Advertisement

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 35, Issue 8, pp 1401–1406 | Cite as

Embryoscopy and karyotype findings of repeated miscarriages in recurrent pregnancy loss and spontaneous pregnancy loss

  • M. Feichtinger
  • A. Reiner
  • B. Hartmann
  • T. Philipp
Reproductive Physiology and Disease

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the study was to assess cytogenetic and embryoscopic characteristics in subsequent miscarriages of spontaneous pregnancy losses (SPL) and recurrent pregnancy losses (RPL).

Methods

A retrospective cohort of 75 women was affected by repeated pregnancy loss. Of those, 34 had SPL, 24 primary RPL, and 17 secondary RPL. Ploidy status and morphology was analyzed by transcervical embryoscopic examination of the embryo and cytogenetic analysis of the chorionic villi in subsequent miscarriages.

Results

Similar rates of recurrent ploidy status were observed between first and second miscarriage in SPL and RPL (82.4% recurrent ploidy status in SPL, p > 0.999; 73% recurrent ploidy status in RPL, p = 0.227). No difference was found regarding recurrent abnormal morphology between SPL and RPL (p = 0.092). However, secondary RPL resulted significantly more often in recurrent abnormal morphology compared to primary RPL (p = 0.004).

Conclusions

High rates of recurrent normal/abnormal karyotypes were observed in all groups with a majority of embryos presenting with recurrent abnormal morphology. Secondary RPL presented significantly more often with recurrent abnormal morphology compared to primary RPL. These findings offer prognostic information for the affected patient and might impact treatment choice.

Keywords

Abnormal embryonic development Chromosome abnormalities Missed abortion Transcervical embryoscopy Repeated pregnancy loss 

Notes

Author contributions

TP performed all embryoscopic investigations; AR performed all cytogenetic analysis; BH critically reviewed the manuscript and provided expert opinion. MF wrote the manuscript and performed the statistical analysis; all authors critically revised the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Rai R, Regan L. Recurrent miscarriage. Lancet. 2006;368(9535):601–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69204-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stirrat GM. Recurrent miscarriage. Lancet. 1990;336(8716):673–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Feichtinger M, Wallner E, Hartmann B, Reiner A, Philipp T. Transcervical embryoscopic and cytogenetic findings reveal distinctive differences in primary and secondary recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(1):144–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.09.037.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sugiura-Ogasawara M, Ozaki Y, Katano K, Suzumori N, Kitaori T, Mizutani E. Abnormal embryonic karyotype is the most frequent cause of recurrent miscarriage. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(8):2297–303.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des179.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive M. Evaluation and treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(5):1103–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.06.048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Warburton D, Kline J, Stein Z, Hutzler M, Chin A, Hassold T. Does the karyotype of a spontaneous abortion predict the karyotype of a subsequent abortion? Evidence from 273 women with two karyotyped spontaneous abortions. Am J Hum Genet. 1987;41(3):465–83.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sullivan AE, Silver RM, LaCoursiere DY, Porter TF, Branch DW. Recurrent fetal aneuploidy and recurrent miscarriage. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4):784–8.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000137832.86727.e2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Philipp T, Philipp K, Reiner A, Beer F, Kalousek DK. Embryoscopic and cytogenetic analysis of 233 missed abortions: factors involved in the pathogenesis of developmental defects of early failed pregnancies. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(8):1724–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Poland BJ, Miller JR, Harris M, Livingston J. Spontaneous abortion. A study of 1,961 women and their conceptuses. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl. 1981;102:1–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lomax B, Tang S, Separovic E, Phillips D, Hillard E, Thomson T, et al. Comparative genomic hybridization in combination with flow cytometry improves results of cytogenetic analysis of spontaneous abortions. Am J Hum Genet. 2000;66(5):1516–21.  https://doi.org/10.1086/302878.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rajcan-Separovic E, Qiao Y, Tyson C, Harvard C, Fawcett C, Kalousek D, et al. Genomic changes detected by array CGH in human embryos with developmental defects. Mol Hum Reprod. 2010;16(2):125–34.  https://doi.org/10.1093/molehr/gap083.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barad DH, Kushnir VA, Gleicher N. Focus on recurrent miscarriage phenotypes. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(1):64–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.10.034.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stephenson MD, Awartani KA, Robinson WP. Cytogenetic analysis of miscarriages from couples with recurrent miscarriage: a case-control study. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(2):446–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ogasawara M, Aoki K, Okada S, Suzumori K. Embryonic karyotype of abortuses in relation to the number of previous miscarriages. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(2):300–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rajcan-Separovic E, Diego-Alvarez D, Robinson WP, Tyson C, Qiao Y, Harvard C, et al. Identification of copy number variants in miscarriages from couples with idiopathic recurrent pregnancy loss. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(11):2913–22.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq202.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Robberecht C, Pexsters A, Deprest J, Fryns JP, D’Hooghe T, Vermeesch JR. Cytogenetic and morphological analysis of early products of conception following hystero-embryoscopy from couples with recurrent pregnancy loss. Prenat Diagn. 2012;32(10):933–42.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.3936.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Qiao Y, Wen J, Tang F, Martell S, Shomer N, Leung PC, et al. Whole exome sequencing in recurrent early pregnancy loss. Mol Hum Reprod. 2016;22(5):364–72.  https://doi.org/10.1093/molehr/gaw008.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bernardi LA, Plunkett BA, Stephenson MD. Is chromosome testing of the second miscarriage cost saving? A decision analysis of selective versus universal recurrent pregnancy loss evaluation. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(1):156–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.03.038.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Foyouzi N, Cedars MI, Huddleston HG. Cost-effectiveness of cytogenetic evaluation of products of conception in the patient with a second pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(1):151–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.04.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Byrne J, Warburton D, Kline J, Blanc W, Stein Z. Morphology of early fetal deaths and their chromosomal characteristics. Teratology. 1985;32(2):297–315.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tera.1420320218.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maslow BS, Budinetz T, Sueldo C, Anspach E, Engmann L, Benadiva C, et al. Single-nucleotide polymorphism-microarray ploidy analysis of paraffin-embedded products of conception in recurrent pregnancy loss evaluations. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(1):175–81.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000904.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Murugappan G, Shahine LK, Perfetto CO, Hickok LR, Lathi RB. Intent to treat analysis of in vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic screening versus expectant management in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(8):1668–74.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew135.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Philipp T, Feichtinger W, Van Allen MI, Separovic E, Reiner A, Kalousek DK. Abnormal embryonic development diagnosed embryoscopically in early intrauterine deaths after in vitro fertilization: a preliminary report of 23 cases. Fertil Steril. 2004;82(5):1337–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.04.057.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lathi RB, Gustin SL, Keller J, Maisenbacher MK, Sigurjonsson S, Tao R, et al. Reliability of 46,XX results on miscarriage specimens: a review of 1,222 first-trimester miscarriage specimens. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(1):178–82.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.031.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Feichtinger
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • A. Reiner
    • 4
  • B. Hartmann
    • 5
  • T. Philipp
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Endocrinology and Reproductive MedicineMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Wunschbaby Institut FeichtingerViennaAustria
  3. 3.Department of Oncology – PathologyKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  4. 4.Department of Pathology, Cytogenetic LaboratoryDanube HospitalViennaAustria
  5. 5.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyDanube HospitalViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations