Dataset Information

Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome after assisted reproductive technologies: trends, predictors, and pregnancy outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To assess trends, predictors, and perinatal outcomes of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) associated with in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles in the United States.

Design

Retrospective cohort study using National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System (NASS) data.

Setting

Not applicable.

Patient(s)

Fresh autologous and embryo-banking cycles performed from 2000 to 2015.

Interventions(s)

None.

Main outcome measure(s)

OHSS, first-trimester loss, second-trimester loss, stillbirth, low birth weight, and preterm delivery.

Result(s)

The proportion of IVF cycles complicated by OHSS increased from 10.0 to 14.3 cases per 1,000 from 2000 to 2006, and decreased to 5.3 per 1,000 from 2006 to 2015. The risk of OHSS was highest for cycles with more than 30 oocytes retrieved (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 3.85). OHSS was associated with a diagnosis of ovulatory disorder (aRR 2.61), tubal factor (aRR 1.14), uterine factor (aRR 1.17) and cycles resulting in pregnancy (aRR 3.12). In singleton pregnancies, OHSS was associated with increased risk of low birth weight (aRR 1.29) and preterm delivery (aRR 1.32). In twin pregnancies, OHSS was associated with an increased risk of second-trimester loss (aRR 1.81), low birth weight (aRR 1.06), and preterm delivery (aRR 1.16).

Conclusion(s)

Modifiable predictive factors for OHSS include number of oocytes retrieved, pregnancy following fresh embryo transfer, and the type of medication used for pituitary suppression during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Patients affected by OHSS had a higher risk of preterm delivery and low birth weight. Clinicians should take measures to reduce the risk of OHSS whenever possible.

SUBMITTER: Schirmer DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8041489 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study questionDoes endometrial compaction (EC) help predict pregnancy outcomes in those undergoing ART?Summary answerEC is associated with a significantly higher clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR), but this does not translate to live birth rate (LBR).What is known alreadyEC describes the progesterone-induced decrease in endometrial thickness, which may be observed following the end of the proliferative phase, prior to embryo transfer. EC is proposed as a non-invasive tool to help predict pregnancy outcome in those undergoing ART, however, published data is conflicting.Study design size durationA literature search was carried out by two independent authors using PubMed, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception of databases to May 2023. All peer-reviewed studies reporting EC and pregnancy outcomes in patients undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment were included.Participants/materials setting methodsThe primary outcome is LBR. Secondary outcomes included other pregnancy metrics (positive pregnancy test (PPT), CPR, OPR, miscarriage rate (MR)) and rate of EC. Comparative meta-analyses comparing EC and no EC were conducted for each outcome using a random-effects model if I 2 > 50%. The Mantel-Haenszel method was applied for pooling dichotomous data. Results are presented as odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI.Main results and the role of chanceOut of 4030 screened articles, 21 cohort studies were included in the final analysis (n = 27 857). No significant difference was found between LBR in the EC versus the no EC group (OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87-1.04). OPR was significantly higher within the EC group (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.09-2.38), particularly when EC ≥ 15% compared to no EC (OR 3.52; 95% CI 2.36-5.23). CPR was inconsistently defined across the studies, affecting the findings. When defined as a viable intrauterine pregnancy <12 weeks, the EC group had significantly higher CPR than no EC (OR 1.83; 95% CI 1.15-2.92). No significant differences were found between EC and no EC for PPT (OR 1.54; 95% CI 0.97-2.45) or MR (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.92-1.56). The pooled weighted incidence of EC across all studies was 32% (95% CI 26-38%).Limitations reasons for cautionHeterogeneity due to differences between reported pregnancy outcomes, definition of EC, method of ultrasound, and cycle protocol may account for the lack of translation between CPR/OPR and LBR findings; thus, all pooled data should be viewed with an element of caution.Wider implications of the findingsIn this dataset, the significantly higher CPR/OPR with EC does not translate to LBR. Although stratification of women according to EC cannot currently be recommended in clinical practice, a large and well-designed clinical trial to rigorously assess EC as a non-invasive predictor of a successful pregnancy is warranted. We urge for consistent outcome reporting to be mandated for ART trials so that data can be pooled, compared, and concluded on.Study funding/competing interestsH.A. was supported by the Hewitt Fertility Centre. S.G.P. and J.W. were supported by the Liverpool University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. D.K.H. was supported by a Wellbeing of Women project grant (RG2137) and MRC clinical research training fellowship (MR/V007238/1). N.T. was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. D.K.H. had received honoraria for consultancy for Theramex and has received payment for presentations from Theramex and Gideon Richter. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to report.Registration numberPROSPERO CRD42022378464.

Project description:STUDY QUESTION:What is the association of female and male partner marijuana smoking with infertility treatment outcomes with ART? SUMMARY ANSWER:Women who were marijuana smokers at enrollment had a significantly higher adjusted probability of pregnancy loss during infertility treatment with ART whereas, unexpectedly, there was a suggestion of more favorable treatment outcomes in couples where the man was a marijuana smoker at enrollment. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY:Data on the relation of female and male partner marijuana use with outcomes of infertility treatment is scarce despite increased use and legalization worldwide. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION:We followed 421 women who underwent 730 ART cycles while participating in a prospective cohort (the Environment and Reproductive Health Study) at a fertility center between 2004 and 2017. Among them, 200 women (368 cycles) were part of a couple in which their male partner also enrolled in the study. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS:Participants self-reported marijuana smoking at baseline. Clinical endpoints were abstracted from electronic medical records. We used generalized linear mixed models with empirical standard errors to evaluate the association of baseline marijuana smoking with ART outcomes adjusting for participants' age, race, BMI, tobacco smoking, coffee and alcohol consumption, and cocaine use. We estimated the adjusted probability of implantation, clinical pregnancy, and live birth per ART cycle, as well as the probability of pregnancy loss among those with a positive B-hCG. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE:The 44% of the women and 61% of the men had ever smoked marijuana; 3% and 12% were marijuana smokers at enrollment, respectively. Among 317 women (395 cycles) with a positive B-hCG, those who were marijuana smokers at enrollment (N = 9, cycles = 16) had more than double the adjusted probability of pregnancy loss than those who were past marijuana smokers or had never smoked marijuana (N = 308, 379 cycles) (54% vs 26%; P = 0.0003). This estimate was based on sparse data. However, couples in which the male partner was a marijuana smoker at enrollment (N = 23, 41 cycles) had a significantly higher adjusted probability of live birth than couples in which the male partner was a past marijuana smoker or had never smoked marijuana (N= 177, 327 cycles) (48% vs 29%; P = 0.04), independently of the women's marijuana smoking status. Treatment outcomes of past marijuana smokers, male and female, did not differ significantly from those who had never smoked marijuana. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION:Marijuana smoking was self-reported with possible exposure misclassification. Chance findings cannot be excluded due to the small number of exposed cases. The results may not be generalizable to couples from the general population. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS:Even though marijuana smoking has not been found in past studies to impact the ability to become pregnant among pregnancy planners in the general population, it may increase the risk of pregnancy loss among couples undergoing infertility treatment. Marijuana smoking by females and males may have opposing effects on outcomes of infertility treatment with ART. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S):The project was financed by grants R01ES009718, P30ES000002, and K99ES026648 from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). None of the authors has any conflicts of interest to declare.