Institute of Women, Children and Reproductive Health, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, People's Republic of China; Medical Integration and Practice Center, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, People's Republic of China; State Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine and Offspring Health, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, People's Republic of China.
Institute of Women, Children and Reproductive Health, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, People's Republic of China; State Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine and Offspring Health, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, People's Republic of China.
Fertil Steril. 2024 Jul;122(1):121-130. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2024.02.023. Epub 2024 Feb 15.
To investigate variations in pregnancy outcomes between preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) and conventional in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) treatment across distinct groups categorized by oocyte and blastocyst counts. Because the live birth rate (LBR) of assisted reproductive technology treatment is influenced by the number of oocytes and blastocysts retrieved. Our previous study indicated comparable cumulative LBRs (CLBRs) between conventional IVF-ET and PGT-A.
A post hoc exploratory secondary analysis of data from a multicenter randomized controlled trial compared the CLBRs between conventional IVF-ET and PGT-A.
Academic fertility centers.
A total of 1,212 infertile women with a good prognosis for a live birth after PGT-A or conventional IVF-ET were included.
Women underwent PGT-A or conventional IVF-ET.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Cumulative LBR, cumulative clinical pregnancy loss (CPL) rate, and good birth outcome.
RESULT(S): In the study, all participants were divided into 4 groups on the basis of quartiles of the number of oocytes retrieved, or blastocysts. There was an interaction between whether to perform PGT-A and the oocyte numbers category on cumulative CPL and biochemical pregnancy loss. Chi-square analysis revealed that the PGT-A group showed a lower cumulative frequency of CPL compared with the IVF-ET group (PGT-A vs. IVF-ET: 5.9% vs. 13.7%; relative risk = 0.430; 95% confidence interval, 0.243-0.763) when the number of oocytes retrieved was <15. Although there was no interaction on CLBR when the retrieved oocyte count ranged from 19-23 (19≤ oocytes <23) the PGT-A group exhibited a lower CLBR than the conventional IVF-ET group (PGT-A vs IVF-ET: 75.6% vs 87.1%; relative risk = 0.868; 95% confidence interval, 0.774-0.973), and the average body weight of newborns from the PGT-A group was approximately 142 g lower than that of the conventional IVF-ET group (PGT-A vs. IVF-ET: 3,334 ± 479 g vs. 3,476 ± 473 g). However, no statistically significant difference in the CLBR was observed between the PGT-A and IVF-ET groups in the other oocyte or blastocyst groups.
When the number of retrieved eggs was <15, the PGT-A group exhibited a lower cumulative CPL rate but no higher CLBR than the conventional IVF-ET group.
NCT03118141.
通过比较不同卵母细胞和囊胚计数分组的胚胎植入前遗传学检测(PGT-A)和常规体外受精-胚胎移植(IVF-ET)治疗的妊娠结局,研究其差异。因为辅助生殖技术治疗的活产率(LBR)受到卵母细胞和囊胚数量的影响。我们之前的研究表明,PGT-A 和常规 IVF-ET 的累积活产率(CLBR)相当。
对多中心随机对照试验数据的事后探索性二次分析,比较了常规 IVF-ET 和 PGT-A 的 CLBR。
学术生育中心。
共纳入 1212 名预后良好的不孕妇女,她们在接受 PGT-A 或常规 IVF-ET 后有活产的可能。
妇女接受 PGT-A 或常规 IVF-ET。
累积活产率、累积临床妊娠丢失率和良好的出生结局。
在研究中,所有参与者根据卵母细胞或囊胚数量的四分位间距分为 4 组。PGT-A 和卵母细胞数量类别之间存在累积临床妊娠丢失和生化妊娠丢失的相互作用。卡方分析显示,PGT-A 组与 IVF-ET 组相比,累积 CPL 频率较低(PGT-A 组比 IVF-ET 组:5.9%比 13.7%;相对风险=0.430;95%置信区间:0.243-0.763),当卵母细胞数量<15 时。尽管在卵母细胞数量为 19-23 时(19≤卵母细胞<23),两组间的 CLBR 无相互作用,但 PGT-A 组的 CLBR 低于常规 IVF-ET 组(PGT-A 组比 IVF-ET 组:75.6%比 87.1%;相对风险=0.868;95%置信区间:0.774-0.973),PGT-A 组新生儿的平均体重比常规 IVF-ET 组低约 142 克(PGT-A 组比 IVF-ET 组:3334±479g 比 3476±473g)。然而,在其他卵母细胞或囊胚组中,PGT-A 组与 IVF-ET 组之间的 CLBR 无统计学差异。
当提取的卵子数量<15 时,PGT-A 组的累积 CPL 率较低,但 CLBR 与常规 IVF-ET 组相比无明显提高。
NCT03118141。