A meta-analysis and systematic review of advanced maternal age patients in IVF.

IF 16.1 1区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Hadas Ganer Herman, Ido Feferkorn, Michael H Dahan, Shauna Reinblatt, Ezgi Demirtas, William Buckett
{"title":"A meta-analysis and systematic review of advanced maternal age patients in IVF.","authors":"Hadas Ganer Herman, Ido Feferkorn, Michael H Dahan, Shauna Reinblatt, Ezgi Demirtas, William Buckett","doi":"10.1093/humupd/dmaf020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There has been an increase in the average age of patients seeking fertility treatments over the past decades, with a significantly higher rate of advanced maternal age (AMA) patients undergoing IVF. It is unclear if different treatment strategies in IVF improve outcomes in AMA patients.</p><p><strong>Objective and rationale: </strong>The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of different interventions employed in IVF in patients of AMA.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>A comprehensive search in Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library was performed. The search strategy included keywords related to IVF and AMA. We included all original peer-reviewed articles published in English, from January 1985 to September 2024, primarily designed to assess the efficacy of different interventions in IVF on clinical outcomes in AMA patients. Meta-analyses were performed for interventions for which sufficient randomized controlled trials existed.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>A total of 151 studies were included in the review. AMA was not consistently defined in all studies reviewed, although common to all studies was an age above 35 years. For the majority of evidence, there appeared to be no clear advantage to any stimulation protocol in AMA patients. There also appeared to be no advantage to any specific FSH medication, while a meta-analysis performed for the addition of LH to follicular stimulating hormone in stimulation demonstrated similar clinical pregnancy and live birth rates. No good evidence was found to support the routine implementation of ICSI in AMA patients, while a meta-analysis performed for assisted hatching (AH) pointed to decreased live birth rates with its implementation. Low-quality evidence demonstrated an increase in live birth rates with multiple embryos transferred with an increase in multiple pregnancies delivered. Finally, a meta-analysis performed for preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) pointed to similar live birth rates as for no testing.</p><p><strong>Wider implications: </strong>This review failed to find an advantage to the routine implementation of treatment strategies such as specific stimulation protocols and gonadotropins, ICSI, and PGT-A, and a potential harmful effect for AH. Future high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to affirm the majority of this review's conclusions.</p><p><strong>Registration number: </strong>PROSPERO ID: CRD42022335889.</p>","PeriodicalId":55045,"journal":{"name":"Human Reproduction Update","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":16.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Reproduction Update","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmaf020","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There has been an increase in the average age of patients seeking fertility treatments over the past decades, with a significantly higher rate of advanced maternal age (AMA) patients undergoing IVF. It is unclear if different treatment strategies in IVF improve outcomes in AMA patients.

Objective and rationale: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of different interventions employed in IVF in patients of AMA.

Search methods: A comprehensive search in Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library was performed. The search strategy included keywords related to IVF and AMA. We included all original peer-reviewed articles published in English, from January 1985 to September 2024, primarily designed to assess the efficacy of different interventions in IVF on clinical outcomes in AMA patients. Meta-analyses were performed for interventions for which sufficient randomized controlled trials existed.

Outcomes: A total of 151 studies were included in the review. AMA was not consistently defined in all studies reviewed, although common to all studies was an age above 35 years. For the majority of evidence, there appeared to be no clear advantage to any stimulation protocol in AMA patients. There also appeared to be no advantage to any specific FSH medication, while a meta-analysis performed for the addition of LH to follicular stimulating hormone in stimulation demonstrated similar clinical pregnancy and live birth rates. No good evidence was found to support the routine implementation of ICSI in AMA patients, while a meta-analysis performed for assisted hatching (AH) pointed to decreased live birth rates with its implementation. Low-quality evidence demonstrated an increase in live birth rates with multiple embryos transferred with an increase in multiple pregnancies delivered. Finally, a meta-analysis performed for preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) pointed to similar live birth rates as for no testing.

Wider implications: This review failed to find an advantage to the routine implementation of treatment strategies such as specific stimulation protocols and gonadotropins, ICSI, and PGT-A, and a potential harmful effect for AH. Future high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to affirm the majority of this review's conclusions.

Registration number: PROSPERO ID: CRD42022335889.

体外受精高龄产妇的荟萃分析和系统综述。
背景:在过去的几十年里,寻求生育治疗的患者的平均年龄有所增加,接受体外受精的高龄产妇(AMA)患者的比例明显更高。目前尚不清楚不同的体外受精治疗策略是否能改善AMA患者的预后。目的和原理:本系统综述的目的是评估不同干预措施在AMA患者体外受精中的效果。检索方法:在Embase、Medline和Cochrane图书馆中进行综合检索。搜索策略包括与IVF和AMA相关的关键词。我们纳入了1985年1月至2024年9月期间发表的所有同行评议的英文原创文章,主要目的是评估体外受精不同干预措施对AMA患者临床结果的疗效。对存在足够随机对照试验的干预措施进行荟萃分析。结果:本综述共纳入151项研究。在所有研究中,AMA的定义并不一致,尽管所有研究的共同点是年龄在35岁以上。大多数证据表明,在AMA患者中,任何刺激方案似乎都没有明显的优势。任何特定的FSH药物似乎也没有优势,而在刺激卵泡刺激素中添加LH的荟萃分析显示,临床妊娠和活产率相似。没有很好的证据支持在AMA患者中常规实施ICSI,而对辅助孵化(AH)进行的荟萃分析指出,实施ICSI会降低活产率。低质量的证据表明,随着多胎妊娠的增加,移植多个胚胎的活产率增加。最后,一项针对植入前非整倍体基因检测(PGT-A)的荟萃分析指出,未进行检测的活产率与未进行检测的活产率相似。更广泛的意义:本综述未能发现常规治疗策略的优势,如特异性刺激方案和促性腺激素、ICSI和PGT-A,以及对AH的潜在有害影响。未来需要高质量的随机对照试验来证实本综述的大部分结论。注册号:普洛斯彼罗ID: CRD42022335889。
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
Human Reproduction Update
Human Reproduction Update 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
28.80
自引率
1.50%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Human Reproduction Update is the leading journal in its field, boasting a Journal Impact FactorTM of 13.3 and ranked first in Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology (Source: Journal Citation ReportsTM from Clarivate, 2023). It specializes in publishing comprehensive and systematic review articles covering various aspects of human reproductive physiology and medicine. The journal prioritizes basic, transitional, and clinical topics related to reproduction, encompassing areas such as andrology, embryology, infertility, gynaecology, pregnancy, reproductive endocrinology, reproductive epidemiology, reproductive genetics, reproductive immunology, and reproductive oncology. Human Reproduction Update is published on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), maintaining the highest scientific and editorial standards.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信