First trimester pregnancy ultrasound findings as a function of method of conception in an infertile population

Frauke Von Versen-Höynck, Jenna S. Petersen, Yueh Yun Chi, Jing Liu, Valerie L. Baker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this study was to determine whether first trimester ultrasound measurements of crown rump length (CRL) and gestational sac diameter (GSD) differ depending on the method of conception among infertile women. Method Infertile women, ages 21-50 years old, who conceived viable, singleton pregnancies via fresh embryo transfer (ET), frozen ET, non-in vitro fertilization (IVF) fertility treatment, or spontaneously were included in this observational cohort study at an academic fertility practice. Embryonic growth trajectories defined by the CRL and GSD at 6 and 8 weeks’ gestation were analyzed and compared among the methods of conception. Results Crown rump length at 6 weeks’ gestation was smaller for conceptions achieved via fresh ETcompared with frozen ET in a natural cycle (1.50 vs. 2.50 mm, p = 0.017). Crown rump length was smaller at 8 weeks’ gestation in conceptions achieved via fresh ET compared to frozen ET in a programmed cycle (16.13 vs. 17.02 mm, p = 0.039). Conclusion Among infertile women, embryo growth may differ between fresh and frozen ETas early as 6 and 8 weeks’ gestation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)863-870
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
Volume35
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 29 2018
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Assisted reproduction
  • Crown rump length
  • Embryo transfer
  • First trimester
  • Gestational sac diameter

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Genetics
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Genetics(clinical)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'First trimester pregnancy ultrasound findings as a function of method of conception in an infertile population'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this