MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4283729776 · doi:10.1093/humrep/deac148

Pregnancy complications and placental histology following embryo transfer with a thinner endometrium

2022· article· en· W4283729776 sur OpenAlexaff
Hadas Ganer Herman, Alexander Volodarsky‐Perel, Tuyet Nhung Ton Nu, Alexandre Machado-Gédéon, Yiming Cui, Jonathan Shaul, Michael H. Dahan

Notice bibliographique

RevueHuman Reproduction · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineImmunology and Microbiology
ThématiqueReproductive System and Pregnancy
Établissements canadiensMcGill University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEndometriumMedicinePregnancyObstetricsGynecologyEmbryo transferRetrospective cohort studyPregnancy rateBiologyPathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

STUDY QUESTION: Are deliveries following IVF with a thinner endometrium associated with adverse perinatal outcomes and placental findings? SUMMARY ANSWER: Live births following IVF with a thinner endometrium are associated with an increased rate of placental-mediated obstetric complications and lower birthweight, while the placentas are notable for gross anatomical and histological malperfusion lesions. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Past studies have noted a higher rate of adverse outcomes on deliveries following IVF with a thinner endometrium, mainly placental-associated complications. However, no study to date has investigated placental histopathology in such cases. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This was a retrospective cohort study of 1057 deliveries following IVF, between 2009 and 2017. All placentas were sent to pathology irrelevant of pregnancy complication status, per protocol at our institution. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Live singleton births from a tertiary university hospital after IVF were compared between patients for whom embryo transfer was performed with an endometrium <9 mm (thinner endometrium group) and patients with an endometrium ≥9 mm (control group). Placental pathologic findings were categorized according to the Amsterdam Placental Workshop Group Consensus. Outcomes were placental findings, including anatomic, inflammatory, vascular malperfusion and villous maturation lesions, as well as obstetric and perinatal outcomes. Continuous and categorical variables were compared as appropriate, and multivariate regression and linear analyses were employed to control for confounders. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total 292 cases in the thinner endometrium group, and 765 in the control group were compared. Maternal demographics were non-significant between the groups, except for main fertility indication was more commonly diminished reserve in patients with a thinner endometrium and less commonly male factor, P = 0.003. Higher rates of fresh transfers were noted in the control group, while the thinner endometrium group was notable for higher rates of blastocyte transfers. After adjustment for confounders, deliveries in the thinner endometrium group were associated with an overall higher rate of main placental-mediated complications, 22.9% versus 15.2%, P = 0.003, and significantly lower birthweight, β -100.76 g (-184.4-(-17.0)). Placentas in the thinner endometrium group were notable for reduced thickness and a higher rate of bilobated placentas. Placental histology in the thinner endometrium group demonstrated a higher rate of maternal malperfusion lesions. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was limited by its retrospective design and lack of data regarding prior uterine surgery. In addition, sample size was limited for detection of differences in outcomes of rarer occurrence and for analysis as per a stricter definition of thin endometrium. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Excess obstetric risks should be taken into consideration while planning an embryo transfer with a thinner endometrium. Further studies are needed to assess the yield of cycle cancellation and the effect of potential preventive measures such as Micropirin treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No funding was used and the authors report no conflicting interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,795
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,919

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,019
Tête enseignante GPT0,240
Écart entre enseignants0,220 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations20
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHuman ReproductionMême sujetReproductive System and PregnancyTravaux en français237 207