Pregnancy outcome after in‐vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection in women with congenital uterus didelphys

Abstract

Objective To investigate the pregnancy and obstetric outcomes of patients with congenital uterus didelphys who achieved clinical pregnancy after in‐vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Methods This was a retrospective matched‐cohort study of 83 infertile patients with uterus didelphys who underwent IVF/ICSI and achieved clinical pregnancy from January 2005 to December 2018 at our center. For each patient in the study group, three control patients with normal uterine morphology who underwent IVF/ICSI in 2018 were selected randomly. Patients in the two groups were matched for number of gestational sacs, maternal age, infertility type, cause of infertility, fertilization method, endometrial thickness 1 day before embryo transfer and number of embryos transferred. The classification of congenital uterine anomalies was based on the American Fertility Society system (1988). The pregnancy and obstetric outcomes of the didelphic and control groups were compared separately for singleton and twin pregnancies, and for all pregnancies combined. Results In singleton pregnancies, women with uterus didelphys had increased risk of preterm birth (odds ratio (OR), 4.68; rate difference (RD), 0.14; P < 0.001), Cesarean section (OR, 2.80; RD, 0.17; P = 0.016) and birth weight < 2500 g (OR, 4.06; RD, 0.10; P = 0.017) compared to women with normal uterine morphology. In twin pregnancies, the presence of uterus didelphys was associated with increased risk of preterm delivery (OR, 4.79; RD, 0.37; P = 0.006), perinatal mortality (OR, 3.16; RD, 0.19; P = 0.043) and birth weight < 2500 g (OR, 9.57; RD, 0.35; P = 0.001). Conclusions The presence of uterus didelphys was associated with significantly increased risk of some adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to pregnancies with normal uterine morphology in women who underwent IVF/ICSI. A twin pregnancy in women with uterus didelphys was associated with worse perinatal outcome. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Pregnancy outcomes following natural conception and assisted reproduction treatment in women who received COVID-19 vaccination prior to conception: a population-based cohort study in China

“…For infertile couples, the relationship between vaccination and outcome of assisted reproductive technology remains unclear. Several studies ( 16 , 18 , 35 , 43 , 44 ) have reported that preconception COVID-19 vaccinations had no detrimental effect on either laboratory outcomes or short pregnancy outcomes after IVF/ICSI. However, Shi et al ( 16 ) reported that vaccinated women had a significant lower rate of clinical pregnancy with fresh embryo transfer.…”

Impact of congenital uterine anomalies on obstetric and perinatal outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis

“…From these, 6461 were screened by title and 328 by title and abstract. A final subset of 78 studies were full-text evaluated (Figure 1), of which 32 (Ban-Frangez et al, 2009;Ben-Rafael et al, 1991;Cahen-Peretz et al, 2017;Cai et al, 2021;Cooney et al, 1998;Crane et al, 2012;Chen et al, 2018;Chen et al, 2019;Erez et al, 2007;Hiersch et al, 2016;Hua et al, 2011;Jayaprakasan et al, 2011;Kong et al, 2021;Leible et al, 1998;Li et al, 2017;Lu et al, 2021;Marianna et al, 2022;Mastrolia et al, 2017;Mastrolia et al, 2018;Ouyang et al, 2020;Ozgur et al, 2017;Pleş et al, 2018;Prior et al, 2018;Qiu et al, 2022;Saravelos et al, 2010;Sugiura-Ogasawara et al, 2010;Surrey et al, 2018;Takami et al, 2014;Tomaževič et al, 2010;Zambrotta et al, 2021;Zlopasa et al, 2007) fulfilled inclusion criteria (Table SI). Scores granted by Newcastle-Ottawa Score and quality assessment using AHRQ standards are presented in Appendix 2.…”

“…Twelve of the studies selected by Kim et al (2021) were not included in our meta-analysis: one was published out of time limits (Forde et al, 1978) while the other eleven did not achieve the minimum score on the AHRQ-adapted NOS scale (Acién, 1993;Fox et al, 2014;Liang and Hu, 2010;Maneschi et al, 1995;Neal et al, 2019;Ravasia et al, 1999;Shuiqing et al, 2002;Sorensen and Trauelsen, 1987;Woelfer et al, 2001;Zhang et al, 2010;Zupi et al, 1996). Our meta-analysis includes seven studies not considered by Kim et al (2021) (Cai et al, 2021;Crane et al, 2012;Chen et al, 2018;Lu et al, 2021;Marianna et al, 2022;Qiu et al, 2022;Surrey et al, 2018).…”

Impact of congenital uterine anomalies on reproductive outcomes of IVF/ICSI-embryo transfer: a retrospective study

“…Previous studies analyzed different malformations all together [ 6 ], while the results were skewed by the high proportion of arcuate uterus (e.g., 89.1% and 89.5%), which was once thought to be a minor defect that did not have any effect on pregnancy outcomes. Most studies have focused on only a particular type of uterine anomaly [ 7 – 9 ]. A retrospective study did rigorous work, but they focused solely on the frozen thawed embryo transfer (FET) outcomes of uterine anomaly [ 10 ], while the systematic study of fresh embryo transfer (IVF-ET) outcomes has not been studied.…”