Yossi Mizrachi1,2, Ariel Weissman3,4, Gili Buchnik Fater3,4, Maya Torem3,4, Eran Horowitz3,4, Letizia Schreiber4,5, Arieh Raziel3,4, Jacob Bar3,4, Michal Kovo3,4. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Edith Wolfson Medical Center, Holon, Israel. mizrachi.yossi@gmail.com. 2. Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel. mizrachi.yossi@gmail.com. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Edith Wolfson Medical Center, Holon, Israel. 4. Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel. 5. Department of Pathology, EdithWolfson Medical Center, Holon, Israel.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study whether placentas of singleton pregnancies conceived after fresh embryo transfer (ET) contain more histopathological lesions compared with placentas of singleton pregnancies conceived after frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET). METHODS: A prospective cohort study of placental histopathology in 131 women with singleton IVF pregnancies who delivered at a single medical center, between December 2017 and May 2019. The prevalence of different placental histopathology lesions was compared between women who conceived after fresh ET and FET. RESULTS: Women who conceived after fresh ET (n = 74) did not differ from women who conceived after FET (n = 57) with regard to maternal age, BMI, nulliparity, or infertility diagnosis. Gestational week at delivery was lower in pregnancies conceived after fresh ET (38.5 vs. 39.2 weeks, respectively, p = 0.04), and a trend for a lower birthweight following fresh ET was noted (3040 vs. 3216 g, respectively, p = 0.053). However, placental histopathology analysis from pregnancies conceived after fresh ET was comparable to pregnancies conceived after FET, with regard to the prevalence of maternal vascular malperfusion lesions (45.9% vs. 50.9%, respectively, p = 0.57), fetal vascular malperfusion lesions (17.6% vs. 21.1, p = 0.61), acute inflammatory response lesions (28.4% vs. 28.1%, respectively, p = 0.96), and chronic inflammatory response lesions (13.5% vs. 8.8%, respectively, p = 0.48). CONCLUSION: Placental histopathology did not differ between IVF pregnancies conceived after fresh and frozen ET. These results are reassuring for clinicians and patients who wish to pursue with transferring fresh embryos.
PURPOSE: To study whether placentas of singleton pregnancies conceived after fresh embryo transfer (ET) contain more histopathological lesions compared with placentas of singleton pregnancies conceived after frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET). METHODS: A prospective cohort study of placental histopathology in 131 women with singleton IVF pregnancies who delivered at a single medical center, between December 2017 and May 2019. The prevalence of different placental histopathology lesions was compared between women who conceived after fresh ET and FET. RESULTS:Women who conceived after fresh ET (n = 74) did not differ from women who conceived after FET (n = 57) with regard to maternal age, BMI, nulliparity, or infertility diagnosis. Gestational week at delivery was lower in pregnancies conceived after fresh ET (38.5 vs. 39.2 weeks, respectively, p = 0.04), and a trend for a lower birthweight following fresh ET was noted (3040 vs. 3216 g, respectively, p = 0.053). However, placental histopathology analysis from pregnancies conceived after fresh ET was comparable to pregnancies conceived after FET, with regard to the prevalence of maternal vascular malperfusion lesions (45.9% vs. 50.9%, respectively, p = 0.57), fetal vascular malperfusion lesions (17.6% vs. 21.1, p = 0.61), acute inflammatory response lesions (28.4% vs. 28.1%, respectively, p = 0.96), and chronic inflammatory response lesions (13.5% vs. 8.8%, respectively, p = 0.48). CONCLUSION: Placental histopathology did not differ between IVF pregnancies conceived after fresh and frozen ET. These results are reassuring for clinicians and patients who wish to pursue with transferring fresh embryos.
Authors: Kirk P Conrad; John W Petersen; Yueh-Yun Chi; Xiaoman Zhai; Minjie Li; Kuei-Hsun Chiu; Jing Liu; Melissa D Lingis; R Stan Williams; Alice Rhoton-Vlasak; Joseph J Larocca; Wilmer W Nichols; Mark S Segal Journal: Hypertension Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Katherine M Johnson; Michele R Hacker; Nina Resetkova; Barbara O'Brien; Anna M Modest Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2019-02-28 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Ch De Geyter; C Calhaz-Jorge; M S Kupka; C Wyns; E Mocanu; T Motrenko; G Scaravelli; J Smeenk; S Vidakovic; V Goossens Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Vitaly A Kushnir; David H Barad; David F Albertini; Sarah K Darmon; Norbert Gleicher Journal: Reprod Biol Endocrinol Date: 2017-01-10 Impact factor: 5.211
Authors: Laura Rienzi; Clarisa Gracia; Roberta Maggiulli; Andrew R LaBarbera; Daniel J Kaser; Filippo M Ubaldi; Sheryl Vanderpoel; Catherine Racowsky Journal: Hum Reprod Update Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 15.610