Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The live birth and neonatal outcomes in the subsequent pregnancy among patients with adverse pregnancy outcomes in first frozen embryo transfer cycles

  • Gynecologic Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To explore whether the adverse pregnancy outcomes in first frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles affect live birth and neonatal outcomes in the subsequent pregnancy?

Methods

This was a retrospective study. Women with a history of adverse pregnancy outcomes in first FET cycles started their subsequent embryo transfer cycles. The adverse pregnancy outcomes included biochemical pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, and first-trimester pregnancy loss. The main outcomes of present study were live birth rate and neonatal outcomes.

Results

Results showed patients with first-trimester pregnancy loss in first FET cycles had a 95 percent greater chance of live birth in subsequent FET cycles (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.33–2.88). However, the biochemical pregnancy/ectopic pregnancy in initial FET cycles did not affect the chance of live birth in second cycles (biochemical pregnancy: OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.82–1.77; ectopic pregnancy: OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.55–2.05). The neonatal outcomes of singletons were not affected by the number of embryo transfer cycles.

Conclusions

Patients with first-trimester pregnancy loss in first FET cycle had a greater chance of live birth in second FET cycles, but the biochemical pregnancy/ectopic pregnancy in first FET cycles did not significantly affect the live birth in second FET cycles. The three types of adverse pregnancy outcomes in first FET cycles did not affect neonatal outcomes in the second cycles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kushnir VA, Barad DH, Albertini DF, Darmon SK, Gleicher N (2017) Systematic review of worldwide trends in assisted reproductive technology 2004–2013. Reprod Biol Endocrinol: RB&E 15(1):6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-016-0225-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Niederberger C, Pellicer A, Cohen J, Gardner DK, Palermo GD, O'Neill CL, Chow S, Rosenwaks Z, Cobo A, Swain JE, Schoolcraft WB, Frydman R, Bishop LA, Aharon D, Gordon C, New E, Decherney A, Tan SL, Paulson RJ, Goldfarb JM, Brännström M, Donnez J, Silber S, Dolmans M-M, Simpson JL, Handyside AH, Munné S, Eguizabal C, Montserrat N, Belmonte JCI, Trounson A, Simon C, Tulandi T, Giudice LC, Norman RJ, Hsueh AJ, Sun Y, Laufer N, Kochman R, Eldar-Geva T, Lunenfeld B, Ezcurra D, D'Hooghe T, Fauser BCJM, Tarlatzis BC, Meldrum DR, Casper RF, Fatemi HM, Devroey P, Galliano D, Wikland M, Sigman M, Schoor RA, Goldstein M, Lipshultz LI, Schlegel PN, Hussein A, Oates RD, Brannigan RE, Ross HE, Pennings G, Klock SC, Brown S, Van Steirteghem A, Rebar RW, LaBarbera AR (2018) Forty years of IVF. Fertil Steril 110(2):185–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.06.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Qin J, Liu X, Sheng X, Wang H, Gao S (2016) Assisted reproductive technology and the risk of pregnancy-related complications and adverse pregnancy outcomes in singleton pregnancies: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Fertil Steril 105(1):73–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.09.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yang X, Li Y, Li C, Zhang W (2014) Current overview of pregnancy complications and live-birth outcome of assisted reproductive technology in mainland China. Fertil Steril 101(2):385–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.10.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stanhiser J, Steiner AZ (2018) Psychosocial aspects of fertility and assisted reproductive technology. Obstet Gyn Clin N Am 45(3):563–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2018.04.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Haimovici F, Anderson JL, Bates GW, Racowsky C, Ginsburg ES, Simovici D, Fichorova RN (2018) Stress, anxiety, and depression of both partners in infertile couples are associated with cytokine levels and adverse IVF outcome. Am J Reprod Immunol 79(4):e12832. https://doi.org/10.1111/aji.12832 (New York, N.Y.: 1989)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wang ET, Kathiresan A, Bresee C, Greene N, Alexander C, Pisarska MD (2017) Abnormal implantation after fresh and frozen in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril 107(5):1153–1158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.012

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Londra L, Moreau C, Strobino D, Garcia J, Zacur H, Zhao Y (2015) Ectopic pregnancy after invitro fertilization: differences between fresh and frozen-thawed cycles. Fertil Steril 104(1):110–118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hipp H, Crawford S, Kawwass JF, Chang J, Kissin DM, Jamieson DJ (2016) First trimester pregnancy loss after fresh and frozen invitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril 105(3):722–728

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Santosribeiro S, Tournaye H, Polyzos NP (2016) Trends in ectopic pregnancy rates following assisted reproductive technologies in the UK: a 12-year nationwide analysis including 160 000 pregnancies. Hum Reprod 35(2):474–488

    Google Scholar 

  11. Du T, Chen H, Fu R, Chen Q, Wang Y, Mol BW, Kuang Y, Lyu Q (2017) Comparison of ectopic pregnancy risk among transfers of embryos vitrified on day 3, day 5, and day 6. Fertil Steril 108(1):108–116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Roque M, Valle M, Guimarães F, Sampaio M, Geber S (2015) Freeze-all policy: fresh vs. frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 103(5):1190–1193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen ZJ, Shi Y, Sun Y, Zhang B, Liang X, Cao Y, Yang J, Liu J, Wei D, Weng N (2016) Fresh versus frozen embryos for infertility in the polycystic ovary syndrome. New Engl J Med 375(6):523–533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Roque M, Valle M, Kostolias A, Sampaio M, Geber S (2017) Freeze-all cycle in reproductive medicine: current perspectives. JBRA Assist Reprod 21(1):49–53. https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20170012

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C, Thomas S (2011) Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer in normal responders. Fertil Steril 96(2):344–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.05.050

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C, Thomas S (2011) Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfers in high responders. Fertil Steril 96(2):516–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.02.059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhu Q, Chen Q, Wang L, Lu X, Lyu Q, Wang Y, Kuang Y (2018) Live birth rates in the first complete IVF cycle among 20 687 women using a freeze-all strategy. Hum Reprod. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey044

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kuang Y, Hong Q, Chen Q, Lyu Q, Ai A, Fu Y, Shoham Z (2014) Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation is feasible for producing competent oocytes in women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment, with optimal pregnancy outcomes in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril 101(1):105–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.007

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kuang Y, Chen Q, Hong Q, Lyu Q, Ai A, Fu Y, Shoham Z (2014) Double stimulations during the follicular and luteal phases of poor responders in IVF/ICSI programmes (Shanghai protocol). Reprod Biomed Online 29(6):684–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.08.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen H, Wang Y, Lyu Q, Ai A, Fu Y, Tian H, Cai R, Hong Q, Chen Q, Shoham Z, Kuang Y (2015) Comparison of live-birth defects after luteal-phase ovarian stimulation vs. conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization and vitrified embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril 103(5):1194–1201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.02.020

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cummins JM, Breen TM, Harrison KL, Shaw JM, Wilson LM, Hennessey JF (1986) A formula for scoring human embryo growth rates in in vitro fertilization: its value in predicting pregnancy and in comparison with visual estimates of embryo quality. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 3(5):284–295

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Reinblatt SL, Ishai L, Shehata F, Son WY, Tulandi T, Almog B (2011) Effects of ovarian endometrioma on embryo quality. Fertil Steril 95(8):2700–2702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.03.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dai L, Deng C, Li Y, Zhu J, Mu Y, Deng Y, Mao M, Wang Y, Li Q, Ma S, Ma X, Zhang Y (2014) Birth weight reference percentiles for Chinese. PLoS ONE 9(8):e104779. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104779

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Wang YA, Kovacs G, Sullivan EA (2010) Transfer of a selected single blastocyst optimizes the chance of a healthy term baby: a retrospective population based study in Australia 2004–2007. Hum Reprod 25(8):1996–2005. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kissin DM, Kulkarni AD, Kushnir VA, Jamieson DJ (2014) Number of embryos transferred after in vitro fertilization and good perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol 123(2 PART 1):239–247

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Kawwass JF, Badell ML (2018) Maternal and fetal risk associated with assisted reproductive technology. Obstet Gynecol 132(3):763–772. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Shaw JL, Dey SK, Critchley HO, Horne AW (2010) Current knowledge of the aetiology of human tubal ectopic pregnancy. Hum Reprod Update 16(4):432–444. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmp057

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Krieg SA, Shahine LK, Lathi RB (2016) Environmental exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals and miscarriage. Fertil Steril 106(4):941–947

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Varner MW, Silver RM, Rowland Hogue CJ, Willinger M, Parker CB, Thorsten VR, Goldenberg RL, Saade GR, Dudley DJ, Coustan D, Stoll B, Bukowski R, Koch MA, Conway D, Pinar H, Reddy UM (2014) Association between stillbirth and illicit drug use and smoking during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 123(1):113–125

