4.6 Article

Placental volume and other first-trimester outcomes: are there differences between fresh embryo transfer, frozen-thawed embryo transfer and natural conception?

期刊

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
卷 38, 期 4, 页码 538-548

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.12.023

关键词

First-trimester pregnancy; Fresh embryo transfer; Frozen-thawed embryo transfer; In-vitro fertilization; Placenta; Placental volume

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research question: Does mode of conception influence placental volume and other first-trimester outcomes? Design: This retrospective single-centre case-control study led in Dijon University Hospital included 252 singleton pregnancies (84 IVF with either fresh embryo transfer or frozen-thawed embryo transfer [FET] and 168 natural conceptions). First-trimester placental volume, uterine artery pulsatility index and maternal serum PAPP-A and beta-HCG were measured. Statistical analyses were adjusted for gestational age, the newborn's gender, maternal age, parity, body mass index and smoking status. Results: Placental volume was significantly greater in the FET group than in the control group (P = 0.043) and fresh embryo transfer (P = 0.023) groups. At birth, fresh embryo transfer newborns were significantly smaller than controls (P = 0.01) and FET newborns (P = 0.008). Postpartum haemorrhage was far more frequent in FET than in controls and fresh embryo transfer group (38.1%, 2.6% and 1.9%, respectively; P < 0.0001). Placental volume positively correlated with PAPP-A, beta-HCG and the newborn's birth weight, and negatively correlated with uterine artery pulsatility index. Conclusions: Placental volume and other first-trimester parameters are modified by IVF with fresh embryo transfer and FET compared with natural conception, but with opposite trends. Given the different protocols used for these techniques, hormonal treatment per se may have a major effect on pregnancy outcomes through the modification of placental invasiveness.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据