P-748 Cesarean scar defect does not predict embryo transfer outcomes: A retrospective cohort study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Study question Is the presence of a cesarean scar defect associated with live birth outcomes at the time of embryo transfer? Summary answer The presence of a cesarean scar defect is not predictive of live birth rates at the time of embryo transfer. What is known already Cesarean delivery is associated with subsequent impaired fertility, with lower pregnancy and live birth rates and longer inter-pregnancy intervals, compared to patients who delivered vaginally. Studies exploring pregnancy rates after IVF and embryo transfer also suggest lower pregnancy rates among patients with prior cesarean delivery. A postulated mechanism by which a prior cesarean delivery may impact fertility is the cesarean scar defect, and prior studies have shown a possible association between a scar defect and suboptimal outcomes. Study design, size, duration We retrospectively identified a patient cohort based out of the Ottawa Fertility Centre in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, between 2013 and 2019. Participants/materials, setting, methods This retrospective cohort study included 317 patients with a prior cesarean delivery. Embryo transfer outcomes compared between the two groups based on the finding of a cesarean scar defect. The primary outcome was live birth rate, secondary outcomes of positive hCG, clinical intrauterine pregnancy, miscarriage rate. We fit a multivariate log binomial regression model with a priori variables for the primary and secondary outcomes, adjusting for patient and cycle characteristics. Main results and the role of chance There was no statistically significant difference in live birth rate among patients with a cesarean scar defect compared to those without, 28.0% vs 29.5% respectively (adjusted RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68-1.35). There was no statistically significant difference in any of the secondary outcomes. Area of the defect and subgroup analysis of fresh vs frozen embryo transfer did not demonstrate any difference. Secondary analysis of patients with retroverted uterus had significantly lower live birth rates compared to those with an anteverted uterus, 17.7% vs 32.4%, respectively (adjusted RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34-0.91). Limitations, reasons for caution Although a multivariate log binomial model was used to adjust for clinically relevant confounders, there remains the possibility for residual confounding given the observational nature of our study. Wider implications of the findings The results of our study suggest that, after adjusting for patient and cycle characteristics, the presence of a cesarean scar defect may not impact live birth outcomes and secondary analysis of the impact of uterine retroversion requires more study. Trial registration number Not applicable
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».