Caesarean section defects may affect pregnancy outcomes after in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer: a retrospective study

Junrong Diao, Ge Gao, Yunshan Zhang, Xinyan Wang, Yinfeng Zhang, Ying Han, Aijun Du, Haining Luo, Junrong Diao, Ge Gao, Yunshan Zhang, Xinyan Wang, Yinfeng Zhang, Ying Han, Aijun Du, Haining Luo

Abstract

Background: Caesarean section rates are rising worldwide. One adverse effect of caesarean section reported in some studies is an increased risk of subfertility. Only a few studies have assessed the relationship between the previous mode of delivery and in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer (IVF/ICSI-ET) reproductive outcomes. In this study, we primarily investigated the impact of a history of caesarean section with or without defects on IVF/ICSI-ET outcomes compared to a vaginal delivery history.

Methods: This retrospective study included 834 women who had a IVF or ICSI treatment at our centre between 2015 and 2019 with a delivery history. In total, 401 women with a previous vaginal delivery (VD) were assigned to the VD group, and 433 women with a history of delivery by caesarean section were included, among whom 359 had a caesarean scar (CS) without a defect and were assigned to the CS group and 74 had a caesarean section defect (CSD) and were assigned to the CSD group. Baseline characteristics of the three groups were compared and analysed. Binary logistic regression analyses were performed to explore the association between clinical outcomes and different delivery modes.

Results: There were no significant differences in the live birth rate, biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, mean implantation rate or abnormal pregnancy rate between the CS and VD groups However, the live birth rate and mean implantation rate in the CSD group were significantly lower than those in the VD group (21.6 vs 36.4%, adjusted OR 0.50 [0.27-0.9]; 0.25 ± 0.39 vs 0.35 ± 0.41, adjusted OR 0.90 [0.81-0.99]). Among women aged ≤ 35 years, the subgroup analyses showed that the live birth rate, biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and mean implantation rate in the CSD group were all significantly lower than those in the VD group (21.4 vs 45.8%, adjusted OR 0.35[0.15 ~ 0.85]; 38.1 vs 59.8%, adjusted OR 0.52[0.24-0.82]; 31.0 vs 55.6%, adjusted OR 0.43[0.19-0.92]; 0.27 ± 0.43 vs 0.43 ± 0.43, adjusted OR 0.85[0.43 ± 0.43]). For women older than 35 years, there was no statistically significant difference in any pregnancy outcome among the three groups.

Conclusions: This study suggested that the existence of a CS without a defect does not decrease the live birth rate after IVF or ICSI compared with a previous VD. However, the presence of a CSD in women, especially young women (age ≤ 35 years), significantly impaired the chances of subsequent pregnancy.

Keywords: Caesarean section defect; In vitro fertilization-embryo transfer; Pregnancy.

Conflict of interest statement

No author has any potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of reproductive outcomes after IVF/ICSI-ET

References

    1. Boerma T, Ronsmans C, Melesse DY, Barros AJD, Barros FC, Juan L, et al. Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1341–1348. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31928-7.
    1. Nilstun T, Habiba M, Lingman G, Saracci R, Da Frè M, et al. Cesarean delivery on maternal request: can the ethical problem be solved by the principlist approach? BMC Med Ethics. 2008;17(9):11. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-9-11.
    1. Wortman AC, Alexander JM. Placenta accreta, increta, and percreta. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2013;40:137–154. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2012.12.002.
    1. Mylonas I, Friese K. Indications for and risks of elective cesarean section. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015;112:489–495.
    1. Schemann K, Patterson JA, Nippita TA, Ford JB, Roberts CL. Variation in hospital caesarean section rates for women with at least one previous caesarean section: a population based cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;19(15):179. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0609-x.
    1. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990–2014. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0148343. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148343.
    1. Sandall J, Tribe RM, Avery L, et al. Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children. Lancet. 2018;392:1349–1357. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31930-5.
    1. Keag OE, Norman JE, Stock SJ. Long-term risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2018;15:e1002494. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002494.
    1. Miller ES, Hahn K, Grobman WA, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Health Policy Committee Consequences of a primary elective cesarean delivery across the reproductive life. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(4):789–797. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182878b43.
    1. Gregory KD, Jackson S, Korst L, Fridman M. Cesarean versus vaginal delivery: whose risks? Whose benefits? Am J Perinatol. 2012;29(1):7–18. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1285829.
    1. Gurol-Urganci I, Bou-Antoun S, Lim CP, Cromwell DA, Mahmood TA, Templeton A, et al. Impact of caesarean section on subsequent fertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(7):1943–1952. doi: 10.1093/humrep/det130.
    1. Wang YQ, Yin TL, Xu WM, Qi QR, Wang XC, Yang J. Reproductive outcomes in women with prior cesarean section undergoing in vitro fertilization: a retrospective case-control study. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technol Med Sci. 2017;37(6):922–927.
    1. Zhang N, Chen H, Xu Z, Wang B, Sun H, Hu Y. Pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer in patient with previous cesarean scar. Med Sci Monit. 2016;16(22):3288–3295. doi: 10.12659/MSM.900581.
    1. Patounakis G, Ozcan MC, Chason RJ, Norian JM, Payson M, DeCherney AH, et al. Impact of a prior cesarean delivery on embryo transfer: a prospective study. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(2):311–316. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.03.045.
    1. Bij de Vaate AJ, van der Voet LF, Naji O, Witmer M, Veersema S, Brölmann HA, Bourne T, Huirne JA. Prevalence, potential risk factors for development and symptoms related to the presence of uterine niches following cesarean section: systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(4):372–82. doi: 10.1002/uog.13199.
    1. Florio P, Filippeschi M, Moncini I, Marra E, Franchini M, Gubbini G. Hysteroscopic treatment of the cesarean-induced isthmocele in restoring infertility. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2012;24(3):180–186. doi: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e3283521202.
    1. Allornuvor GF, Xue M, Zhu X, Xu D. The definition, aetiology, presentation, diagnosis and management of previous caesarean scar defects. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;33(8):759–763. doi: 10.3109/01443615.2013.816663.
    1. Naji O, Wynants L, Smith A, Abdallah Y, Saso S, Stalder C, et al. Does the presence of a caesarean section scar affect implantation site and early pregnancy outcome in women attending an early pregnancy assessment unit? Hum Reprod. 2013;28(6):1489–1496. doi: 10.1093/humrep/det110.
    1. Desai NN, Goldstein J, Rowland DY, Goldfarb JM. Morphological evaluation of human embryos and derivation of an embryo quality scoring system specific for day 3 embryos: a preliminary study. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(10):2190–2196. doi: 10.1093/humrep/15.10.2190.
    1. Hemminki E, Shelley J, Gissler M. Mode of delivery and problems in subsequent births: a register-based study from Finland. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:169–177. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.11.007.
    1. Mollison J, Porter M, Campbell D, Bhattacharya S. Primary mode of delivery and subsequent pregnancy. BJOG. 2005;112:1061–1065. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00651.x.
    1. Smith GCS, Wood AM, Pell JP, Dobbie R. First cesarean birth and subsequent fertility. Fertil Steril. 2006;85:90–95. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.07.1289.
    1. Tollanes MC, Melve KK, Irgens LM, Skjaerven R. Reduced fertility after cesarean delivery: a maternal choice. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:1256–1263. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000292089.18717.9f.
    1. Vissers J, Sluckin TC, van Driel-Delprat CCR, Schats R, Groot CJM, Lambalk CB, Twisk JWR, Huirne JAF. Reduced pregnancy and live birth rates after in vitro fertilization in women with previous caesarean section: a retrospective cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2020;35(3):595–604. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dez295.
    1. Huang J, Lin J, Cai R, et al. Effect of a prior cesarean delivery on pregnancy outcomes of frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study in a freeze-all setting. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99(10):1303–1310. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13863.
    1. Cimadomo D, Fabozzi G, Vaiarelli A, et al. Impact of maternal age on oocyte and embryo competence. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2018;29(9):327. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2018.00327.
    1. Vissers J, Hehenkamp W, Lambalk CB, Huirne JA. Post-caesarean section niche-related impaired fertility: hypothetical mechanisms. Hum Reprod. 2020;35(7):1484–1494. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deaa094.
    1. Lousse JC, Defrere S, Van Langendonckt A, et al. Iron storage is significantly increased in peritoneal macrophages of endometriosis patients and correlates with iron overload in peritoneal fluid. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:1668–1675. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.02.103.
    1. Ben-Nagi J, Walker A, Jurkovic D, Yazbek J, Aplin JD. Effect of cesarean delivery on the endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;106(1):30–34. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.02.019.
    1. Moreno I, Codoner FM, Vilella F, et al. Evidence that the endometrial microbiota has an effect on implantation success or failure. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:684–703. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.09.075.
    1. Thurmond AS, Harvey WJ, Smith SA. Cesarean section scar as a cause of abnormal vaginal bleeding: diagnosis by sonohysterography. J Ultrasound Med. 1999;18:13–16. doi: 10.7863/jum.1999.18.1.13.
    1. Reubinoff BE, Samueloff A, Ben-Haim M, Friedler S, Schenker JG, Lewin A. Is the obstetric outcome of in vitro fertilized singleton gestations different from natural ones? A controlled study. Fertil Steril. 1997;67(6):1077–1083. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(97)81442-2.
    1. Sullivan EA, Chapman MG, Wang YA, Adamson GD. Population-based study of cesarean section after in vitro fertilization in Australia. Birth. 2010;37(3):184–191. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2010.00405.x.
    1. Qin J, Liu X, Sheng X, Wang H, Gao S. 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. 2016;105(1):73–85.e1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.09.007.
    1. Srebnik N, Miron-Shatz T, Rolison JJ, Hanoch Y, Tsafrir A. Physician recommendation for invasive prenatal testing: the case of the ‘precious baby’. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(11):3007–3011. doi: 10.1093/humrep/det354.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi