Reduced pregnancy and live birth rates after in vitro fertilization in women with previous Caesarean section: a retrospective cohort study

J Vissers, T C Sluckin, C C Repelaer van Driel-Delprat, R Schats, C J M Groot, C B Lambalk, J W R Twisk, J A F Huirne, J Vissers, T C Sluckin, C C Repelaer van Driel-Delprat, R Schats, C J M Groot, C B Lambalk, J W R Twisk, J A F Huirne

Abstract

Study question: Does a previous Caesarean section affect reproductive outcomes, including live birth, in women after IVF or ICSI?

Summary answer: A previous Caesarean section impairs live birth rates after IVF or ICSI compared to a previous vaginal delivery.

What is known already: Rates of Caesarean sections are rising worldwide. Late sequelae of a Caesarean section related to a niche (Caesarean scar defect) include gynaecological symptoms and obstetric complications. A systematic review reported a lower pregnancy rate after a previous Caesarean section (RR 0.91 CI 0.87-0.95) compared to a previous vaginal delivery. So far, studies have been unable to causally differentiate between problems with fertilisation, and the transportation or implantation of an embryo. Studying an IVF population allows us to identify the effect of a previous Caesarean section on the implantation of embryos in relation to a previous vaginal delivery.

Study design, size, duration: We retrospectively studied the live birth rate in women who had an IVF or ICSI treatment at the IVF Centre, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, between 2006 and 2016 with one previous delivery. In total, 1317 women were included, of whom 334 had a previous caesarean section and 983 had previously delivered vaginally.

Participants/materials, setting, methods: All secondary infertile women, with only one previous delivery either by caesarean section or vaginal delivery, were included. If applicable, only the first fresh embryo transfer was included in the analyses. Patients who did not intend to undergo embryo transfer were excluded. The primary outcome was live birth. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used with adjustment for possible confounders ((i) age; (ii) pre-pregnancy BMI; (iii) pre-pregnancy smoking; (iv) previous fertility treatment; (v) indication for current fertility treatment: (a) tubal, (b) male factor and (c) endometriosis; (vi) embryo quality; and (vii) endometrial thickness), if applicable. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT).

Main results and the role of chance: Baseline characteristics of both groups were comparable. Live birth rates were significantly lower in women with a previous caesarean section than in women with a previous vaginal delivery, 15.9% (51/320) versus 23.3% (219/941) (OR 0.63 95% CI 0.45-0.87) in the ITT analyses. The rates were also lower for ongoing pregnancy (20.1 versus 28.1% (OR 0.64 95% CI 0.48-0.87)), clinical pregnancy (25.7 versus 33.8% (OR 0.68 95% CI 0.52-0.90)) and biochemical test (36.2 versus 45.5% (OR 0.68 95% CI 0.53-0.88)). The per protocol analyses showed the same differences (live birth rate OR 0.66 95% CI 0.47-0.93 and clinical pregnancy rate OR 0.72 95% CI 0.54-0.96).

Limitations, reasons for caution: This study is limited by its retrospective design. Furthermore, 56 (16.3%) cases lacked data regarding delivery outcomes, but these were equally distributed between the two groups.

Wider implications of the findings: The lower clinical pregnancy rates per embryo transfer indicate that implantation is hampered after a caesarean section. Its relation with a possible niche (caesarean scar defect) in the uterine caesarean scar needs further study. Our results should be discussed with clinicians and patients who consider an elective caesarean section.

Study funding/competing interest(s): Not applicable.

Trial registration number: This study has been registered in the Dutch Trial Register (Ref. No. NL7631 http://www.trialregister.nl).

Keywords: IVF; caesarean section; implantation; niche; subfertility.

© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of patient selection and exclusion criteria.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flowchart of reproductive outcomes after embryo transfer (IVF/ICSI) for previous Caesarean section versus previous vaginal delivery.

