How to balance the live birth rate and the multiple pregnancy rate by selecting the cleavage-stage embryo number and quality for POSEIDON Group 1 and Group 2? A retrospective study.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Huiqing He, Rang Liu, Qiuju Zhang, Lan Geng, Zhenhui Hou, Chang Xu, Yanpei Cao, Xi Xia
{"title":"How to balance the live birth rate and the multiple pregnancy rate by selecting the cleavage-stage embryo number and quality for POSEIDON Group 1 and Group 2? A retrospective study.","authors":"Huiqing He, Rang Liu, Qiuju Zhang, Lan Geng, Zhenhui Hou, Chang Xu, Yanpei Cao, Xi Xia","doi":"10.1007/s00404-024-07850-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>For unexpected low-prognosis patients (Group 1 and Group 2) defined by POSEIDON criteria, how to maximize the live birth rate while controlling the multiple birth rate by tailoring the embryo transfer number and quality?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective study, including patients from Poseidon Group 1 (N = 672) and Group 2 (N = 503) who underwent cleavage-stage embryo transfer. Logistic regression was used for the comparative analysis of clinical outcomes among subgroups divided by the number and quality of embryos.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For Group 1, compared to transferring a single good-quality embryo (GQE), a good-quality embryo with a poor-quality embryo (GQE + PQE) did not significantly improve the live birth rate, although increasing in value (40.5% vs 31.9%, P = 0.272), meanwhile obviously raised the multiple birth rate to 28.1% (P = 0.042). For Group 2, double embryo transfer (DET) was associated with a higher live birth rate than single embryo transfer (SET) (22.4% vs 6.3%, P = 0.001) and further analysis indicated that the similar trend observed in the GQE + PQE group compared to the GQE group (26.1% vs 8.5%, P = 0.017) with statistical significance, but without a significant increase in the multiple birth rate (8.3%, P = 1.000).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study indicated that  a single good-quality cleavage-stage embryo was an option for patients in Poseidon Group 1 to avoid the risk of multiple pregnancies. DET with mixed quality cleavage-stage embryo might be an alternative for Poseidon Group 2, given that it improved the pregnancy outcomes while controlling the multiple birth rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":8330,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-024-07850-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: For unexpected low-prognosis patients (Group 1 and Group 2) defined by POSEIDON criteria, how to maximize the live birth rate while controlling the multiple birth rate by tailoring the embryo transfer number and quality?

Methods: This was a retrospective study, including patients from Poseidon Group 1 (N = 672) and Group 2 (N = 503) who underwent cleavage-stage embryo transfer. Logistic regression was used for the comparative analysis of clinical outcomes among subgroups divided by the number and quality of embryos.

Results: For Group 1, compared to transferring a single good-quality embryo (GQE), a good-quality embryo with a poor-quality embryo (GQE + PQE) did not significantly improve the live birth rate, although increasing in value (40.5% vs 31.9%, P = 0.272), meanwhile obviously raised the multiple birth rate to 28.1% (P = 0.042). For Group 2, double embryo transfer (DET) was associated with a higher live birth rate than single embryo transfer (SET) (22.4% vs 6.3%, P = 0.001) and further analysis indicated that the similar trend observed in the GQE + PQE group compared to the GQE group (26.1% vs 8.5%, P = 0.017) with statistical significance, but without a significant increase in the multiple birth rate (8.3%, P = 1.000).

Conclusions: The study indicated that  a single good-quality cleavage-stage embryo was an option for patients in Poseidon Group 1 to avoid the risk of multiple pregnancies. DET with mixed quality cleavage-stage embryo might be an alternative for Poseidon Group 2, given that it improved the pregnancy outcomes while controlling the multiple birth rates.

如何通过选择卵裂期胚胎数量和质量来平衡活产率和多胎妊娠率?一项回顾性研究。
目的:对于根据 POSEIDON 标准定义的意外低预后患者(第 1 组和第 2 组),如何通过调整胚胎移植数量和质量最大限度地提高活产率,同时控制多胎率?这是一项回顾性研究,包括接受卵裂期胚胎移植的波塞冬第一组(672 例)和第二组(503 例)患者。根据胚胎的数量和质量对各分组的临床结果进行了逻辑回归比较分析:结果:对于第一组,与移植单个优质胚胎(GQE)相比,一个优质胚胎与一个劣质胚胎(GQE + PQE)虽然提高了活产率(40.5% vs 31.9%,P = 0.272),但并没有显著提高活产率,同时多胎率明显提高到 28.1%(P = 0.042)。进一步分析表明,双胚胎移植(DET)比单胚胎移植(SET)的活产率更高(22.4% vs 6.3%,P = 0.001),GQE + PQE 组与 GQE 组相比观察到类似趋势(26.1% vs 8.5%,P = 0.017),具有统计学意义,但多胎率没有显著增加(8.3%,P = 1.000):研究表明,波塞冬 1 组患者可选择单个优质卵裂期胚胎,以避免多胎妊娠风险。对于波塞冬 2 组患者来说,使用混合质量的分裂期胚胎进行 DET 可能是一种替代方案,因为它在控制多胎妊娠率的同时还能改善妊娠结局。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
15.40%
发文量
493
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Founded in 1870 as "Archiv für Gynaekologie", Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics has a long and outstanding tradition. Since 1922 the journal has been the Organ of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. "The Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics" is circulated in over 40 countries world wide and is indexed in "PubMed/Medline" and "Science Citation Index Expanded/Journal Citation Report". The journal publishes invited and submitted reviews; peer-reviewed original articles about clinical topics and basic research as well as news and views and guidelines and position statements from all sub-specialties in gynecology and obstetrics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信