Obstetric and perinatal outcomes following programmed compared to natural frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
STUDY QUESTION: Is there an association between the different endometrial preparation protocols for frozen embryo transfer (FET) and obstetric and perinatal outcomes? SUMMARY ANSWER: Programmed FET protocols were associated with a significantly higher risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP), pre-eclampsia (PE), post-partum hemorrhage (PPH) and cesarean section (CS) when compared with natural FET protocols. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: An important and growing source of concern regarding the use of FET on a wide spectrum of women, is represented by its association with obstetric and perinatal complications. However, reasons behind these increased risks are still unknown and understudied. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Systematic review with meta-analysis. We systematically searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus, from database inception to 1 November 2021. Published randomized controlled trials, cohort and case control studies were all eligible for inclusion. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The quality of evidence was also evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Studies were included only if investigators reported obstetric and/or perinatal outcomes for at least two of the following endometrial preparation protocols: programmed FET cycle (PC-FET) (i.e. treatment with hormone replacement therapy (HRT)); total natural FET cycle (tNC-FET); modified natural FET cycle (mNC-FET); stimulated FET cycle (SC-FET). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Pooled results showed a higher risk of HDP (12 studies, odds ratio (OR) 1.90; 95% CI 1.64-2.20; P < 0.00001; I2 = 50%) (very low quality), pregnancy-induced hypertension (5 studies, OR 1.46; 95% CI 1.03-2.07; P = 0.03; I2 = 0%) (very low quality), PE (8 studies, OR 2.11; 95% CI 1.87-2.39; P < 0.00001; I2 = 29%) (low quality), placenta previa (10 studies, OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.05-1.54; P = 0.01; I2 = 8%) (very low quality), PPH (6 studies, OR 2.53; 95% CI 2.19-2.93; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) (low quality), CS (12 studies, OR 1.62; 95% CI 1.53-1.71; P < 0.00001; I2 = 48%) (very low quality), preterm birth (15 studies, OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.09-1.29; P < 0.0001; I2 = 47%) (very low quality), very preterm birth (7 studies, OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.23-2.15; P = 0.0006; I2 = 21%) (very low quality), placenta accreta (2 studies, OR 6.29; 95% CI 2.75-14.40; P < 0.0001; I2 = 0%) (very low quality), preterm premature rupture of membranes (3 studies, OR 1.84; 95% CI 0.82-4.11; P = 0.14; I2 = 61%) (very low quality), post-term birth (OR 1.90; 95% CI 1.25-2.90; P = 0.003; I2 = 73%) (very low quality), macrosomia (10 studies, OR 1.18; 95% CI 1.05-1.32; P = 0.007; I2 = 45%) (very low quality) and large for gestational age (LGA) (14 studies, OR 1.08; 95% CI 1.01-1.16; P = 0.02; I2 = 50%) (very low quality), in PC-FET pregnancies when compared with NC (tNC + mNC)-FET pregnancies. However, after pooling of ORs adjusted for the possible confounding variables, the endometrial preparation by HRT maintained a significant association in all sub-analyses exclusively with HDP, PE, PPH (low quality) and CS (very low quality). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The principal limitation concerns the heterogeneity across studies in: (i) timing and dosage of HRT; (ii) embryo stage at transfer; and (iii) inclusion of preimplantation genetic testing cycles. To address it, we undertook subgroup analyses by pooling only ORs adjusted for a specific possible confounding factor. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Endometrial preparation protocols with HRT were associated with worse obstetric and perinatal outcomes. However, because of the methodological weaknesses, recommendations for clinical practice cannot be made. Well conducted prospective studies are thus warranted to establish a safe endometrial preparation strategy for FET cycles aimed at limiting superimposed risks in women with an 'a priori' high-risk profile for obstetric and perinatal complications. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): None. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021249927.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,033 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,022 | 0,035 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».