Relationship of vaginal bacteria and inflammation with conception and early pregnancy loss following in-vitro fertilization

Linda O Eckert, Donald E Moore, Dorothy L Patton, Kathy J Agnew, David A Eschenbach, Linda O Eckert, Donald E Moore, Dorothy L Patton, Kathy J Agnew, David A Eschenbach

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was investigate the impact of vaginal flora and vaginal inflammation on conception and early pregnancy loss following in-vitro fertilization (IVF).

Methods: We enrolled 91 women who were undergoing IVF. At embryo transfer (ET), all of the women had quantitative vaginal culture, ET catheter-tip culture, and vaginal Gram stain scored for bacterial vaginosis and quantitated for polymorphonuclear leukocytes (PMNs). Conception and early pregnancy loss were compared with culture and Gram stain results. Statistical analyses included the Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test and the Mann-Whitney U-test.

Results: The overall live birth rate (LBR) was 30% (27/91), and the rate of early pregnancy loss was 34% (14/41). In women with bacterial vaginosis, intermediate flora and normal flora, the conception rates were 30% (3/10), 39% (12/31) and 52% (26/50), respectively (p = 0.06 for trend). Early pregnancy loss occurred in 33% (1/3), 42% (5/12) and 31% (8/26) of women, respectively (p = 0.06, comparing intermediate and normal flora). The vaginal log concentration of hydrogen peroxide-producing lactobacilli was 7.3 +/- 1.7 in women with a live birth (n = 27) and 4.9 +/- 2.5 in those with early pregnancy loss (n = 14) (p = 0.1).

Conclusions: IVF patients with bacterial vaginosis and with a decreased vaginal log concentration of hydrogen peroxide-producing lactobacilli may have decreased conception rates and increased rates of early pregnancy loss. A larger prospective treatment trial designed to evaluate the impact on IVF outcomes of optimizing the vaginal flora prior to IVF may be warranted.

References

    1. Clin Infect Dis. 1993 Jun;16 Suppl 4:S273-81
    1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Jan;166(1 Pt 1):100-3
    1. Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Mar;85(3):387-90
    1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Aug;175(2):435-41
    1. Hum Reprod. 1996 Aug;11(8):1687-9
    1. J Reprod Med. 1997 May;42(5):281-6
    1. Fertil Steril. 1998 Aug;70(2):214-8
    1. Fertil Steril. 1998 Nov;70(5):866-70
    1. Hum Reprod. 1999 May;14(5):1243-9
    1. Fertil Steril. 1999 Jun;71(6):1144-6
    1. BMJ. 1999 Jul 24;319(7204):220-3
    1. Lancet. 1999 Aug 21;354(9179):651-2
    1. Hum Reprod. 1999 Sep;14(9):2411-5
    1. Fertil Steril. 1999 Oct;72(4):730-2
    1. Hum Reprod. 1999 Jan;14(1):60-4
    1. Rev Reprod. 2000 Sep;5(3):164-74
    1. Fertil Steril. 2000 Dec;74(6):1118-24
    1. Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Feb;97(2):211-9
    1. Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Sep;100(3):456-63
    1. Ann Intern Med. 1986 Feb;104(2):187-93
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1989 Feb;27(2):251-6
    1. Am J Surg Pathol. 1990 Feb;14(2):167-75
    1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990 Sep;163(3):1016-21; discussion 1021-3
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1991 Feb;29(2):297-301
    1. Hum Reprod. 1994 May;9(5):861-3

Source: PubMed

3
Subskrybuj