Does confined placental mosaicism account for adverse perinatal outcomes in IVF pregnancies?

Does confined placental mosaicism account for adverse perinatal outcomes in IVF pregnancies?

BACKGROUND IVF singletons have poorer perinatal outcomes than singletons from spontaneous conceptions. This may be due to the influence of ovarian stimulation on the chromosomal constitution of the embryos which could be translated into localized chromosomal anomalies in the placenta. The aim of thi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Human reproduction (Oxford) Vol. 23; no. 5; pp. 1107 - 1112
Main Authors: Jacod, B.C., Lichtenbelt, K.D., Schuring-Blom, G.H., Laven, J.S.E., van Opstal, D., Eijkemans, M.J.C., Macklon, N.S.
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Oxford Oxford University Press 01-05-2008
Oxford Publishing Limited (England)
Subjects:
Adult
Biological and medical sciences
Chorionic Villi Sampling
CPM
CVS
Female
Fertilization in Vitro
Fetus - cytology
Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics
Humans
IVF
Karyotyping
Medical sciences
Mosaicism
Ovulation Induction - adverse effects
perinatal outcomes
Placenta - cytology
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Outcome - genetics
preimplantation genetic screening
Retrospective Studies
Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic
IVF
CPM
CVS
perinatal outcomes
preimplantation genetic screening
Prognosis
Fetal membrane
Blastocyst
Assisted procreation
Perinatal
Medical screening
In vitro fertilization embryo transfer
Pregnancy
Screening
Vertebrata
Mammalia
Placenta
Genetics
Mosaicism
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:BACKGROUND IVF singletons have poorer perinatal outcomes than singletons from spontaneous conceptions. This may be due to the influence of ovarian stimulation on the chromosomal constitution of the embryos which could be translated into localized chromosomal anomalies in the placenta. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of confined placental mosaicism (CPM) in IVF/ICSI pregnancies and spontaneous conceptions. METHODS We conducted a multi-centre retrospective analysis of karyotype results obtained by chorionic villus sampling (CVS), performed due to advanced maternal age (≥36 years at 18 weeks of gestation), in the Netherlands between 1995 and 2005. RESULTS From a total of 322 246 pregnancies, 20 885 CVS results were analysed: 235 in the IVF/ICSI group and 20 650 in the control group. The mean age of women in both groups was 38.4 years (mean difference −0.08, 95% CI −0.35 to 0.18). Data relating to the fetal karyotype were missing in 143 cases in the control group. When taking into account missing data, the incidence of CPM was lower in the IVF–ICSI group than in the control group, 1.3% versus 2.2% (odds ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.19–1.85), whereas the incidence of fetal chromosomal anomalies was increased 4.3% versus 2.4% (odds ratio 1.81, 95% CI 0.95–3.42). Neither differences were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS The incidence of CPM is not increased in IVF/ICSI pregnancies compared with spontaneous conceptions. CPM probably does not account for the adverse perinatal outcomes following IVF/ICSI.
Bibliography:IVF – CPM Study Group: R.S.G.M. Bots (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St Elisabeth Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands), B.J. Cohlen (Department of Gynaecology, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands), P. van Dop (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands), B.H.V. Faas (Department of Clinical Genetics, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands), M. Goddijn (Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), M.J.V. Hoffer (Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands), W.G. van Inzen (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands), A.C. Knegt (Department of Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), J.A.M. Kremer (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands), J.A. Land (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ùniversity Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands), M.V.E. Macville (Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Hospital Masstricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands), N. Muntjewerff (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Hospital Masstricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands), A.W.M. Nieuwint (Department of Clinical Genetics, Vrije Universiteit Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), R. Schats (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Vrije Universiteit Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), B. Sikkema-Raddatz (Department of Clinical Genetics, Ùniversity Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands), H.J. Verburg (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands).
istex:24C239D9EE83DA184F1BF9668285C3A35A8762B6
ark:/67375/HXZ-MQFPB7R7-1
ArticleID:den062
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0268-1161
1460-2350
DOI:10.1093/humrep/den062