Dataset Information

Thin endometrium is associated with the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in fresh IVF/ICSI embryo transfer cycles: a retrospective cohort study of 9,266 singleton births.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Thin endometrial thickness (EMT) has been suggested to be associated with reduced incidence of pregnancy rate after in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) treatment, but the effect of thin endometrium on obstetric outcome is less investigated. This study aims to determine whether EMT affects the incidence of obstetric complications in fresh IVF/ICSI-embryo transfer (ET) cycles.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study collecting a total of 9266 women who had singleton livebirths after fresh IVF/ICSI-ET treatment cycles at the Center for Reproductive Medicine Affiliated to Shandong University between January 2014 and December 2018. The women were divided into three groups according to the EMT: 544 women with an EMT ≤8 mm, 6234 with an EMT > 8-12 mm, and 2488 with an EMT > 12 mm. The primary outcomes were the incidence of obstetric complications including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP), gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), placental abruption, placenta previa, postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) and cesarean section. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to calculate the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between the EMT measured on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) trigger and the risk of the outcomes of interest.

Results

The HDP incidence rate of pregnant women was highest in EMT ≤ 8 mm group and significantly higher than those in EMT from > 8-12 mm and EMT > 12 mm group, respectively (6.8% versus 3.6 and 3.5%, respectively; P = 0.001). After adjustment for confounding variables by multivariate logistic regression analysis, a thin EMT was still statistically significant associated with an increased risk of HDP. Compared with women with an EMT > 8-12 mm, women with an EMT ≤8 mm had an increased risk of HDP (aOR = 1.853, 95% CI 1.281-2.679, P = 0.001).

Conclusion

A thin endometrium (≤8 mm) was found to be associated with an increased risk of HDP after adjustment for confounding variables, indicating that the thin endometrium itself is a risk factor for HDP. Obstetricians should remain aware of the possibility of HDP when women with a thin EMT achieve pregnancy through fresh IVF/ICSI-ET treatment cycles.

SUBMITTER: Liu X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8034143 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study questionDoes the duration of embryo exposure to hyaluronic acid (HA) enriched medium improve the rate of live birth events (LBEs)?Summary answerThe use of embryo transfer (ET) medium rich in HA improves LBE (a singleton or twin live birth) regardless of the duration of exposure evaluated in this study, but does not alter gestation or birthweight (BW).What is known alreadyHA-enriched medium is routinely used for ET in ART to facilitate implantation, despite inconclusive evidence on safety and efficacy.Study design size durationA cohort study was performed evaluating clinical treatment outcomes before and after HA-enriched ET medium was introduced into routine clinical practice. In total, 3391 fresh ET procedures were performed using low HA and HA-rich medium in women undergoing publicly funded IVF/ICSI treatment cycles between May 2011 and April 2015 were included in this cohort study.Participants/materials setting methodsA total of 1018 ET performed using low HA medium were compared with 1198, and 1175 ET following exposure to HA-rich medium for 2-4 h (long HA exposure) or for 10-30 min (short HA exposure), respectively. A multiple logistic regression analysis was used to compare clinical outcomes including BW, gestational age and sex ratios between groups, whilst adjusting for patient age, previous attempt, incubator type and the number of embryos transferred.Main results and the role of chanceThe use of HA-rich medium for ET was positively and significantly associated with improved clinical pregnancy rate and LBE, for both exposure durations: long HA (odds ratio (OR) = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.99-1.48), short HA (OR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.02-1.72) and pooled OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.03-1.54, relative to the use of low HA medium. A comparative analysis of the risks of early pregnancy loss following long HA exposure (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.54-1.06), short HA exposure (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.54-1.30) and late miscarriage (OR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.51-1.53) (OR = 1.41, 95% CI 0.72-2.77), were lower and not statistically significant. Similarly, ordinary regression analysis of the differences in BW at both HA exposures; pooled OR = -0.9 (-117.1 to 115.3), and adjusted BW between both HA cohorts; pooled OR = -13.8 (-106.1 to 78.6) did not show any differences. However, a difference in gestational age (pooled OR -0.3 (-3.4 to 2.9)) and sex ratio (pooled OR 1.43 (0.95-2.15)) were observed but these were not statistically significant relative to low HA medium.Limitations reasons for cautionThe strength of a randomized treatment allocation was not available in this evaluation study, therefore effects of unmeasured or unknown confounding variables cannot be ruled out.Wider implications of the findingsThe result of this large cohort study strengthens the case for using HA-rich medium routinely at transfer, while adding the important clinical information that duration of exposure may not be critical. The composition and effects of commercial IVF culture media on success rate and safety remains a major controversy despite increasing calls for transparency and evidence-based practice in ART. Nonetheless, the lack of differences in BW and gestational age observed in this study were reassuring. However, an appraisal of clinical outcomes and appropriate research investigations are required for the continuous evaluation of efficacy and safety of HA.Study funding/competing interestsT.A. is funded by a Clinical Doctoral Research Fellowship (CDRF) grant (reference: ICA-CDRF-2015-01-068) from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health. The authors declare no conflict of interest.