4.4 Article

Birthweight of singletons born after blastocyst-stage or cleavage-stage transfer: analysis of a data set from three randomized controlled trials

Journal

JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS
Volume 37, Issue 1, Pages 127-132

Publisher

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-019-01641-4

Keywords

Cleavage-stage; Blastocyst-stage; Birthweight; Perinatal outcome

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose The present post hoc analysis aims to study the neonatal data of singletons born from three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the outcome of day 3 and day 5 transfers. Methods Our analysis included 208 liveborn singletons from three existing RCTs (publication dates 2004, 2005, and 2006), 93 children from cleavage-stage transfers and 115 from blastocyst-stage transfers. Vanishing twins were excluded from the analysis. Singleton birthweight was the primary outcome measure. Gestational age and gender of the newborn were accounted for in the multiple regression analysis, along with other confounding factors, such as maternal age, BMI, parity, and smoking behavior. Results There was no significant difference in gestational age (median, interquartile range) between cleavage-stage transfer (275 days; 267-281) and blastocyst-stage transfer (277 days; 270-281; p = 0.22). Singleton birthweight (median, interquartile range) was not significantly different between cleavage-stage transfer (3330 g; 3020-3610) and blastocyst-stage transfer (3236 g; 2930-3630; p = 0.40), even following multivariable regression analysis to control for potential maternal and newborn confounders. Conclusion The gestational age and birthweight were not significantly different after cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage transfers. One limitation to be recognized is the age of the data, with original data collection dates from 2001 to 2004. Additionally, the RCTs used for the present analysis have a fairly young age restriction.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available