» Articles » PMID: 37661208

Comparison of 1-year Cumulative Live Birth and Perinatal Outcomes Following Single Blastocyst Transfer with or Without Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy: a Propensity Score-matched Study

Overview
Publisher Springer
Date 2023 Sep 3
PMID 37661208
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: We evaluated whether preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) could increase the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) in patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) and recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL).

Methods: The clinical records of 7,668 patients who underwent oocyte retrieval (OR) with or without PGT-A were reviewed for 365 days and retrospectively analyzed. Using propensity score matching, 579 patients in the PGT-A group were matched one-to-one with 7,089 patients in the non-PGT-A (control) group. Their pregnancy and perinatal outcomes and CLBRs were statistically compared.

Results: The live birth rate per single vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfers (SVBTs) significantly improved in the PGT-A group in all age groups (P < 0.0002, all). Obstetric and perinatal outcomes were comparable between both groups regarding both RIF and RPL cases. Cox regression analysis demonstrated that in the RIF cases, the risk ratio per OR was significantly lower in the PGT-A group than in the control group (P = 0.0480), particularly in women aged < 40 years (P = 0.0364). However, the ratio was comparable between the groups in RPL cases. The risk ratio per treatment period was improved in the PGT-A group in both RIF and RPL cases only in women aged 40-42 years (P = 0.0234 and P = 0.0084, respectively).

Conclusion: Increased CLBR per treatment period was detected only in women aged 40-42 years in both RIF and RPL cases, suggesting that PGT-A is inappropriate to improve CLBR per treatment period in all RIF and RPL cases.

Citing Articles

Fatty acid supplementation during warming improves pregnancy outcomes after frozen blastocyst transfers: a propensity score-matched study.

Sawado A, Ezoe K, Miki T, Ohata K, Amagai A, Shimazaki K Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):9343.

PMID: 38653766 PMC: 11039611. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-60136-0.

References
1.
Katagiri Y, Jwa S, Kuwahara A, Iwasa T, Ono M, Kato K . Assisted reproductive technology in Japan: A summary report for 2020 by the ethics Committee of the Japan Society of obstetrics and gynecology. Reprod Med Biol. 2023; 22(1):e12494. PMC: 9811980. DOI: 10.1002/rmb2.12494. View

2.
Gleicher N, Orvieto R . Is the hypothesis of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still supportable? A review. J Ovarian Res. 2017; 10(1):21. PMC: 5368937. DOI: 10.1186/s13048-017-0318-3. View

3.
Haviland M, Murphy L, Modest A, Fox M, Wise L, Nillni Y . Comparison of pregnancy outcomes following preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy using a matched propensity score design. Hum Reprod. 2020; 35(10):2356-2364. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deaa161. View

4.
Forman E, Hong K, Ferry K, Tao X, Taylor D, Levy B . In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013; 100(1):100-7.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.02.056. View

5.
Scott Jr R, Upham K, Forman E, Hong K, Scott K, Taylor D . Blastocyst biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening and fresh embryo transfer significantly increases in vitro fertilization implantation and delivery rates: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013; 100(3):697-703. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.035. View