Interpregnancy Interval After Clinical Pregnancy Loss and Outcomes of the Next Frozen Embryo Transfer

被引:2
|
作者
Wang, Ze [1 ]
Meng, Yueru [1 ]
Shang, Xue [1 ]
Suo, Lu [1 ]
Zhao, Dingying [1 ]
Han, Xinwei [1 ]
Yang, Min [1 ]
Yin, Mengfei [1 ]
Miao, Haozhe [1 ]
Wang, Yixuan [1 ]
Yang, Huiming [1 ]
Yu, Yunhai [2 ]
Wei, Daimin [1 ,3 ,4 ]
Chen, Zi-Jiang [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Shandong Univ, Ctr Reprod Med, Jinan, Peoples R China
[2] Shandong Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Hosp 2, Jinan, Peoples R China
[3] Shandong Univ, Med Integrat & Practice Ctr, Jinan, Peoples R China
[4] Shandong Univ, Cheeloo Coll Med, Ctr Reprod Med, 44 Wenhua Xi Rd, Jinan 250012, Shandong, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金; 国家重点研发计划;
关键词
IN-VITRO FERTILIZATION; BIRTH; INFERTILITY; RISK; MISCARRIAGE; COUPLES; STRESS; HEALTH; IVF;
D O I
10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.40709
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Importance The optimal interpregnancy interval (IPI) after a clinical pregnancy loss (CPL) remains controversial. Few studies have addressed the role of the IPI after a preceding CPL during in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment.Objective To evaluate the association between different IPI lengths after a preceding CPL and pregnancy outcomes of the next frozen embryo transfer (FET).Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the Center for Reproductive Medicine of Shandong University in China. The study included women who underwent frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer between July 1, 2017, and June 30, 2022, within 1 year after a preceding CPL during IVF treatment. Follow-up for pregnancy outcomes was completed for all participants on March 31, 2023. Data analysis was performed from April to May 2023.Exposures Interpregnancy interval length was classified as less than 3 months, 3 to less than 6 months, or 6 to 12 months.Main Outcomes and Measures Outcomes included live birth, conception, clinical pregnancy, pregnancy loss, preterm birth, small or large for gestational age, and low birth weight. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the association between IPI and pregnancy outcomes by adjusted odds ratios (AORs).Results This study included 2433 women (mean [SD] age, 31.8 [4.6] years) who received IVF treatment. There were 338 women (13.9%) with an IPI of less than 3 months, 1347 (55.4%) with an IPI of 3 to less than 6 months, and 748 (30.7%) with an IPI of 6 to 12 months. The median (IQR) IPI lengths for the 3 groups were 77 (65-85), 128 (109-152), and 234 (202-288) days, respectively. Compared with an IPI of 6 to 12 months, shorter IPIs (<3 and 3 to <6 months) were associated with decreased odds of clinical pregnancy (AOR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.53-0.92] and 0.79 [0.65-0.95]), live birth (AOR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.48-0.85] and 0.74 [0.61-0.90]), and healthy live birth (AOR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.46-0.87] and 0.79 [0.64-0.98]). Compared with women with an IPI of 6 to 12 months, women with shorter IPIs (<3 and 3 to <6 months) had a higher risk of total pregnancy loss (AOR, 1.87 [95% CI, 1.31-2.67] and 1.29 [1.00-1.66], respectively).Conclusions and Relevance The results of this study suggest that delaying the next FET for at least 6 months after a preceding CPL was associated with beneficial pregnancy outcomes, considering that a decreased likelihood of achieving clinical pregnancy and live birth was observed among women with shorter IPIs. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Interpregnancy interval and singleton pregnancy outcomes after frozen embryo transfer
    Quinn, Molly M.
    Rosen, Mitchell P.
    Allen, Isabel Elaine
    Huddleston, Heather G.
    Cedars, Marcelle I.
    Fujimoto, Victor Y.
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2019, 111 (06) : 1145 - 1150
  • [2] Effect of interpregnancy interval on outcomes of pregnancy after recurrent pregnancy loss
    Bentolila, Yaara
    Ratzon, Ronit
    Shoham-Vardi, Ilana
    Serjienko, Ruslan
    Mazor, Moshe
    Bashiri, Asher
    JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE, 2013, 26 (14): : 1459 - 1464
  • [3] Comparison of Clinical Pregnancy Outcomes after Fresh and Frozen Embryo Transfer
    Yu, Hui
    Zhang, Yuehong
    Han, Mei
    Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, 2022, 2022
  • [4] The effect of very short interpregnancy interval on pregnancy outcomes after previous pregnancy loss
    Wong, Luchin
    Schliep, Karen
    Schisterman, Enrique
    Wactawski-Wende, Jean
    Townsend, Janet
    Lynch, Anne
    Galai, Noya
    Faraggi, David
    Perkins, Neil
    Mumford, Sunni
    Ye, Aijun
    Silver, Robert
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2014, 210 (01) : S208 - S209
  • [5] Interpregnancy interval and perinatal outcomes after a perinatal loss
    Schummers, Laura
    Liauw, Jessica
    Hutcheon, Jennifer A.
    Ahrens, Katherine
    Karacabeyli, Eda
    VanderWeele, Tyler
    Norman, Wendy V.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2020, 222 (01) : S664 - S664
  • [6] Pregnancy loss after frozen - embryo transfer - comparison of three protocols
    Alsbjerg, B.
    Tomas, C.
    Martikainen, H.
    Humaidan, P.
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2012, 27
  • [7] Interpregnancy Interval and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: An Analysis of Successive Pregnancies and Interpregnancy Interval and Pregnancy Outcomes: Causal or Not?
    Mayo, Jonathan A.
    Shachar, Bat Zion
    Stevenson, David K.
    Shaw, Gary M.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2017, 130 (02): : 463 - 463
  • [8] Interpregnancy Interval After Pregnancy Loss and Risk of Repeat Miscarriage
    Sundermann, Alexandra C.
    Hartmann, Katherine E.
    Jones, Sarah H.
    Torstenson, Eric S.
    Edwards, Digna R. Velez
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2017, 130 (06): : 1312 - 1318
  • [9] RETRACTED: Comparison of Clinical Pregnancy Outcomes after Fresh and Frozen Embryo Transfer (Retracted Article)
    Yu, Hui
    Zhang, Yuehong
    Han, Mei
    COMPUTATIONAL AND MATHEMATICAL METHODS IN MEDICINE, 2022, 2022
  • [10] Comparison of pregnancy and perinatal outcomes after frozen and fresh embryo transfer
    Lijun, S.
    Li, Z.
    Hu, J.
    Zhang, J.
    Zhao, B.
    Feng, Y.
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2018, 33 : 488 - 488