PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether non-invasive prenatal testing is an alternative testing option to preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) in pregnant patients.
METHODS: This was a retrospective study of the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent PGT and invasive or non-invasive pregnancy testing after euploid blastocyst transfer at our IVF centre between January 2017 and December 2022.
RESULTS: In total, 321 patients were enrolled in this study, 138 (43.0%) received invasive pregnancy testing, and 183 (57.0%) patients underwent non-invasive testing. The mean age of the patients in Group 2 was higher than that of the patients in Group 1 (35.64 ± 4.74 vs. 31.04 ± 4.15 years, P < 0.001). The basal LH and AMH levels were higher in Group 1 than in Group 2 (4.30 ± 2.68 vs. 3.40 ± 1.88, P = 0.003; 5.55 ± 11.22 vs. 4.09 ± 3.55, P = 0.012), but the clinical outcomes were not significantly different. Furthermore, the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing invasive testing were similar to those of patients undergoing non-invasive testing with the same PGT indication.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that non-invasive pregnancy testing is a suitable alternative option for detecting the foetal chromosomal status in a PGT cycle. However, the usefulness of non-invasive testing in PGT-M patients is still limited.
METHODS: This was a retrospective study of the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent PGT and invasive or non-invasive pregnancy testing after euploid blastocyst transfer at our IVF centre between January 2017 and December 2022.
RESULTS: In total, 321 patients were enrolled in this study, 138 (43.0%) received invasive pregnancy testing, and 183 (57.0%) patients underwent non-invasive testing. The mean age of the patients in Group 2 was higher than that of the patients in Group 1 (35.64 ± 4.74 vs. 31.04 ± 4.15 years, P < 0.001). The basal LH and AMH levels were higher in Group 1 than in Group 2 (4.30 ± 2.68 vs. 3.40 ± 1.88, P = 0.003; 5.55 ± 11.22 vs. 4.09 ± 3.55, P = 0.012), but the clinical outcomes were not significantly different. Furthermore, the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing invasive testing were similar to those of patients undergoing non-invasive testing with the same PGT indication.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that non-invasive pregnancy testing is a suitable alternative option for detecting the foetal chromosomal status in a PGT cycle. However, the usefulness of non-invasive testing in PGT-M patients is still limited.
摘要：
目的：确定非侵入性产前检测是否是妊娠患者植入前基因检测（PGT）的替代检测选择。
方法：这是一项回顾性研究，研究了2017年1月至2022年12月在我们的IVF中心进行整倍体囊胚移植后接受PGT和侵入性或非侵入性妊娠试验的患者的临床结局。
结果：总计，321名患者参加了这项研究，138（43.0%）接受了侵入性妊娠试验，183例(57.0%)患者接受了非侵入性检测。第2组患者的平均年龄高于第1组患者(35.64±4.74vs.31.04±4.15年，P<0.001)。第1组的基础LH和AMH水平高于第2组（4.30±2.68vs.3.40±1.88，P=0.003；5.55±11.22vs.4.09±3.55,P=0.012),但临床结局无显著差异.此外，接受侵入性试验的患者的临床结局与接受非侵入性试验且具有相同PGT适应症的患者相似.
结论：我们的结果表明，非侵入性妊娠试验是检测PGT周期中胎儿染色体状态的合适替代选择。然而,非侵入性检测在PGT-M患者中的应用仍然有限.
方法：这是一项回顾性研究，研究了2017年1月至2022年12月在我们的IVF中心进行整倍体囊胚移植后接受PGT和侵入性或非侵入性妊娠试验的患者的临床结局。
结果：总计，321名患者参加了这项研究，138（43.0%）接受了侵入性妊娠试验，183例(57.0%)患者接受了非侵入性检测。第2组患者的平均年龄高于第1组患者(35.64±4.74vs.31.04±4.15年，P<0.001)。第1组的基础LH和AMH水平高于第2组（4.30±2.68vs.3.40±1.88，P=0.003；5.55±11.22vs.4.09±3.55,P=0.012),但临床结局无显著差异.此外，接受侵入性试验的患者的临床结局与接受非侵入性试验且具有相同PGT适应症的患者相似.
结论：我们的结果表明，非侵入性妊娠试验是检测PGT周期中胎儿染色体状态的合适替代选择。然而,非侵入性检测在PGT-M患者中的应用仍然有限.