References

    1. Alvero R, Hearns-Stokes RM, Catherino WH, Leondires MP, Segars JH. The presence of blood in the transfer catheter negatively influences outcome at embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1848–1852.
    1. Barnhart KT, Sammel MD, Gracia CR, Chittams J, Hummel AC, Shaunik A. Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy in women with symptomatic first-trimester pregnancies. Fertil Steril 2006;86:36–43.
    1. Bider D, Blankstein J, Tur-Kaspa I. Fertility in anovulatory patients after primary cesarean section. J Reprod Med 1998;43:869–871.
    1. Clark EA, Silver RM. Long-term maternal morbidity associated with repeat cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;205:S2–S10.
    1. D'Antonio F, Timor-Tritsch IE, Palacios-Jaraquemada J, Monteagudo A, Buca D, Forlani F, Minneci G, Foti F, Manzoli L, Liberati M et al. . First-trimester detection of abnormally invasive placenta in high-risk women: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018;51:176–183.
    1. Diaz SD, Jones JE, Seryakov M, Mann WJ. Uterine rupture and dehiscence: ten-year review and case-control study. South Med J 2002;95:431–435.
    1. Evers EC, McDermott KC, Blomquist JL, Handa VL. Mode of delivery and subsequent fertility. Hum Reprod 2014;29:2569–2574.
    1. Gurol-Urganci I, Bou-Antoun S, Lim CP, Cromwell DA, Mahmood TA, Templeton A, Meulen JH. Impact of caesarean section on subsequent fertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2013;28:1943–1952.
    1. Gurol-Urganci I, Cromwell DA, Mahmood TA, Meulen JH, Templeton A. A population-based cohort study of the effect of caesarean section on subsequent fertility. Hum Reprod 2014;29:1320–1326.
    1. Hemminki E. Effects of cesarean section on fertility and abortions. J Reprod Med 1986;31:620–624.
    1. Hemminki E. Impact of caesarean section on future pregnancy--a review of cohort studies. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1996;10:366–379.
    1. Hurry DJ, Larsen B, Charles D. Effects of postcesarean section febrile morbidity on subsequent fertility. Obstet Gynecol 1984;64:256–260.
    1. Jolly J, Walker J, Bhabra K. Subsequent obstetric performance related to primary mode of delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999;106:227–232.
    1. Kendrick JS, Tierney EF, Lawson HW, Strauss LT, Klein L, Atrash HK. Previous cesarean delivery and the risk of ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1996;87:297–301.
    1. Khalil A, Syngelaki A, Maiz N, Zinevich Y, Nicolaides KH. Maternal age and adverse pregnancy outcome: a cohort study. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology: the Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in. Obstet Gynecol 2013;42:634–643.
    1. Mollison J, Porter M, Campbell D, Bhattacharya S. Primary mode of delivery and subsequent pregnancy. BJOG 2005;112:1061–1065.
    1. Moragianni VA, Cohen JD, Smith SE, Schinfeld JS, Somkuti SG, Lee A, Barmat LI. Effect of macroscopic or microscopic blood and mucus on the success rates of embryo transfers. Fertil Steril 2010;93:570–573.
    1. Murphy DJ, Stirrat GM, Heron J. The relationship between caesarean section and subfertility in a population-based sample of 14 541 pregnancies. Hum Reprod 2002;17:1914–1917.
    1. Mylonas I, Friese K. Indications for and risks of elective cesarean section. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2015;112:489–495.
    1. Naji O, Wynants L, Smith A, Abdallah Y, Stalder C, Sayasneh A, McIndoe A, Ghaem-Maghami S, Van Huffel S, Van Calster B et al. . Predicting successful vaginal birth after cesarean section using a model based on cesarean scar features examined by transvaginal sonography. Ultrasound Obstetrics Gynecol 2013;41:672–678.
    1. Nilstun T, Habiba M, Lingman G, Saracci R, Da Fre M, Cuttini M. Cesarean delivery on maternal request: can the ethical problem be solved by the principlist approach? BMC Med Ethics 2008;9:11.
    1. Oral E, Elter K. The impact of cesarean birth on subsequent fertility. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2007;19:238–243.
    1. Patounakis G, Ozcan MC, Chason RJ, Norian JM, Payson M, DeCherney AH, Yauger BJ. Impact of a prior cesarean delivery on embryo transfer: a prospective study. Fertil Steril 2016;106:311–316.
    1. Phillips JA, Martins WP, Nastri CO, Raine-Fenning NJ. Difficult embryo transfers or blood on catheter and assisted reproductive outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013;168:121–128.
    1. Porter M, Bhattacharya S, Teijlingen E, Templeton A. Does caesarean section cause infertility? Hum Reprod 2003;18:1983–1986.
    1. Saraswat L, Porter M, Bhattacharya S, Bhattacharya S. Caesarean section and tubal infertility: is there an association? Reprod Biomed Online 2008;17:259–264.
    1. Sewell EJ. 1998Cesarean Section - A Brief History. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in cooperation with the National Library of Medicine. Available:
    1. Silver RM. Delivery after previous cesarean: long-term maternal outcomes. Semin Perinatol 2010;34:258–266.
    1. Vergouw CG, Kostelijk EH, Doejaaren E, Hompes PG, Lambalk CB, Schats R. The influence of the type of embryo culture medium on neonatal birthweight after single embryo transfer in IVF. Hum Reprod 2012;27:2619–2626.
    1. Vervoort A, Vissers J, Hehenkamp W, Brolmann H, Huirne J. The effect of laparoscopic resection of large niches in the uterine caesarean scar on symptoms, ultrasound findings and quality of life: a prospective cohort study. BJOG 2018;125:317–325.
    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 Technolog Med Sci 2017;37:922–927.
    1. Wolf ME, Daling JR, Voigt LF. Prior cesarean delivery in women with secondary tubal infertility. Am J Public Health 1990;80:1382–1383.
    1. Wortman AC, Alexander JM. Placenta accreta, increta, and percreta. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2013;40:137–154.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する