4.4 Article

Non-O blood group and outcomes of in vitro fertilization

Journal

JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS
Volume 35, Issue 7, Pages 1289-1294

Publisher

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-018-1185-6

Keywords

ABO blood type; Thrombophilia; Assisted reproductive techniques

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Retrospective and cross-sectional studies suggested that non-O blood group may be associated with failures of in vitro fertilization (IVF), but data remain controversial. The aim of this observational cohort study was to prospectively evaluate the effect of non-O blood type on clinical outcomes of IVF. Methods Women < 40 years who underwent IVF and had ABO blood type recorded as part of the routine workup were eligible. The primary study outcome was live birth. Secondary outcomes included spontaneous abortion, positive pregnancy test, and clinical pregnancy. Results A total of 497 women with a mean age of 34.6 (standard deviation 3.2) years were included. The mean number of embryos transferred was 2.3 (standard deviation 0.6). The most common ABO blood types were O (n = 213, 42.9%) and A (n = 203, 40.8%), while 63 (12.7%) and 18 (3.6%) women had the B and AB blood types, respectively. Differences in live birth (21.8 vs. 24.3%, odds ratio [OR] 1.17; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.76 to 1.78), positive pregnancy test (37.9 vs. 36.6%, OR 0.96; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.38), clinical pregnancy (35.1 vs. 33.8%, OR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.39), and spontaneous abortion (12.3 vs. 9.2%, OR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.29) between women with O and non-O blood type were not statistically significant. Conclusions In a prospective cohort study, we confirmed the lack of a significant association between non-O blood type and clinical outcomes of IVF. Further studies are needed to clarify whether non-O blood group has any prognostic relevance in women undergoing IVF.

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