4.4 Article

ART outcome after euploid frozen embryo transfer is not affected by previous Cesarean section delivery in the absence of intracavitary fluid

Journal

JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS
Volume 39, Issue 11, Pages 2529-2537

Publisher

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-022-02627-5

Keywords

Cesarean section; Euploid frozen embryo transfer; Intracavitary fluid; Live birth

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found that a history of cesarean section does not significantly impact clinical pregnancy and live birth rates in euploid frozen embryo transfer cycles.
Purpose To evaluate the impact of a cesarean section (CS) on the chance of clinical pregnancy and live birth (LB) in frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles in the setting of euploid embryos and the absence of intracavitary fluid (ICF) as causes of implantation failure were excluded. Methods Retrospective study, including patients with at least one previous CS or at least one previous vaginal delivery, who underwent a euploid FET cycle. Results A total of 412 euploid embryo transfer cycles had been included. Patients' mean age was 34.5 years and 42.48% of patients have had at least one previous CS. A clinical pregnancy was seen in 69.42% and 60.19% of the patients had a LB. Positive pregnancy test, clinical pregnancy, and LB rate were not significantly different between the groups without/with a history of a previous CS (p = 0.6/0.45/0.94, respectively). LB rate was significantly reduced by the presence of mucus on the ET catheter (OR: 0.413; p = 0.010), the BMI (OR: 0.946; p = 0.006), the combined embryo quality (embryo quality fair: OR: 0.444; p = 0.001; embryo quality low: OR: 0.062; p < 0.001), and by the HRT endometrial preparation approach (OR: 0.609; p = 0.023). Conclusion The possible negative impact of a CS can be overcome when a euploid FET after exclusion of ICF is performed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available