Anick De Vos1, Samuel Dos Santos-Ribeiro2, Herman Tournaye3, Greta Verheyen3. 1. Center for Reproductive Medicine, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090, Brussels, Belgium. Anick.DeVos@uzbrussel.be. 2. IVI-RMA Lisboa, Avenida Infante Dom Henrique 333 H 1-9, 1800-282, Lisbon, Portugal. 3. Center for Reproductive Medicine, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The present post hoc analysis aims to study the neonatal data of singletons born from three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the outcome of day 3 and day 5 transfers. METHODS: Our analysis included 208 liveborn singletons from three existing RCTs (publication dates 2004, 2005, and 2006), 93 children from cleavage-stage transfers and 115 from blastocyst-stage transfers. Vanishing twins were excluded from the analysis. Singleton birthweight was the primary outcome measure. Gestational age and gender of the newborn were accounted for in the multiple regression analysis, along with other confounding factors, such as maternal age, BMI, parity, and smoking behavior. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in gestational age (median, interquartile range) between cleavage-stage transfer (275 days; 267-281) and blastocyst-stage transfer (277 days; 270-281; p = 0.22). Singleton birthweight (median, interquartile range) was not significantly different between cleavage-stage transfer (3330 g; 3020-3610) and blastocyst-stage transfer (3236 g; 2930-3630; p = 0.40), even following multivariable regression analysis to control for potential maternal and newborn confounders. CONCLUSION: The gestational age and birthweight were not significantly different after cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage transfers. One limitation to be recognized is the age of the data, with original data collection dates from 2001 to 2004. Additionally, the RCTs used for the present analysis have a fairly young age restriction.
PURPOSE: The present post hoc analysis aims to study the neonatal data of singletons born from three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the outcome of day 3 and day 5 transfers. METHODS: Our analysis included 208 liveborn singletons from three existing RCTs (publication dates 2004, 2005, and 2006), 93 children from cleavage-stage transfers and 115 from blastocyst-stage transfers. Vanishing twins were excluded from the analysis. Singleton birthweight was the primary outcome measure. Gestational age and gender of the newborn were accounted for in the multiple regression analysis, along with other confounding factors, such as maternal age, BMI, parity, and smoking behavior. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in gestational age (median, interquartile range) between cleavage-stage transfer (275 days; 267-281) and blastocyst-stage transfer (277 days; 270-281; p = 0.22). Singleton birthweight (median, interquartile range) was not significantly different between cleavage-stage transfer (3330 g; 3020-3610) and blastocyst-stage transfer (3236 g; 2930-3630; p = 0.40), even following multivariable regression analysis to control for potential maternal and newborn confounders. CONCLUSION: The gestational age and birthweight were not significantly different after cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage transfers. One limitation to be recognized is the age of the data, with original data collection dates from 2001 to 2004. Additionally, the RCTs used for the present analysis have a fairly young age restriction.
Authors: E M Kolibianakis; K Zikopoulos; W Verpoest; M Camus; H Joris; A C Van Steirteghem; P Devroey Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2004-08-06 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Erica Ginström Ernstad; Christina Bergh; Ali Khatibi; Karin B M Källén; Göran Westlander; Staffan Nilsson; Ulla-Britt Wennerholm Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: A De Vos; R Janssens; H Van de Velde; P Haentjens; M Bonduelle; H Tournaye; G Verheyen Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2014-11-17 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Catherine M Castillo; Gregory Horne; Cheryl T Fitzgerald; Edward D Johnstone; Daniel R Brison; Stephen A Roberts Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Anick De Vos; Lisbet Van Landuyt; Samuel Santos-Ribeiro; Michel Camus; Hilde Van de Velde; Herman Tournaye; Greta Verheyen Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2016-09-12 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: C Alviggi; A Conforti; I F Carbone; R Borrelli; G de Placido; S Guerriero Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 7.299