Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Recurrent pregnancy loss: fewer chromosomal abnormalities in products of conception? a meta-analysis

  • Review
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To compare the prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities detected in products of conception (POCs) between recurrent pregnancy loss and sporadic pregnancy loss.

Methods

A systematic search was performed in the PubMed and Embase databases from inception to December 31, 2020. Relevant studies analysing the association between the number of pregnancy losses and the incidence of chromosomal abnormalities were included. Independent data extraction was conducted and study quality was assessed. Meta-analyses were carried out to calculate odds ratios by using fixed- or random-effects models according to statistical homogeneity.

Results

A total of 8320 POCs in 19 studies were identified for the meta-analyses. The incidence of chromosomal abnormalities in sporadic pregnancy loss was significantly higher than that in recurrent pregnancy loss. In subgroup analyses, the following studies reported a high incidence of abnormal outcomes of sporadic pregnancy loss: studies with ≥ 300 samples, studies published before 2014, studies conducted in European and American countries, and studies with analyses using conventional karyotype techniques. Moreover, the incidence of chromosomal abnormalities in women with two pregnancy losses was significantly higher than that in women with three or more pregnancy losses. However, there was no difference in the distribution of abnormal types between sporadic and recurrent pregnancy loss or between two and three or more pregnancy losses.

Conclusions

The prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities detected in POCs was lower in recurrent pregnancy loss than in sporadic pregnancy loss, and decreased with an increasing number of pregnancy losses.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bender Atik R, Christiansen OB, Elson J, Kolte AM, Lewis S, Middeldorp S, et al. ESHRE guideline: recurrent pregnancy loss. Hum Reprod Open. 2018;2018:hoy004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Evaluation and treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:1103-11.