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Law YJ, Zhang N, Venetis CA, Chambers GM, Harris K (2019) The number of oocytes associated with maximum cumulative live birth rates per aspiration depends on female age: a population study of 221 221 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England) 34(9):1778–1787. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dez100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Quinn MM, Rosen MP, Allen IE, Huddleston HG, Cedars MI, Fujimoto VY (2019) Interpregnancy interval and singleton pregnancy outcomes after frozen embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 111(6):1145–1150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.02.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Xu LC, Qiang ZW, Wang L (2002) The timing of marriage in China. Ann Econ Financ 4(2):343–357

    Google Scholar 

  33. Liu Q (2017) China’s leftover women: late marriage among professional women and its consequences. Asian J Women Stud 31(4):471–474

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sneeringer R, Klipstein S, Ryley DA, Alper MM, Reindollar RH (2008) Pregnancy loss in the first in vitro fertilization cycle is not predictive of subsequent delivery in women over 40 years. Fertil Steril 89(2):364–367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Yang R, Yang S, Li R, Chen X, Wang H, Ma C, Liu P, Qiao J (2015) Biochemical pregnancy and spontaneous abortion in first IVF cycles are negative predictors for subsequent cycles: an over 10,000 cases cohort study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 292(2):453–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3639-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wright Bates G Jr, Ginsburg ES (2002) Early pregnancy loss in in vitro fertilization (IVF) is a positive predictor of subsequent IVF success. Fertil Steril 77(2):337–341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Choudhury SR, Knapp LA (2001) Human reproductive failure I: immunological factors. Hum Reprod Update 7(2):113–134. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/7.2.113

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Choudhury SR, Knapp LA (2001) Human reproductive failure II: immunogenetic and interacting factors. Hum Reprod Update 7(2):135–160. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/7.2.135

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Troncoso C, Bosch E, Rubio C, Remohí J, Simón C, Pellicer A (2003) The origin of biochemical pregnancies: lessons learned from preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril 79(2):449–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(02)04670-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Gaskins AJ, Missmer SA, Rich-Edwards JW, Williams PL, Souter I, Chavarro JE (2018) Demographic, lifestyle, and reproductive risk factors for ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril 110(7):1328–1337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.08.022

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Jivraj S, Anstie B, Cheong YC, Fairlie FM, Laird SM, Li TC (2001) Obstetric and neonatal outcome in women with a history of recurrent miscarriage: a cohort study. Hum Reprod 16(1):102–106. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.1.102

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Bhattacharya S, Townend J, Shetty A, Campbell D, Bhattacharya S (2008) Does miscarriage in an initial pregnancy lead to adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes in the next continuing pregnancy? BJOG 115(13):1623–1629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01943.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Barnhart KT (2014) Are we ready to eliminate the transfer of fresh embryos in IVF? Fertil Steril 102(1):1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.05.024

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Evans J, Hannan NJ, Edgell TA, Vollenhoven BJ, Lutjen PJ, Osianlis T, Salamonsen LA, Rombauts LJ (2014) Fresh versus frozen embryo transfer: backing clinical decisions with scientific and clinical evidence. Hum Reprod Update 20(6):808–821. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmu027

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Roque M, Lattes K, Serra S, Solà I, Geber S, Carreras R, Checa MA (2013) Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 99(1):156–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their thanks to all clinicians and clinical embryologists in the Department of Assisted Reproduction.

Funding

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 81903324, 81771533, 81571397 and 81701523).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Assisted Reproduction, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital affiliated to JiaoTong University School of Medicine, Zhizaoju Road No. 639, Shanghai, China

    Jianghui Li, Jiaying Lin, Mingru Yin, Qianqian Zhu & Yanping Kuang

Authors
  1. Jianghui Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jiaying Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mingru Yin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Qianqian Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yanping Kuang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YPK and QQZ designed the study. QQZ and JHL drafted the manuscript. JYL and YMR conducted the data acquisition and statistical analysis. YPK revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Qianqian Zhu or Yanping Kuang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. All participants gave written informed consent for this research.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, J., Lin, J., Yin, M. et al. The live birth and neonatal outcomes in the subsequent pregnancy among patients with adverse pregnancy outcomes in first frozen embryo transfer cycles. Arch Gynecol Obstet 302, 731–740 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05608-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05608-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation