
Background & Objective: To study whether children born after vitrified–thawed embryo transfers (ETs) using donated oocytes have worse perinatal outcomes when compared with fresh ET. Methods: Patients with a first singleton live birth after single blastocyst transfer were compared using multivariable regression analysis to account for potential confounding factors. The primary outcome was birth weight. Secondary outcomes were birth weight z-scores and percentiles, small/large for gestational age, gestational age at delivery, gender, prematurity (<37 weeks and <32 weeks), neonatal morbidity (Apgar scores and need for neonatal intensive care) and maternal morbidity (gestational hypertensive disorders, gestational diabetes and caesarean delivery). Results: There was no significant difference between the fresh ET and FET groups in terms of mean birth weight and birth weight z-scores, in both the unadjusted and confounder-adjusted models. However, artificial endometrial preparation was associated with a higher birth weight and birth weight z-scores when compared with a transfer in a natural cycle. Although a 1-day statistically significant difference in gestational age at birth was detected, premature birth rates (<37 weeks) did not vary significantly between groups. No other statistically significant differences were found in the remaining neonatal and maternal outcomes studies between the fresh ET and FET groups. Conclusion: No significant difference in birth weight and prematurity rates between fresh or frozen embryo transfers (FETs) in new-borns after oocyte donation was found.
Background & Objective: To study whether children born after vitrified–thawed embryo transfers (ETs) using donated oocytes have worse perinatal outcomes when compared with fresh ET. Methods: Patients with a first singleton live birth after single blastocyst transfer were compared using multivariable regression analysis to account for potential confounding factors. The primary outcome was birth weight. Secondary outcomes were birth weight z-scores and percentiles, small/large for gestational age, gestational age at delivery, gender, prematurity (<37 weeks and <32 weeks), neonatal morbidity (Apgar scores and need for neonatal intensive care) and maternal morbidity (gestational hypertensive disorders, gestational diabetes and caesarean delivery). Results: There was no significant difference between the fresh ET and FET groups in terms of mean birth weight and birth weight z-scores, in both the unadjusted and confounder-adjusted models. However, artificial endometrial preparation was associated with a higher birth weight and birth weight z-scores when compared with a transfer in a natural cycle. Although a 1-day statistically significant difference in gestational age at birth was detected, premature birth rates (<37 weeks) did not vary significantly between groups. No other statistically significant differences were found in the remaining neonatal and maternal outcomes studies between the fresh ET and FET groups. Conclusion: No significant difference in birth weight and prematurity rates between fresh or frozen embryo transfers (FETs) in new-borns after oocyte donation was found.
ART / FET (frozen embryo transfer) / endometrial preparation / oocyte donation / birth weight / small for gestational age / prematurity / perinatal outcomes / gestational hypertension / caesarean delivery., ART / FET (frozen embryo transfer) / endometrial preparation / oocyte donation / birth weight / small for gestational age / prematurity / perinatal outcomes / gestational hypertension / caesarean delivery
ART / FET (frozen embryo transfer) / endometrial preparation / oocyte donation / birth weight / small for gestational age / prematurity / perinatal outcomes / gestational hypertension / caesarean delivery., ART / FET (frozen embryo transfer) / endometrial preparation / oocyte donation / birth weight / small for gestational age / prematurity / perinatal outcomes / gestational hypertension / caesarean delivery
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
