 ± 5.6 | 0.324 |
| BMI (kg/m2), mean ± SD | 28.1 ± 4.9 | 28.6 ± 5.5 | 28.3 ± 4.4 | 27.2 ± 4.6 | 0.338 | 28.2 ± 5.2 | 28.1 ± 4.5 | 27.9 ± 4.9 | 0.969 | 28.2 ± 5 | 28.2 ± 4 | 27.7 ± 5.6 | 0.875 |
| Waist circumference (cm), mean ± SD | 83.4 ± 10.4 | 84.3 ± 11.7 | 83.6 ± 9.2 | 82.3 ± 10.1 | 0.642 | 84 ± 10 | 83.5 ± 10 | 82.7 ± 11.3 | 0.842 | 84.1 ± 10.1 | 82.5 ± 7.9 | 83.6 ± 12.8 | 0.747 |
| Education, count (%) | 0.003 | 0.357 | 0.864 | ||||||||||
| Under diploma | 37 (26.4) | 21 (45.7) | 11 (23.4) | 5 (10.6) | - | 14 (30.4) | 9 (19.1) | 14 (29.8) | - | 10 (21.7) | 15 (31.9) | 12 (25.5) | - |
| Diploma | 45 (32.1) | 13 (28.3) | 16 (34) | 16 (34) | - | 11 (23.9) | 20 (42.6) | 14 (29.8) | - | 16 (34.8) | 14 (29.8) | 15 (31.9) | - |
| Academic | 58 (41.4) | 12 (26.1) | 20 (42.6) | 26 (55.3) | - | 21 (45.7) | 18 (38.3) | 19 (40.4) | - | 20 (43.5) | 18 (38.3) | 20 (42.6) | - |
| Employment status, count (%) | 0.033 | 0.207 | 0.423 | ||||||||||
| Housewife | 110 (78.6) | 42 (91.3) | 35 (74.5) | 33 (70.2) | - | 39 (84.8) | 38 (80.9) | 33 (70.2) | - | 37 (80.4) | 34 (72.3) | 39 (83) | - |
| Employed | 30 (21.4) | 4 (8.7) | 12 (25.5) | 14 (29.8) | - | 7 (15.2) | 9 (19.1) | 14 (29.8) | - | 9 (19.6) | 13 (27.7) | 8 (17) | - |
| The cause of infertility, count (%) | 0.523 | 0.111 | 0.482 | ||||||||||
| Ovarian | 105 (75) | 33 (71.7) | 38 (80.9) | 34 (72.3) | - | 39 (84.8) | 35 (74.5) | 31 (66) | - | 34 (73.9) | 33 (70.2) | 38 (80.9) | - |
| Idiopathic | 35 (25) | 13 (28.3) | 9 (19.1) | 13 (27.7) | - | 7 (15.2) | 12 (25.5) | 16 (34) | - | 12 (26.1) | 14 (29.8) | 9 (19.1) | - |
a; P value from One-way analysis of variance for continuous quantitative variables and from Chi-square test for categorical variables.