Cited by 28Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyReproductive Health and TechnologiesReproductive Biology and Fertility

Embryonic heart rate as a predictor of first-trimester pregnancy loss in infertility patients after in vitro fertilization

Open access
Rauch, Eden R., Schattman, Glenn L., Christos, Paul J., Chicketano, Ty, Rosenwaks, Zev·2009·Fertility and Sterility

Abstract

Objective To determine if embryonic heart rate (EHR) is useful to predict first-trimester pregnancy outcome after in vitro fertilization (IVF).Design Retrospective analysis.Setting University-based infertility center.Patient(s) Six hundred fifty patients who completed IVF with singleton implantations from October 2002 to September 2006 were identified.Intervention(s) Transvaginal sonography at 4-6 weeks' embryonic age.Main outcome measure(s) Embryonic heart rate at 4-6 weeks' embryonic age and first-trimester pregnancy outcome.Result(s) Ninety-five patients (14.6%) spontaneously aborted, and 555 (85.4%) patients had clinical pregnancies beyond the first trimester. Groups were similar regarding gravidity, parity, embryos transferred, embryonic age at time of sonogram for EHR, and infertility diagnosis. Mean maternal age was significantly higher in the group that spontaneously aborted. Mean EHR was significantly lower in the group that spontaneously aborted. Multivariate logistic regression confirmed the best predictors of poor pregnancy outcome: increasing maternal age (odds ratio [OR] 1.18) and lower EHR (OR 1.07).Conclusion(s) Embryonic heart rate, independent of maternal age, is useful to help predict first-trimester pregnancy prognosis after IVF. Infertility patients with a low EHR (<or=110 bpm) at 4-6 weeks' embryonic age should be counseled that they are at increased risk for first-trimester pregnancy loss.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.03.026

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rauch, E. R., Schattman, G. L., Christos, P. J., Chicketano, T., & Rosenwaks, Z.
Affiliations
Cornell University (US)
Corresponding author
Rauch, Eden R.
Venue
Fertility and Sterility
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-06
Volume
91
Issue
6
Pages
2451-2454
ISSN
0015-0282 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2120805875
Cited by
28
References
15
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Fertility and Sterility (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Biology and Fertility
Keywords
embryonic heart rate, early pregnancy loss, miscarriage, in vitro fertilization, infertility, pregnancy outcome prediction, maternal age, embryo quality, transvaginal ultrasound
MeSH terms
Abortion, Spontaneous, Adult, Female, Fertilization in Vitro, Heart Rate, Fetal, Humans, Infertility, Female, Maternal Age, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Prognosis, Retrospective Studies, Ultrasonography, Prenatal

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review