4.7 Article

Outcomes of singleton births after blastocyst versus nonblastocyst transfer in assisted reproductive technology

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 97, 期 3, 页码 579-584

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.12.032

关键词

Blastocyst; cleavage stage embryo; frozen-thawed embryo transfer; ICSI; IVF; morula

资金

  1. BUPA Foundation, London, England
  2. Monash IVF
  3. Murdoch Children's Research Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare obstetric and perinatal outcomes of singleton births after assisted reproductive technology (ART) with blastocyst transfer (days 5 to 6) versus nonblastocyst transfer (days 2 to 4). Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Monash IVF. Patient(s): 4,202 women who conceived using in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) between 2004 and 2009. Intervention(s): Records analysis of fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfers resulting in singleton births of at least 20 weeks' gestation. Main Outcome Measure(s): Perinatal outcomes: preterm birth, low birthweight, very low birthweight, small for gestational age, large for gestational age, preeclampsia, antepartum hemorrhage, placental abruption, placenta previa, and postpartum hemorrhage; and covariates: maternal age, year of birth of the baby, private health insurance status, maternal body mass index, smoking status, parity, gender of baby, and variations in treatment procedures. Result(s): Multivariate analysis found no statistically significant difference between transfers on days 5 and 6 and days 2 and 4 for all maternal and perinatal outcomes. There were modest increases in the adjusted odds ratios for preeclampsia (adjusted odds ratio 1.72, 99% confidence interval 0.93-3.20) and placenta previa (1.65, 0.92-2.98). Conclusion(s): Obstetric and perinatal outcomes after blastocyst transfer on days 5 to 6 are similar when compared with embryo cleavage-stage transfers on days 2 to 4. (Fertil Steril (R) 2012;97:579-84. (C) 2012 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