Francesca G Barrett, Sarah D Cascante, David McCulloh, James A Grifo, Jennifer K Blakemore
{"title":"自体卵母细胞冷冻保存后的母体移植年龄与活产率无关。","authors":"Francesca G Barrett, Sarah D Cascante, David McCulloh, James A Grifo, Jennifer K Blakemore","doi":"10.1007/s10815-024-03149-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Our aim was to evaluate if maternal age at transfer following autologous oocyte cryopreservation is associated with live birth rate (LBR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients who thawed autologous oocytes and then underwent a single frozen euploid embryo transfer between 2011 and 2021 at a large urban university-affiliated fertility center. Each oocyte thaw patient was matched 2:1 to in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients who underwent single embryo transfer < 1 year after retrieval. Primary outcome was LBR. Secondary outcomes included implantation rates (IR) and spontaneous abortion rates (SABR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 169 oocyte thaw patients were matched to 338 IVF patients. As expected, oocyte thaw patients were older (median age 42.5 vs. 37.6 years, p < 0.001) and waited longer between retrieval and transfer than in vitro fertilization patients (median time 59 vs. 1 month, p < 0.001). In univariate analysis, implantation and LBR differed among oocyte thaw and IVF patients (p < 0.05), but SABR did not (p = 0.57). Transfer outcomes in oocyte thaw patients did not differ based on transfer age group (IR: p = 0.18; SABR: p = 0.12; LBR: p = 0.24). In a multiple logistic regression model, age at transfer was not predictive of live birth when controlling for age at retrieval, embryo morphology, and day of blastulation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Maternal age at transfer after oocyte cryopreservation is not predictive of LBR; this suggests that \"an aging womb\" does not impair LBR after oocyte thaw and empowers patients to return for transfer when ready for childbearing.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11339225/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Maternal age at transfer following autologous oocyte cryopreservation is not associated with live birth rates.\",\"authors\":\"Francesca G Barrett, Sarah D Cascante, David McCulloh, James A Grifo, Jennifer K Blakemore\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10815-024-03149-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Our aim was to evaluate if maternal age at transfer following autologous oocyte cryopreservation is associated with live birth rate (LBR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients who thawed autologous oocytes and then underwent a single frozen euploid embryo transfer between 2011 and 2021 at a large urban university-affiliated fertility center. Each oocyte thaw patient was matched 2:1 to in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients who underwent single embryo transfer < 1 year after retrieval. Primary outcome was LBR. Secondary outcomes included implantation rates (IR) and spontaneous abortion rates (SABR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 169 oocyte thaw patients were matched to 338 IVF patients. As expected, oocyte thaw patients were older (median age 42.5 vs. 37.6 years, p < 0.001) and waited longer between retrieval and transfer than in vitro fertilization patients (median time 59 vs. 1 month, p < 0.001). In univariate analysis, implantation and LBR differed among oocyte thaw and IVF patients (p < 0.05), but SABR did not (p = 0.57). Transfer outcomes in oocyte thaw patients did not differ based on transfer age group (IR: p = 0.18; SABR: p = 0.12; LBR: p = 0.24). In a multiple logistic regression model, age at transfer was not predictive of live birth when controlling for age at retrieval, embryo morphology, and day of blastulation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Maternal age at transfer after oocyte cryopreservation is not predictive of LBR; this suggests that \\\"an aging womb\\\" does not impair LBR after oocyte thaw and empowers patients to return for transfer when ready for childbearing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11339225/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-024-03149-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-024-03149-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
Maternal age at transfer following autologous oocyte cryopreservation is not associated with live birth rates.
Purpose: Our aim was to evaluate if maternal age at transfer following autologous oocyte cryopreservation is associated with live birth rate (LBR).
Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients who thawed autologous oocytes and then underwent a single frozen euploid embryo transfer between 2011 and 2021 at a large urban university-affiliated fertility center. Each oocyte thaw patient was matched 2:1 to in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients who underwent single embryo transfer < 1 year after retrieval. Primary outcome was LBR. Secondary outcomes included implantation rates (IR) and spontaneous abortion rates (SABR).
Results: A total of 169 oocyte thaw patients were matched to 338 IVF patients. As expected, oocyte thaw patients were older (median age 42.5 vs. 37.6 years, p < 0.001) and waited longer between retrieval and transfer than in vitro fertilization patients (median time 59 vs. 1 month, p < 0.001). In univariate analysis, implantation and LBR differed among oocyte thaw and IVF patients (p < 0.05), but SABR did not (p = 0.57). Transfer outcomes in oocyte thaw patients did not differ based on transfer age group (IR: p = 0.18; SABR: p = 0.12; LBR: p = 0.24). In a multiple logistic regression model, age at transfer was not predictive of live birth when controlling for age at retrieval, embryo morphology, and day of blastulation.
Conclusions: Maternal age at transfer after oocyte cryopreservation is not predictive of LBR; this suggests that "an aging womb" does not impair LBR after oocyte thaw and empowers patients to return for transfer when ready for childbearing.