Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To investigate variations in pregnancy outcomes between preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) and conventional in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) treatment across distinct groups categorized by oocyte and blastocyst counts. Because the live birth rate (LBR) of assisted reproductive technology treatment is influenced by the number of oocytes and blastocysts retrieved. Our previous study indicated comparable cumulative LBRs (CLBRs) between conventional IVF-ET and PGT-A.
METHODS: A post hoc exploratory secondary analysis of data from a multicenter randomized controlled trial compared the CLBRs between conventional IVF-ET and PGT-A.
METHODS: Academic fertility centers.
METHODS: A total of 1,212 infertile women with a good prognosis for a live birth after PGT-A or conventional IVF-ET were included.
METHODS: Women underwent PGT-A or conventional IVF-ET.
METHODS: Cumulative LBR, cumulative clinical pregnancy loss (CPL) rate, and good birth outcome.
RESULTS: In the study, all participants were divided into 4 groups on the basis of quartiles of the number of oocytes retrieved, or blastocysts. There was an interaction between whether to perform PGT-A and the oocyte numbers category on cumulative CPL and biochemical pregnancy loss. Chi-square analysis revealed that the PGT-A group showed a lower cumulative frequency of CPL compared with the IVF-ET group (PGT-A vs. IVF-ET: 5.9% vs. 13.7%; relative risk = 0.430; 95% confidence interval, 0.243-0.763) when the number of oocytes retrieved was <15. Although there was no interaction on CLBR when the retrieved oocyte count ranged from 19-23 (19≤ oocytes <23) the PGT-A group exhibited a lower CLBR than the conventional IVF-ET group (PGT-A vs IVF-ET: 75.6% vs 87.1%; relative risk = 0.868; 95% confidence interval, 0.774-0.973), and the average body weight of newborns from the PGT-A group was approximately 142 g lower than that of the conventional IVF-ET group (PGT-A vs. IVF-ET: 3,334 ± 479 g vs. 3,476 ± 473 g). However, no statistically significant difference in the CLBR was observed between the PGT-A and IVF-ET groups in the other oocyte or blastocyst groups.
CONCLUSIONS: When the number of retrieved eggs was <15, the PGT-A group exhibited a lower cumulative CPL rate but no higher CLBR than the conventional IVF-ET group.
BACKGROUND: NCT03118141.
METHODS: A post hoc exploratory secondary analysis of data from a multicenter randomized controlled trial compared the CLBRs between conventional IVF-ET and PGT-A.
METHODS: Academic fertility centers.
METHODS: A total of 1,212 infertile women with a good prognosis for a live birth after PGT-A or conventional IVF-ET were included.
METHODS: Women underwent PGT-A or conventional IVF-ET.
METHODS: Cumulative LBR, cumulative clinical pregnancy loss (CPL) rate, and good birth outcome.
RESULTS: In the study, all participants were divided into 4 groups on the basis of quartiles of the number of oocytes retrieved, or blastocysts. There was an interaction between whether to perform PGT-A and the oocyte numbers category on cumulative CPL and biochemical pregnancy loss. Chi-square analysis revealed that the PGT-A group showed a lower cumulative frequency of CPL compared with the IVF-ET group (PGT-A vs. IVF-ET: 5.9% vs. 13.7%; relative risk = 0.430; 95% confidence interval, 0.243-0.763) when the number of oocytes retrieved was <15. Although there was no interaction on CLBR when the retrieved oocyte count ranged from 19-23 (19≤ oocytes <23) the PGT-A group exhibited a lower CLBR than the conventional IVF-ET group (PGT-A vs IVF-ET: 75.6% vs 87.1%; relative risk = 0.868; 95% confidence interval, 0.774-0.973), and the average body weight of newborns from the PGT-A group was approximately 142 g lower than that of the conventional IVF-ET group (PGT-A vs. IVF-ET: 3,334 ± 479 g vs. 3,476 ± 473 g). However, no statistically significant difference in the CLBR was observed between the PGT-A and IVF-ET groups in the other oocyte or blastocyst groups.
CONCLUSIONS: When the number of retrieved eggs was <15, the PGT-A group exhibited a lower cumulative CPL rate but no higher CLBR than the conventional IVF-ET group.
BACKGROUND: NCT03118141.
摘要：
目的：辅助生殖技术的活产率受到卵母细胞和胚泡数量的影响。我们先前的研究表明，常规体外受精和胚胎移植（IVF-ET）和非整倍体的植入前遗传测试（PGT-A）之间的累积活产率具有可比性。这项研究的目的是调查PGT-A和常规IVF-ET之间的妊娠结局差异，这些差异按卵母细胞和胚泡计数分类。
方法：对来自多中心随机对照试验的数据进行事后探索性二次分析，比较了传统IVF-ET与传统IVF-ET之间的累积活产率PGT-A.
方法：学术生育中心。
方法：共纳入1,212名在PGT-A或常规IVF-ET后活产预后良好的不孕妇女。
方法：接受PGT-A或常规IVF-ET的妇女主要结局指标：累积活产率，累积临床妊娠损失率和良好的分娩结局。
结果：在研究中，根据获取的卵母细胞数或囊胚数的四分位数,将所有参与者分为4组.在累积临床妊娠丢失和生化妊娠丢失是否进行PGT-A和卵母细胞数量类别之间存在相互作用。卡方分析显示，与IVF-ET组相比，PGT-A组临床妊娠丢失的累积频率较低（PGT-AvsIVF-ET：5.9％vs13.7％；P=0.003；RR=0.430；95CI，0.243-0.763）。虽然CLBR上没有相互作用，当检索到的卵母细胞计数范围为19至23（19≤卵母细胞<23）时，PGT-A组的CLBR低于常规IVF-ET组（PGT-AvsIVF-ET：75.6％vs87.1％；P=0.013；RR=0.868；95CI，0.774-0.973），PGT-A组新生儿的平均体重比常规IVF-ET组低约142g（PGT-AvsIVF-ET：3334±479gvs3476±473g；P=0.028）。然而,在其他卵母细胞组或囊胚组中,PGT-A组和IVF-ET组之间的CLBR差异无统计学意义.
结论：当取出的卵子数<15时，PGT-A组的累积临床妊娠丢失率低于常规IVF-ET组，但CLBR不高于常规IVF-ET组。
方法：对来自多中心随机对照试验的数据进行事后探索性二次分析，比较了传统IVF-ET与传统IVF-ET之间的累积活产率PGT-A.
方法：学术生育中心。
方法：共纳入1,212名在PGT-A或常规IVF-ET后活产预后良好的不孕妇女。
方法：接受PGT-A或常规IVF-ET的妇女主要结局指标：累积活产率，累积临床妊娠损失率和良好的分娩结局。
结果：在研究中，根据获取的卵母细胞数或囊胚数的四分位数,将所有参与者分为4组.在累积临床妊娠丢失和生化妊娠丢失是否进行PGT-A和卵母细胞数量类别之间存在相互作用。卡方分析显示，与IVF-ET组相比，PGT-A组临床妊娠丢失的累积频率较低（PGT-AvsIVF-ET：5.9％vs13.7％；P=0.003；RR=0.430；95CI，0.243-0.763）。虽然CLBR上没有相互作用，当检索到的卵母细胞计数范围为19至23（19≤卵母细胞<23）时，PGT-A组的CLBR低于常规IVF-ET组（PGT-AvsIVF-ET：75.6％vs87.1％；P=0.013；RR=0.868；95CI，0.774-0.973），PGT-A组新生儿的平均体重比常规IVF-ET组低约142g（PGT-AvsIVF-ET：3334±479gvs3476±473g；P=0.028）。然而,在其他卵母细胞组或囊胚组中,PGT-A组和IVF-ET组之间的CLBR差异无统计学意义.
结论：当取出的卵子数<15时，PGT-A组的累积临床妊娠丢失率低于常规IVF-ET组，但CLBR不高于常规IVF-ET组。
