Pregnancy, Delivery, and Neonatal Outcomes of In Vitro Fertilization-Embryo Transfer in Patient with Previous Cesarean Scar

Ningyuan Zhang, Hua Chen, Zhipeng Xu, Bin Wang, Haixiang Sun, Yali Hu, Ningyuan Zhang, Hua Chen, Zhipeng Xu, Bin Wang, Haixiang Sun, Yali Hu

Abstract

BACKGROUND What role should previous cesarean section play in affecting clinical pregnancy outcomes and avoiding the complications of in vitro fertilization? In this article, we focus on elective single-embryo transfer (eSET) versus double-embryo transfer (DET) and assess the clinical efficacy and safety of eSET in patients who have a previous cesarean scar. MATERIAL AND METHODS The pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes of 130 patients who had a previous cesarean scar and received in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) were retrospectively analyzed. The number of transferred embryos was chosen depending on patients' desire after acknowledging all benefits and risks, including eSET (eSET group, n=56) and DET (DET group, n=74). A total of 101 patients with previous vaginal delivery receiving IVF-ET in the same period were included as a control group. RESULTS The pregnancy rates, multiple birth rates, abortion rates, ectopic pregnancy rates, gestational age at delivery, preterm birth rates, neonatal birth weight, and take-home baby rates were similar between the previous cesarean section group and the previous vaginal delivery group. A previous cesarean section scar did not affect embryo implantation and pregnancy outcomes in IVF. In the eSET and DET groups of previous cesarean section patients, the embryo implantation rates, pregnancy rates, abortion rates, and take-home baby rates were similar. However, the rate of multiple pregnancies reached 50% in the DET group, which led to more preterm births and lower birth weight. CONCLUSIONS Elective single-embryo transfer is a well-accepted strategy to avoid multiple pregnancies and improve the obstetric and neonatal outcomes of singleton pregnancy in IVF patients with a previous cesarean section.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Pregnancy and delivery outcomes of IVF-ET in patients with previous cesarean delivery and patients with vaginal delivery.

References

    1. World Health Organization. World Health Statistics. 2015.
    1. Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gulmezoglu AM, et al. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007–08. Lancet. 2010;375:490–99.
    1. Tomic V, Tomic J. Neonatal outcome of IVF singletons versus naturally conceived in women aged 35 years and over. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;284:1411–16.
    1. Hemminki E. Effects of cesarean section on fertility and abortions. J Reprod Med. 1986;31:620–24.
    1. Naji O, Wynants L, Smith A, 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;28:1489–96.
    1. Ismail L, Mittal M, Kalu E. IVF twins: buy one get one free? J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2012;38:252–57.
    1. Gardeil F, Daly S, Turner MJ. Uterine rupture in pregnancy reviewed. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1994;56:107–10.
    1. Yap OW, Kim ES, Laros RK., Jr Maternal and neonatal outcomes after uterine rupture in labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184:1576–81.
    1. Saciragic L, Mehdizadeh S, Amankwah Y, Singh S. Spontaneous uterine rupture of an unscarred uterus in a twin pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2015;37:391–92.
    1. Osborn DA, Williams TR, Craig BM. Cesarean scar pregnancy: Sonographic and magnetic resonance imaging findings, complications, and treatment. J Ultrasound Med. 2012;31:1449–56.
    1. Maymon R, Halperin R, Mendlovic S, et al. Ectopic pregnancies in Caesarean section scars: The 8 year experience of one medical centre. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:278–84.
    1. Chiang AJ, La V, Chou CP, et al. Ectopic pregnancy in a cesarean section scar. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:2388–89.
    1. Wang CB, Tseng CJ. Primary evacuation therapy for Cesarean scar pregnancy: Three new cases and review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;27:222–26.
    1. Maymon R, Halperin R, Mendlovic S, et al. Ectopic pregnancies in a Caesarean scar: Review of the medical approach to an iatrogenic complication. Hum Reprod Update. 2004;10:515–23.
    1. Seow KM, Huang LW, Lin YH, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy: Issues in management. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;23:247–53.
    1. Lurie S, Glezerman M. The history of cesarean technique. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:1803–6.
    1. Declercq E, Young R, Cabral H, Ecker J. Is a rising cesarean delivery rate inevitable? Trends in industrialized countries, 1987 to 2007. Birth. 2011;38:99–104.
    1. Witt WP, Wisk LE, Cheng ER, et al. Determinants of cesarean delivery in the US: A lifecourse approach. Matern Child Health J. 2015;19:84–93.
    1. Eijsink JJ, van der Leeuw-Harmsen L, van der Linden PJ. Pregnancy after Caesarean section: Fewer or later? Hum Reprod. 2008;23:543–47.
    1. Rheinboldt M, Osborn D, Delproposto Z. Cesarean section scar ectopic pregnancy: A clinical case series. J Ultrasound. 2015;18:191–95.
    1. Riaz RM, Williams TR, Craig BM, Myers DT. Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy: Imaging features, current treatment options, and clinical outcomes. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40:2589–99.
    1. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:3–8.
    1. Boyle B, McConkey R, Garne E, et al. Trends in the prevalence, risk and pregnancy outcome of multiple births with congenital anomaly: A registry-based study in 14 European countries 1984–2007. BJOG. 2013;120:707–16.
    1. Takemura Y, Osuga Y, Fujimoto A, et al. Increased risk of placenta previa is associated with endometriosis and tubal factor infertility in assisted reproductive technology pregnancy. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2013;29:113–15.
    1. Conley D, Strully KW. Birth weight, infant mortality, and race: Twin comparisons and genetic/environmental inputs. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75:2446–54.
    1. Sazonova A, Kallen K, Thurin-Kjellberg A, et al. Neonatal and maternal outcomes comparing women undergoing two in vitro fertilization (IVF) singleton pregnancies and women undergoing one IVF twin pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:731–37.
    1. Scotland GS, McLernon D, Kurinczuk JJ, et al. Minimising twins in in vitro fertilisation: a modelling study assessing the costs, consequences and cost-utility of elective single versus double embryo transfer over a 20-year time horizon. BJOG. 2011;118:1073–83.
    1. Bahtiyar MO, Julien S, Robinson JN, et al. Prior cesarean delivery is not associated with an increased risk of stillbirth in a subsequent pregnancy: Analysis of U.S. perinatal mortality data, 1995–1997. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:1373–78.
    1. Roberts SA, McGowan L, Vail A, Brison DR. The use of single embryo transfer to reduce the incidence of twins: Implications and questions for practice from the ‘towardSET?’ project. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2011;14:89–96.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere