新鲜胚胎移植与冻融胚胎移植后的产科结果:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.9
Matheus Roque, Marcello Valle, Marcos Sampaio, Selmo Geber
{"title":"新鲜胚胎移植与冻融胚胎移植后的产科结果:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Matheus Roque,&nbsp;Marcello Valle,&nbsp;Marcos Sampaio,&nbsp;Selmo Geber","doi":"10.5935/1518-0557.20180049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate if there are differences in the risks of obstetric outcomes in IVF/ICSI singleton pregnancies when compared fresh to frozen-thawed embryo transfers (FET).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the obstetric outcomes in singleton pregnancies after FET and fresh embryo transfer. The outcomes included in this study were pregnancy-induced hypertension (PIH), pre-eclampsia, placenta previa, and placenta accreta.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search yielded 654 papers, 6 of which met the inclusion criteria and reported on obstetric outcomes. When comparing pregnancies that arose from FET or fresh embryo transfer, there was an increase in the risk of obstetric complications in pregnancies resulting from FET when compared to those emerging from fresh embryo transfers in PIH (aOR 1.82; 95% CI 1.24-2.68), pre-eclampsia (aOR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07, 1.63), and placenta accreta (aOR 3.51, 95% CI 2.04-6.05). There were no significant differences in the risk between the FET and fresh embryo transfer groups when evaluating placenta previa (aOR 0.70; 95% CI 0.46-1.08).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The obstetric outcomes observed in pregnancies arising from ART may differ among fresh and FET cycles. Thus, when evaluating to perform a fresh embryo transfer or a freeze-all cycle, these differences found in obstetric outcomes between fresh and FET should be taken into account. The adverse obstetric outcomes after FET found in this study emphasize that the freeze-all policy should not be offered to all the patients, but should be offered to those with a clear indication of the benefit of this strategy.</p>","PeriodicalId":520656,"journal":{"name":"JBRA assisted reproduction","volume":" ","pages":"253-260"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5935/1518-0557.20180049","citationCount":"44","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Obstetric outcomes after fresh versus frozen-thawed embryo transfers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Matheus Roque,&nbsp;Marcello Valle,&nbsp;Marcos Sampaio,&nbsp;Selmo Geber\",\"doi\":\"10.5935/1518-0557.20180049\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate if there are differences in the risks of obstetric outcomes in IVF/ICSI singleton pregnancies when compared fresh to frozen-thawed embryo transfers (FET).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the obstetric outcomes in singleton pregnancies after FET and fresh embryo transfer. The outcomes included in this study were pregnancy-induced hypertension (PIH), pre-eclampsia, placenta previa, and placenta accreta.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search yielded 654 papers, 6 of which met the inclusion criteria and reported on obstetric outcomes. When comparing pregnancies that arose from FET or fresh embryo transfer, there was an increase in the risk of obstetric complications in pregnancies resulting from FET when compared to those emerging from fresh embryo transfers in PIH (aOR 1.82; 95% CI 1.24-2.68), pre-eclampsia (aOR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07, 1.63), and placenta accreta (aOR 3.51, 95% CI 2.04-6.05). There were no significant differences in the risk between the FET and fresh embryo transfer groups when evaluating placenta previa (aOR 0.70; 95% CI 0.46-1.08).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The obstetric outcomes observed in pregnancies arising from ART may differ among fresh and FET cycles. Thus, when evaluating to perform a fresh embryo transfer or a freeze-all cycle, these differences found in obstetric outcomes between fresh and FET should be taken into account. The adverse obstetric outcomes after FET found in this study emphasize that the freeze-all policy should not be offered to all the patients, but should be offered to those with a clear indication of the benefit of this strategy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520656,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JBRA assisted reproduction\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"253-260\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5935/1518-0557.20180049\",\"citationCount\":\"44\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JBRA assisted reproduction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20180049\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBRA assisted reproduction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20180049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 44

摘要

目的:评价新鲜胚胎移植与冻融胚胎移植(FET)相比,IVF/ICSI单胎妊娠产科结局风险是否存在差异。方法:这是一项系统综述和荟萃分析,评估FET和新鲜胚胎移植后单胎妊娠的产科结局。本研究的结局包括妊高征(PIH)、先兆子痫、前置胎盘和增生性胎盘。结果:共检索到654篇论文,其中6篇符合纳入标准并报道了产科结局。当比较FET和新鲜胚胎移植引起的妊娠时,与PIH中新鲜胚胎移植引起的妊娠相比,FET引起的妊娠产科并发症的风险增加(aOR 1.82;95% CI 1.24-2.68)、先兆子痫(aOR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07, 1.63)和胎盘增生(aOR 3.51, 95% CI 2.04-6.05)。在评估前置胎盘时,FET组与新鲜胚胎移植组的风险无显著差异(aOR 0.70;95% ci 0.46-1.08)。结论:ART妊娠的产科结局在新鲜周期和FET周期中可能有所不同。因此,在评估是否进行新鲜胚胎移植或全冷冻周期时,应考虑新鲜胚胎移植和FET胚胎移植在产科结果上的这些差异。本研究中发现的FET后的不良产科结果强调,冻结所有政策不应提供给所有患者,而应提供给那些明确表明该策略有益的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Obstetric outcomes after fresh versus frozen-thawed embryo transfers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Obstetric outcomes after fresh versus frozen-thawed embryo transfers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Obstetric outcomes after fresh versus frozen-thawed embryo transfers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: To evaluate if there are differences in the risks of obstetric outcomes in IVF/ICSI singleton pregnancies when compared fresh to frozen-thawed embryo transfers (FET).

Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the obstetric outcomes in singleton pregnancies after FET and fresh embryo transfer. The outcomes included in this study were pregnancy-induced hypertension (PIH), pre-eclampsia, placenta previa, and placenta accreta.

Results: The search yielded 654 papers, 6 of which met the inclusion criteria and reported on obstetric outcomes. When comparing pregnancies that arose from FET or fresh embryo transfer, there was an increase in the risk of obstetric complications in pregnancies resulting from FET when compared to those emerging from fresh embryo transfers in PIH (aOR 1.82; 95% CI 1.24-2.68), pre-eclampsia (aOR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07, 1.63), and placenta accreta (aOR 3.51, 95% CI 2.04-6.05). There were no significant differences in the risk between the FET and fresh embryo transfer groups when evaluating placenta previa (aOR 0.70; 95% CI 0.46-1.08).

Conclusion: The obstetric outcomes observed in pregnancies arising from ART may differ among fresh and FET cycles. Thus, when evaluating to perform a fresh embryo transfer or a freeze-all cycle, these differences found in obstetric outcomes between fresh and FET should be taken into account. The adverse obstetric outcomes after FET found in this study emphasize that the freeze-all policy should not be offered to all the patients, but should be offered to those with a clear indication of the benefit of this strategy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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