4.7 Article

Comparison of blastocyst transfer with or without preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in couples with advanced maternal age: a prospective randomized controlled trial

期刊

HUMAN REPRODUCTION
卷 19, 期 12, 页码 2849-2858

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deh536

关键词

age; aneuploidy screening; FSH; preimplantation genetic diagnosis; RCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: It is generally accepted that the age-related increased aneuploidy rate is correlated with reduced implantation and a higher abortion rate. Therefore, advanced maternal age (AMA) couples are a good target group to assess the possible benefit of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening (PGD-AS) on the outcome after assisted reproductive technology (ART). Methods: A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) was carried out comparing the outcome after blastocyst transfer combined with PGD-AS using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for the chromosomes X, Y, 13, 16, 18, 21 and 22 in AMA couples (aged greater than or equal to37 years) with a control group without PGD-AS. From the 400 (200 for PGD-AS and 200 controls) couples that were allocated to the trial, an oocyte pick-up was performed effectively in 289 cycles (148 PGD-AS cycles and 141 control cycles). Results: Positive serum HCG rates per transfer and per cycle were the same for PGD-AS and controls: 35.8% (19.6%) [%/per embryo transfer (per cycle)] and 32.2% (27.7%), respectively (NS). Significantly fewer embryos were transferred in the PGD-AS group than in the control group (P<0.001). The implantation rate (with fetal heart beat) was 17.1% in the PGD-AS group versus 11.5% in the control group (not significant; P=0.09). We observed a normal diploid status in 36.8% of the embryos. Conclusions: This RCT provides no arguments in favour of PGD-AS for improving clinical outcome per initiated cycle in patients with AMA when there are no restrictions in the number of embryos to be transferred.

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