Center for Reproductive Medicine, Tianjin Central Hospital of Obstetrics and Gynecology, No. 156 Nankai San Ma Road, Tianjin, 300000, China.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021 Jul 6;21(1):487. doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-03955-7.
Caesarean section rates are rising worldwide. One adverse effect of caesarean section reported in some studies is an increased risk of subfertility. Only a few studies have assessed the relationship between the previous mode of delivery and in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer (IVF/ICSI-ET) reproductive outcomes. In this study, we primarily investigated the impact of a history of caesarean section with or without defects on IVF/ICSI-ET outcomes compared to a vaginal delivery history.
This retrospective study included 834 women who had a IVF or ICSI treatment at our centre between 2015 and 2019 with a delivery history. In total, 401 women with a previous vaginal delivery (VD) were assigned to the VD group, and 433 women with a history of delivery by caesarean section were included, among whom 359 had a caesarean scar (CS) without a defect and were assigned to the CS group and 74 had a caesarean section defect (CSD) and were assigned to the CSD group. Baseline characteristics of the three groups were compared and analysed. Binary logistic regression analyses were performed to explore the association between clinical outcomes and different delivery modes.
There were no significant differences in the live birth rate, biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, mean implantation rate or abnormal pregnancy rate between the CS and VD groups However, the live birth rate and mean implantation rate in the CSD group were significantly lower than those in the VD group (21.6 vs 36.4%, adjusted OR 0.50 [0.27-0.9]; 0.25 ± 0.39 vs 0.35 ± 0.41, adjusted OR 0.90 [0.81-0.99]). Among women aged ≤ 35 years, the subgroup analyses showed that the live birth rate, biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and mean implantation rate in the CSD group were all significantly lower than those in the VD group (21.4 vs 45.8%, adjusted OR 0.35[0.15 ~ 0.85]; 38.1 vs 59.8%, adjusted OR 0.52[0.24-0.82]; 31.0 vs 55.6%, adjusted OR 0.43[0.19-0.92]; 0.27 ± 0.43 vs 0.43 ± 0.43, adjusted OR 0.85[0.43 ± 0.43]). For women older than 35 years, there was no statistically significant difference in any pregnancy outcome among the three groups.
This study suggested that the existence of a CS without a defect does not decrease the live birth rate after IVF or ICSI compared with a previous VD. However, the presence of a CSD in women, especially young women (age ≤ 35 years), significantly impaired the chances of subsequent pregnancy.
剖宫产率在全球范围内呈上升趋势。一些研究报告指出,剖宫产的一个不良反应是不孕风险增加。只有少数研究评估了既往分娩方式与体外受精/卵胞浆内单精子注射-胚胎移植(IVF/ICSI-ET)生殖结局之间的关系。在这项研究中,我们主要研究了与阴道分娩史相比,有无缺陷的剖宫产史对 IVF/ICSI-ET 结局的影响。
这是一项回顾性研究,纳入了 2015 年至 2019 年在我们中心接受 IVF 或 ICSI 治疗且有分娩史的 834 名女性。共有 401 名有阴道分娩史的女性被分配到阴道分娩组,433 名有剖宫产史的女性被纳入研究,其中 359 名有剖宫产瘢痕(CS)但无缺陷,被分配到 CS 组,74 名有剖宫产缺陷(CSD),被分配到 CSD 组。比较三组的基线特征并进行分析。采用二元逻辑回归分析探讨不同分娩方式与临床结局的关系。
CS 组与阴道分娩组的活产率、生化妊娠率、临床妊娠率、平均种植率或异常妊娠率无显著差异。然而,CSD 组的活产率和平均种植率明显低于阴道分娩组(21.6% vs. 36.4%,调整后的 OR 0.50[0.27-0.9];0.25±0.39 vs. 0.35±0.41,调整后的 OR 0.90[0.81-0.99])。在年龄≤35 岁的女性亚组中,CSD 组的活产率、生化妊娠率、临床妊娠率和平均种植率均明显低于阴道分娩组(21.4% vs. 45.8%,调整后的 OR 0.35[0.15-0.85];38.1% vs. 59.8%,调整后的 OR 0.52[0.24-0.82];31.0% vs. 55.6%,调整后的 OR 0.43[0.19-0.92];0.27±0.43 vs. 0.43±0.43,调整后的 OR 0.85[0.43±0.43])。对于年龄>35 岁的女性,三组之间任何妊娠结局均无统计学差异。
本研究表明,与既往阴道分娩相比,无缺陷的剖宫产并不降低 IVF 或 ICSI 后的活产率。然而,CSD 的存在,尤其是在年轻女性(年龄≤35 岁)中,显著降低了后续妊娠的机会。