Clinical outcomes of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in high-risk patients: a retrospective cohort study

• Published in: Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine Vol. 51; no. 1; pp. 75 - 84
• Main Authors: Kim, Jun Woo, Lee, So Young, Hur, Chang Young, Lim, Jin Ho, Park, Choon Keun
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Korea (South) Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine 01.03.2024; 대한생식의학회
• Subjects: Original; 산부인과학; Severe male factor infertility; Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy; Recurrent pregnancy loss; Recurrent implantation failure; Advanced maternal age
• ISSN: 2233-8233; 2233-8241
• DOI: 10.5653/cerm.2023.06394

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) on clinical outcomes among high-risk patients.Methods: This retrospective study involved 1,368 patients and the same number of cycles, including 520 cycles with PGT-A and 848 cycles without PGT-A. The study participants comprised women of advanced maternal age (AMA) and those affected by recurrent implantation failure (RIF), recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), or severe male factor infertility (SMF).Results: PGT-A was associated with significant improvements in the implantation rate (IR) and the ongoing pregnancy rate/live birth rate (OPR/LBR) per embryo transfer cycle in the AMA (39.3% vs. 16.2% [p<0.001] and 42.0% vs. 21.8% [p<0.001], respectively), RIF (41.7% vs. 22.0% [p<0.001] and 47.0% vs. 28.6% [p<0.001], respectively), and RPL (45.6% vs. 19.5% [p<0.001] and 49.1% vs. 24.2% [p<0.001], respectively) groups, as well as the IR in the SMF group (43.3% vs. 26.5%, p=0.011). Additionally, PGT-A was associated with lower overall incidence rates of early pregnancy loss in the AMA (16.7% vs. 34.3%, p=0.001) and RPL (16.7% vs. 50.0%, p<0.001) groups. However, the OPR/LBR per total cycle across all PGT-A groups did not significantly exceed that for the non-PGT-A groups.Conclusion: PGT-A demonstrated beneficial effects in high-risk patients. However, our findings indicate that these benefits are more pronounced in carefully selected candidates than in the entire high-risk patient population.