Predicting outcomes of in vitro fertilization in women with infertility

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Background. The development of predictors of the infertility treatment effectiveness by in vitro fertilization is one of the most important tasks of modern medicine. Despite numerous studies, there is still no single point of view regarding the significance of the influence of certain factors on the in vitro fertilization results.

Aim. Creation of a predictive model for the outcomes of in vitro fertilization for women suffering from infertility.

Material and methods. A retrospective analysis of 518 case histories of patients suffering from infertility and undergoing an in vitro fertilization program from 2015 to 2020 at the Central Clinic in Baku was carried out. Of these, 234 women (main group) became pregnant after in vitro fertilization, while 284 (control group) did not. Due to this, an individual card and an algorithm for examining patients in order to predict the results of in vitro fertilization were developed. At the prospective stage of the work, the results were predicted using logistic regression analysis. The data obtained from clinical and laboratory studies were processed by the methods of variational statistics in the statistical analysis system Statistica 10. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov, Shapiro–Wilkie, and Leven tests were used. For comparative analysis, Student's t-test and the Mann–Whitney method were applied.

Results. Based on the model we proposed using logistic regression, the main predictors of in vitro fertilization outcomes were identified: the absence of a previous pregnancy, the outcome of previous pregnancies with secondary infertility, age, spontaneous loss of uterine pregnancy, previous in vitro fertilization with a live birth, the number of mature oocytes prior to assisted reproductive technology and the number good quality embryos on the day of transfer. The sensitivity of this forecast was 84.7% (61 and 9; p=0.000), the specificity was 88.8% (11 and 72; p=0.000). It was found that forecasting using the model is 44.3 times more correct than if the prognosis of the outcome of in vitro fertilization was performed randomly.

Conclusion. The developed logistic regression forecasting model allows in the vast majority of cases to correctly predict the outcome of in vitro fertilization.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Mahira K. Ismayilova

Central Clinical Hospital

Author for correspondence.
Email: mahiremk@hotmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0532-4018

M.D., Cand. Sci. (Med.), Head of Depart., Depart. of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Azerbaijan, Baku, Republic of Azerbaijan

References

  1. Vladimirova IV, Kalinina EA, Donnikov AE. Genetic predictors of outcomes of assisted reproductive technology. Ginekologiya. 2014;16(6):33–36 (In Russ.)
  2. World Health Organization. Infertility. World Health Organization; 2019. https://www.who.int/health-topics/infertility#tab=tab_3 (access date: 14.11.2021).
  3. Grandone E. Thrombosis risk and in vitro fertilization. Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproduction. 2022;16(1):90–95. (In Russ.) doi: 10.17749/2313-7347/ob.gyn.rep.2022.286.
  4. Wu MH, Su PF, Chu WY, Huey NG, Lin CW, Ou HT, Lin CY. Quality of life and pregnancy outcomes among women undergoing in vitro fertilization treatment: A longitudinal cohort study. J Formos Med Assoc. 2020;119(1 Pt 3):471–479. doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2019.06.015.
  5. Lukaszuk K, Liss J, Kunicki M, Jakiel G, Wasniewski T, Woclawek-Potocka I, Pastuszek E. Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) is a strong predictor of live birth in wo¬men undergoing assisted reproductive technology. Reprod Biol. 2014;14(3):176–181. doi: 10.1016/j.repbio.2014.03.004.
  6. Lingnv Yao, Wei Zhang, Hong Li, Wen-gin Lin. The role of serum AMH and FF AMH in predicting pregnancy outcome in the fresh cycle of IVF/ICSI: a meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(2):1755–1767.
  7. Iliodromiti S, Kelsey TW, Wu O, Anderson RA, Nelson SM. The predictive accuracy of anti-Müllerian hormone for live birth after assisted conception: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(4):560–570. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmu003.
  8. Kovalenko YA, Malko AV, Ryazantsev II, Trunyan DG, Filippov EF, Krutova VA. Effect of the age of patients on quality of ¬oocytes, embryos and outcomes of assisted reproductive technologies programs. Kuban Scientific Medical Bulletin. 2018;25(1):18–22. (In Russ.) doi: 10.25207/1608-6228-2018-25-1-18-22.
  9. Khabarov SV, Khadartseva KA. Age aspects of the fai¬lures of the programs of assisted reproductive technologies. Journal of new medical technologies, eEdition. 2018;(2):74–79. (In Russ.) doi: 10.24411/2075-4094-2018-16041.
  10. Ermolenko KS, Radzinsky VE, Rapoport SI. State-of-the-art of realization of the fertility potential in the women of late reproductive age. Klinicheskaya meditsina. 2016;94(1):10–15. (In Russ.) doi: 10.18821/0023-2149-2016-94-1-10-15.
  11. Gomez R, Hafezi N, Amrani M, Schweiger S, Dewenter MK, Thomas P, Lieb C, Hasenburg A, Skala C. Genetic findings in miscarriages and their relation to the number of previous miscarriages. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021;303(6):1425–1432. doi: 10.1007/s00404-020-05859-x.
  12. Li-Hong Wei. Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation is a feasible method for poor ovarian responders undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection-¬embryo transfer treatment compared to a GnRH antagonist protocol: A retrospective study. Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016;55:50–54. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2015.07.001.
  13. Serebrennikova KG, Kuznetsova EP, Vanke ES, Ivanova TV, Lapshikhin AA, Khmelevskaya VF. The preparation of endometrium to IVF program in patients with infertility. Russian journal of human reproduction. 2014;(4):62–67. (In Russ.)
  14. Bhattacharya S, Maheshwari A, Mollison J. Factors associated with failed treatment: An analysis of 121,744 women embarking on their first IVF cycles. PLos One. 2013;8(12):e82249. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082249.
  15. Wang N, Wang Y, Chen Q, Dong J, Tian H, Fu Y, Ai A, Lyu Q, Kuang Y. Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation vs conventional ovarian stimulation in patients with normal ovarian reserve treated for IVF: A large retrospective cohort study. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2016;84(5):720–728. doi: 10.1111/cen.12983.
  16. Kvashnina EV, Tutakov MA, Vakhlova OS, Tomina EV, Shilova NV. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in various protocols of assisted reproductive technologies with vitrified embryo. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2021;(3):175–182. (In Russ.) doi: 10.18565/aig.2021.3.175-182.
  17. Korotchenko OE, Syrkasheva AG, Kalinina EA. Preimplantation genetic screening in patients with recurrent abortion: risk factors for embryo aneuploidy. Obstetrics and gynecology: news, opinions, training. 2017;(4):48–53. (In Russ.) doi: 10.24411/2303-9698-2017-00006.
  18. Report of the Register of Assisted Reproductive Technologies of the Russian Association of Human Reproductology. 2017. 39 p. (In Russ.)

Supplementary files

There are no supplementary files to display.


© 2022 Eco-Vector





This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies