Objective: To evaluate the current evidence of pregnancy outcomes among couples with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) with abnormal karyotypes vs. those with normal karyotypes and among couples with RPL and abnormal karyotypes after receiving expectant management vs. preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD).
Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Setting: Academic medical centers.
Patient(s): Pregnancy outcomes in 6,301 couples with RPL who conceived without medical intervention in 11 studies were analyzed. However, only 2 studies addressed the outcomes of couples with RPL and abnormal karyotypes after expectant management (75 cases) vs. PGD (50 cases).
Intervention(s): None.
Main Outcome Measure(s): The pregnancy outcomes in couples with RPL with abnormal and normal karyotypes across included studies were evaluated.
Result(s): Compared with those with a normal karyotype, a significantly lower first pregnancy live birth rate (LBR) was found in couples with RPL with abnormal karyotypes (58.5% vs. 71.9%; odds ratio [OR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.65; I =27%). A markedly decreased first pregnancy LBR was found in couples with a translocation (52.9% vs. 72.4%; OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31-0.61; I =33%) but not in couples with an inversion. However, the differences in accumulated LBR (81.4% vs. 74.8%; OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.03; I = 0) were nonsignificant, whereas the miscarriage rate was distinctly higher in couples with RPL and abnormal karyotypes (53.0% vs. 34.7%; OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.69-2.89; I = 0). Compared with those who chose expectant management, differences in accumulated LBR were nonsignificant (60% vs. 68%; OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.11-2.62; I =71%), whereas the miscarriage rate (24% vs. 65.3%; OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.04-0.51; I = 45) was markedly low in couples with RPL and abnormal karyotypes who chose PGD.
Conclusion(s): Couples with RPL and abnormal karyotypes had a higher miscarriage rate than couples with normal karyotypes but achieved a noninferior accumulated LBR through multiple conception attempts. In couples with RPL and abnormal karyotypes, PGD treatment did not increase the accumulated LBR but markedly reduced miscarriage rate compared with expectant management.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.08.008 | DOI Listing |
Hum Reprod
December 2024
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya City University, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.
Study Question: Can antinuclear antibodies (ANA) affect the subsequent live birth rate (LBR) in patients with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) in the absence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL)?
Summary Answer: Women with unexplained RPL have a high probability of live birth following a positive pregnancy test (>70%), being similar between those with positive and negative ANA testing, regardless of the cut-off value.
What Is Known Already: The RPL guidelines of the ESHRE state that 'ANA testing can be considered for explanatory purposes'. However, there have been a limited number of studies on this issue and sample sizes have been small, and the impact of ANA on the pregnancy prognosis is unclear.
Minerva Obstet Gynecol
December 2024
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Campinas University (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil.
Reproductive failures, such as recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) and recurrent implantation failures (RIF) are a major challenge for reproductive medicine. The current management of RPL and RIF cases identifies some causes for unsuccessful pregnancy in up to half of patients. Several studies have suggested that immune disorders are responsible for an important portion of unexplained cases of RPL and RIF.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBMC Pregnancy Childbirth
December 2024
Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Background: The treatment for recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) has been addressed in international guidelines. However, limited studies have investigated the risk factors associated with pregnancy and live birth outcomes in patients with RPL after treatment. The objective of this study was to offer a comprehensive assessment of the risk factors for pregnancy loss in patients with a history of RPL following therapeutic interventions.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Matern Fetal Neonatal Med
December 2025
Department of First Clinical Medical College, Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, Harbin, China.
Purpose: This review aims to identify and analyze the risk factors associated with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) and to evaluate the effectiveness of various predictive models in estimating the risk of RPL. The review also explores recent advancements in machine learning algorithms that can enhance the accuracy of these predictive models. The ultimate goal is to provide a comprehensive understanding of how these tools can aid in the personalized management of women experiencing RPL.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFInt J Mol Sci
November 2024
Department of Genetics, Physical Anthropology and Animal Physiology, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Sarriena auzoa, 48940 Leioa, Spain.
Recurrent Pregnancy Loss (RPL), also named Recurrent Spontaneous Abortion (RSA), is a common fertility problem that refers to at least two consecutive pregnancy losses and affects 1-2% of couples all over the world. Despite common causes such as genetic abnormalities, uterine anomalies or hormonal and metabolic disorders, there is still a huge challenge in identifying the causes of about 40-60% of RPL patients. Circular RNAs (circRNAs) are endogenous ncRNAs with a unique closed-loop and single-stranded structure.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!