Jessica E McLaughlin1, Byeong Y Choi2, Qianqian Liu2, Jonathan A Gelfond2, Randal D Robinson1, T Arthur Chang1, Jennifer F Knudtson3. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA. knudtson@uthscsa.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the effect of assisted hatching (AH) on live birth rate (LBR) in first cycle, fresh in vitro fertilization (IVF) in good and poor prognosis patients. METHODS: Retrospective cohort using cycles reported to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcomes Reporting System. Live birth rate was compared in women who underwent first cycle, autologous, fresh IVF cycles with (n = 48,858) and without (n = 103,413) AH from 2007 to 2015. RESULTS: The propensity-weighted LBR was 39.2% with AH versus 43.9% without AH in all patients. The rate difference (RD) with AH was - 4.7% ([CI - 0.053, - 0.040], P < 0.001) with the calculated number needed to harm being 22. AH affected live birth in both good prognosis and poor prognosis patients. The propensity-weighted monozygotic twinning (MZT) rate was 2.3% in patients treated with AH as compared to 1.2% patients that did not receive AH. The RD with AH on MZT in fresh, first IVF cycles was 1.1% ([0.008, 0.014], P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: AH may affect LBR across all patients and in poor prognosis patients in fresh IVF cycles. Caution should be exercised when applying this technology. More prospective research is needed.
PURPOSE: To assess the effect of assisted hatching (AH) on live birth rate (LBR) in first cycle, fresh in vitro fertilization (IVF) in good and poor prognosis patients. METHODS: Retrospective cohort using cycles reported to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcomes Reporting System. Live birth rate was compared in women who underwent first cycle, autologous, fresh IVF cycles with (n = 48,858) and without (n = 103,413) AH from 2007 to 2015. RESULTS: The propensity-weighted LBR was 39.2% with AH versus 43.9% without AH in all patients. The rate difference (RD) with AH was - 4.7% ([CI - 0.053, - 0.040], P < 0.001) with the calculated number needed to harm being 22. AH affected live birth in both good prognosis and poor prognosis patients. The propensity-weighted monozygotic twinning (MZT) rate was 2.3% in patients treated with AH as compared to 1.2% patients that did not receive AH. The RD with AH on MZT in fresh, first IVF cycles was 1.1% ([0.008, 0.014], P < 0.001). CONCLUSION:AH may affect LBR across all patients and in poor prognosis patients in fresh IVF cycles. Caution should be exercised when applying this technology. More prospective research is needed.
Entities:
Keywords:
Assisted hatching; In vitro fertilization; Live birth rate; Poor prognosis
Authors: Jessica R Kanter; Sheree L Boulet; Jennifer F Kawwass; Denise J Jamieson; Dmitry M Kissin Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Tarun Jain; David A Grainger; G David Ball; William E Gibbons; Robert W Rebar; Jared C Robins; Richard E Leach Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2019-02-05 Impact factor: 7.329