Does embryo quality at transfer affect obstetric outcomes and placental findings?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
STUDY QUESTION: Do obstetric outcomes and placental findings in pregnancies conceived with IVF vary according to embryo quality? SUMMARY ANSWER: Pregnancies following the transfer of lower-quality embryos were associated with a higher rate of low-lying placentas and several adverse placental lesions. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A few studies have shown reduced pregnancy and live births rates with poor-quality embryo transfer, yet with comparable obstetric outcomes. None of these studies included placental analysis. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A retrospective cohort study of 641 deliveries of IVF attained pregnancies between 2009 and 2017 was carried out. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Live singleton births after IVF with a single blastocyst transfer at a university-affiliated tertiary hospital were included. Excluded were cycles of oocyte recipients and IVM. We compared pregnancies following the transfer of a poor-quality blastocyst (poor-quality group) or a good-quality blastocyst (controls, good-quality group). During the study period, all placentas from complicated and uncomplicated pregnancies were sent to pathology. Primary outcomes were placental findings, including anatomic, inflammatory, vascular malperfusion, and villous maturation lesions, categorized according to the Amsterdam Placental Workshop Group Consensus. Secondary outcomes included obstetric and perinatal outcomes, adjusted for diminished ovarian reserve, fresh versus frozen transfer, and neonatal gender (as indicated by univariable analysis). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 132 deliveries in the poor-quality group were compared to 509 controls. A diagnosis of diminished ovarian reserve was more common in the poor-quality group than in the control group (14.3% versus 5.5%, respectively, P < 0.001) and more pregnancies in the poor-quality group were following frozen embryo transfer. After adjustment for confounders, poor-quality embryos were associated with a higher rate of low-lying placentas [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.35, 95% CI 1.02-5.41, P = 0.04] and placentas with a higher rate of villitis of unknown etiology (aOR 2.97, 95% CI 1.17-6.66, P = 0.02), distal villous hypoplasia (aOR 3.78, 95% CI 1.20-11.38, P = 0.02), intervillous thrombosis (aOR 2.41, 95% CI 1.39-4.16, P = 0.001), multiple maternal malperfusion lesions (aOR 1.59, 95% CI 1.06-2.37, P = 0.02), and parenchymal calcifications (aOR 2.19, 95% CI 1.07-4.46, P = 0.03). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study is limited by its retrospective design and the utilization of two grading systems during the study period. In addition, the sample size was limited to detect differences in outcomes of rarer occurrences. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The placental lesions demonstrated in our study imply an altered immunological response to the implantation of poor-quality embryos. Yet, these findings were not associated with additional adverse obstetric outcomes and merit reaffirmation in a larger cohort. Overall, the clinical findings of our study are reassuring to clinicians and patients for whom the transfer of a poor-quality embryo is necessary. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funding was obtained for this study. The authors declare no conflict of interest. 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 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 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 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) | 0,000 | 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 ».