4.7 Article

Pregnancy outcomes decline with increasing body mass index: analysis of 239,127 fresh autologous in vitro fertilization cycles from the 2008-2010 Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology registry

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 105, 期 3, 页码 663-669

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.11.008

关键词

Obesity; BMI; IVF; ART

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine the effect of body mass index (BMI) on IVF outcomes in fresh autologous cycles. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Not applicable. Patient(s): A total of 239,127 fresh IVF cycles from the 2008-2010 Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology registry were stratified into cohorts based on World Health Organization BMI guidelines. Cycles reporting normal BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m(2)) were used as the reference group (REF). Subanalyses were performed on cycles reporting purely polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)-related infertility and those with purely male-factor infertility (34,137 and 89,354 cycles, respectively). Intervention(s): None. Main Outcome Measure(s): Implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, pregnancy loss rate, and live birth rate. Result(s): Success rates and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all pregnancy outcomes were most favorable in cohorts with low and normal BMIs and progressively worsened as BMI increased. Obesity also had a negative impact on IVF outcomes in cycles performed for PCOS and male-factor infertility, although it did not always reach statistical significance. Conclusion(s): Success rates in fresh autologous cycles, including those done for specifically PCOS or male-factor infertility, are highest in those with low and normal BMIs. Furthermore, there is a progressive and statistically significant worsening of outcomes in groups with higher BMIs. More research is needed to determine the causes and extent of the influence of BMI on IVF success rates in other patient populations. (C) 2016 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

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

4.7
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