  3. Dimitriadis E, Menkhorst E, Saito S, Kutteh WH, Brosens JJ. Recurrent pregnancy loss. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2020;6:98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. van Dijk MM, Kolte AM, Limpens J, Kirk E, Quenby S, van Wely M, et al. Recurrent pregnancy loss: diagnostic workup after two or three pregnancy losses? A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2020;26:356–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. van den Berg MM, van Maarle MC, van Wely M, Goddijn M. Genetics of early miscarriage. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012;1822:1951–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hardy K, Hardy PJ, Jacobs PA, Lewallen K, Hassold TJ. Temporal changes in chromosome abnormalities in human spontaneous abortions: results of 40 years of analysis. Am J Med Genet A. 2016;170:2671–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Soler AMC, Mademont-Soler I, Margarit E, Borrell A, Borobio V, Muñoz M, Sánchez A. Overview of chromosome abnormalities in first trimester miscarriages: a series of 1,011 consecutive chorionic villi sample karyotypes. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2017;152:81–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Smits MAJ, van Maarle M, Hamer G, Mastenbroek S, Goddijn M, van Wely M. Cytogenetic testing of pregnancy loss tissue: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;40:867–79.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang T, Sun Y, Chen Z, Li T. Traditional and molecular chromosomal abnormality analysis of products of conception in spontaneous and recurrent miscarriage. BJOG. 2018;125:414–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. van den Berg MM, van Maarle MC, van Wely M, Goddijn M. Genetics of early miscarriage. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012;1822:1951–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. An N, Li LL, Zhang XY, Sun WT, Liu MH, Liu RZ. Result and pedigree analysis of spontaneously abortion villus chromosome detecting by FISH. Genet Mol Res. 2015;14:16662–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Dai R, Xi Q, Wang R, Zhang H, Jiang Y, Li L, et al. Chromosomal copy number variations in products of conception from spontaneous abortion by next-generation sequencing technology. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98:e18041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fan L, Wu J, Wu Y, Shi X, Xin X, Li S, et al. Analysis of Chromosomal Copy Number in First-Trimester Pregnancy Loss Using Next-Generation Sequencing. Front Genet. 2020;11:545856.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Coulam CB, Stephenson M, Stern JJ, Clark DA. Immunotherapy for recurrent pregnancy loss: analysis of results from clinical trials. Am J Reprod Immunol. 1996;35:352–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Stern JJ, Dorfmann AD, Gutiérrez-Najar AJ, Cerrillo M, Coulam CB. Frequency of abnormal karyotypes among abortuses from women with and without a history of recurrent spontaneous abortion. Fertil Steril. 1996;65:250–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ogasawara M, Aoki K, Okada S, Suzumori K. Embryonic karyotype of abortuses in relation to the number of previous miscarriages. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:300–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hogge WA, Byrnes AL, Lanasa MC, Surti U. The clinical use of karyotyping spontaneous abortions. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:397–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sullivan AE, Silver RM, LaCoursiere DY, Porter TF, Branch DW. Recurrent fetal aneuploidy and recurrent miscarriage. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:784–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sugiura-Ogasawara M, Ozaki Y, Kitaori T, Suzumori N, Obayashi S, Suzuki S. Live birth rate according to maternal age and previous number of recurrent miscarriages. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2009;62:314–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Grande M, Borrell A, Garcia-Posada R, Borobio V, Muñoz M, Creus M, et al. The effect of maternal age on chromosomal anomaly rate and spectrum in recurrent miscarriage. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:3109–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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;32:933–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Choi TY, Lee HM, Park WK, Jeong SY, Moon HS. Spontaneous abortion and recurrent miscarriage: A comparison of cytogenetic diagnosis in 250 cases. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2014;57:518–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nikitina TV, Sazhenova EA, Tolmacheva EN, Sukhanova NN, Kashevarova AA, Skryabin NA, et al. Comparative cytogenetic analysis of spontaneous abortions in recurrent and sporadic pregnancy losses. Biomed Hub. 2016;1:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Goldstein M, Svirsky R, Reches A, Yaron Y. Does the number of previous miscarriages influence the incidence of chromosomal aberrations in spontaneous pregnancy loss? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017;30:2956–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Segawa T, Kuroda T, Kato K, Kuroda M, Omi K, Miyauchi O, et al. Cytogenetic analysis of the retained products of conception after missed abortion following blastocyst transfer: a retrospective, large-scale, single-centre study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;34:203–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wang Y, Cheng Q, Meng L, Luo C, Hu H, Zhang J, et al. Clinical application of SNP array analysis in first-trimester pregnancy loss: a prospective study. Clin Genet. 2017;91:849–58.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Lovrečić L, Pereza N, Jaklič H, Ostojić S, Peterlin B. Combination of QF-PCR and aCGH is an efficient diagnostic strategy for the detection of chromosome aberrations in recurrent miscarriage. Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2019;7:e980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ozawa N, Ogawa K, Sasaki A, Mitsui M, Wada S, Sago H. Maternal age, history of miscarriage, and embryonic/fetal size are associated with cytogenetic results of spontaneous early miscarriages. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36:749–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gomez R, Hafezi N, Amrani M, Schweiger S, Dewenter MK, Thomas P, et al. Genetic findings in miscarriages and their relation to the number of previous miscarriages. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021;303:1425–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This meta-analysis was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. However, this work was not registered. All authors contributed substantially to the design of this meta-analysis. D.L. performed the literature search. D.L. and XY.Z. selected the studies and extracted the relevant information. PS.Z. acted as a reviewer in case consensus could not be reached directly. D.L. drafted the article. All authors critically revised the manuscript and approved the final version to be published.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Reproductive Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, China

    Dan Lei, Xin-Yu Zhang & Peng-Sheng Zheng

  2. Key Laboratory of Environment and Genes Related To Diseases, Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, Xi’an, Shaanxi, China

    Peng-Sheng Zheng

Authors
  1. Dan Lei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xin-Yu Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peng-Sheng Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peng-Sheng Zheng.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Additional information

Publisher's note

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

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lei, D., Zhang, XY. & Zheng, PS. Recurrent pregnancy loss: fewer chromosomal abnormalities in products of conception? a meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 39, 559–572 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02414-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02414-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation