4.7 Article

Effects of female and male smoking on success rates of IVF and gamete intra-Fallopian transfer

期刊

HUMAN REPRODUCTION
卷 16, 期 7, 页码 1382-1390

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/16.7.1382

关键词

assisted reproductive technologies; IVF; lifestyle habits; success rates; tobacco smoke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Smoking by both male and female partners may play a significant role in the success rates of assisted reproductive technologies. The objective of this 5-year prospective study was to investigate the influence of cigarette smoking by the wife, husband, and couple at various time points (e,g, lifetime, week prior, or during the procedures) on different biological parameters of IVF and gamete intra-Fallopian transfer (GIFT), METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 221 couples, aged > 20 years, of Caucasian, Black, Asian or Hispanic descent were recruited from seven infertility clinics located in Southern California. Couples (i,e, either female or male or both) who ever smoked compared with non-smokers, had adjusted relative risks (RR) of 2.41 (95% CI 1.07-5.45, P = 0.03) of not achieving a pregnancy, and 3.76 (95% CI 1.40-10.03, P < 0.01) of not having a live birth delivery, while adjusting for potential confounders. For couples who smoked for >5 years, there was an adjusted RR = 4.27 of not achieving a pregnancy (95% CI 1.53-11.97, P = 0.01), The number of oocytes retrieved decreased by 40% for couples (smokers, n = 6) and by 46% for men who smoked during the week of the visit for IVF or GIFT. Women who smoked in their lifetime had adjusted risks of 2.71 of not achieving a pregnancy (95% CI 1.37-5.35, P < 0.01), and 2.51 (95% CI 1.11-5.67, P < 0.03) of not having a live birth delivery. CONCLUSIONS: There is compelling evidence that couples should be made aware that smoking years before undergoing IVF and GIFT can impact treatment outcome. This study may also provide insight into the timing and effects of male and female smoking on natural reproduction.

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