Ovulation triggering in clomiphene citrate-stimulated cycles: human chorionic gonadotropin versus a gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist

Efficacy of GnRH agonist trigger in women having history of follicular-endometrial asynchrony with clomiphene/IUI cycles in unexplained infertility

PURPOSE

An alternative option to human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) is GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) for ovulation trigger in intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles. This study aims to compare the efficacy of GnRH-a with hCG in women with history of follicular-endometrial asynchrony after clomiphene in IUI cycles.

METHODS

This prospective observational study recruited 631 women with unexplained infertility and follicular-endometrial asynchrony (follicle ≥ 18 mm, endometrial thickness (ET) < 7 mm) in previous two failed clomiphene/IUI cycles. Overall 27 patients with synchronized follicular-endometrial relationship and 49 women with persistent ET < 7 mm and/or follicle > 26 mm were excluded. Remaining women (n = 555) were divided into two groups: Group A (n = 285) received GnRH-a and Group B (n = 270) received hCG ovulation trigger. Finally, 513 patients, who underwent IUI, were analysed.

RESULTS

Cancellation due to luteinized unruptured follicle was more in hCG group (P = 0.01). Higher clinical pregnancies (10.33 vs. 4.96%, P = 0.03) and live birth rates (8.86 vs. 4.13%, P = 0.03) were noted with GnRH-a trigger. Miscarriage rate was comparable in both the groups (10.71 and 16.67% in Group A and Group B, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In unexplained infertility, GnRH agonist is an useful alternative for triggering ovulation in women with follicular-endometrial asynchrony following clomiphene induction.

Synchronised approach for intrauterine insemination in subfertile couples

BACKGROUND

In many countries intrauterine insemination (IUI) is the treatment of first choice for a subfertile couple when the infertility work up reveals an ovulatory cycle, at least one open Fallopian tube and sufficient spermatozoa. The final goal of this treatment is to achieve a pregnancy and deliver a healthy (singleton) live birth. The probability of conceiving with IUI depends on various factors including age of the couple, type of subfertility, ovarian stimulation and the timing of insemination. IUI should logically be performed around the moment of ovulation. Since spermatozoa and oocytes have only limited survival time correct timing of the insemination is essential. As it is not known which technique of timing for IUI results in the best treatment outcome, we compared different techniques for timing IUI and different time intervals.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of different synchronisation methods in natural and stimulated cycles for IUI in subfertile couples.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for all publications which described randomised controlled trials of the timing of IUI. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (1966 to October 2014), EMBASE (1974 to October 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2014) and PsycINFO (inception to October 2014) electronic databases and prospective trial registers. Furthermore, we checked the reference lists of all obtained studies and performed a handsearch of conference abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different timing methods for IUI were included. The following interventions were evaluated: detection of luteinising hormone (LH) in urine or blood, single test; human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration; combination of LH detection and hCG administration; basal body temperature chart; ultrasound detection of ovulation; gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist administration; or other timing methods.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the trials, extracted the data and assessed study risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses in accordance with the guidelines for statistical analysis developed by The Cochrane Collaboration. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen RCTs were included in the review, of which 14 were included in the meta-analyses (in total 2279 couples). The evidence was current to October 2013. The quality of the evidence was low or very low for most comparisons . The main limitations in the evidence were failure to describe study methods, serious imprecision and attrition bias.Ten RCTs compared different methods of timing for IUI. We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates between hCG injection versus LH surge (odds ratio (OR) 1.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 18, 1 RCT, 24 women, very low quality evidence), urinary hCG versus recombinant hCG (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.03, 1 RCT, 284 women, low quality evidence) or hCG versus GnRH agonist (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.6, 3 RCTS, 104 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence).Two RCTs compared the optimum time interval from hCG injection to IUI, comparing different time frames that ranged from 24 hours to 48 hours. Only one of these studies reported live birth rates, and found no difference between the groups (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.00, 1 RCT, 204 couples). One study compared early versus late hCG administration and one study compared different dosages of hCG, but neither reported the primary outcome of live birth.We found no evidence of a difference between any of the groups in rates of pregnancy or adverse events (multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS)). However, most of these data were very low quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is any difference in safety and effectiveness between different methods of synchronization of ovulation and insemination. More research is needed.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus HCG for oocyte triggering in antagonist-assisted reproductive technology

BACKGROUND

Human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) is routinely used for final oocyte maturation triggering in in vitro fertilisation (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles, but the use of HCG for this purpose may have drawbacks. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists present an alternative to HCG in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) treatment regimens in which the cycle has been down-regulated with a GnRH antagonist. This is an update of a review first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of GnRH agonists in comparison with HCG for triggering final oocyte maturation in IVF and ICSI for women undergoing COH in a GnRH antagonist protocol.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched databases including the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and trial registers for published and unpublished articles (in any language) on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists versus HCG for oocyte triggering in GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI treatment cycles. The search is current to 8 September 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that compared the clinical outcomes of GnRH agonist triggers versus HCG for final oocyte maturation triggering in women undergoing GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI treatment cycles were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two or more review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed study risk of bias. Treatment effects were summarised using a fixed-effect model, and subgroup analyses were conducted to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Treatment effects were expressed as mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes and as odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes, together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Primary outcomes were live birth and rate of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per women randomised. Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods were used to assess the quality of the evidence for each comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 RCTs (n = 1847), of which 13 studies assessed fresh autologous cycles and four studies assessed donor-recipient cycles. In fresh autologous cycles, GnRH agonists were associated with a lower live birth rate than was seen with HCG (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70; five RCTs, 532 women, I(2) = 56%, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 31% chance of achieving live birth with the use of HCG, the chance of a live birth with the use of an GnRH agonist would be between 12% and 24%.In women undergoing fresh autologous cycles, GnRH agonists were associated with a lower incidence of mild, moderate or severe OHSS than was HCG (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.47; eight RCTs, 989 women, I² = 42%, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 5% risk of mild, moderate or severe OHSS with the use of HCG, the risk of OHSS with the use of a GnRH agonist would be between nil and 2%.In women undergoing fresh autologous cycles, GnRH agonists were associated with a lower ongoing pregnancy rate than was seen with HCG (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.91; 11 studies, 1198 women, I(2) = 59%, low-quality evidence) and a higher early miscarriage rate (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.75; 11 RCTs, 1198 women, I² = 1%, moderate-quality evidence). However, the effect was dependent on the type of luteal phase support provided (with or without luteinising hormone (LH) activity); the higher rate of pregnancies in the HCG group applied only to the group that received luteal phase support without LH activity (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.62; I(2) = 73%, five RCTs, 370 women). No evidence was found of a difference between groups in risk of multiple pregnancy (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.30 to 30.47; two RCTs, 62 women, I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence).In women with donor-recipient cycles, no evidence suggested a difference between groups in live birth rate (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.61; one RCT, 212 women) or ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.32; three RCTs, 372 women, I² = 0%). We found evidence of a lower incidence of OHSS in the GnRH agonist group than in the HCG group (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.28; three RCTs, 374 women, I² = 0%).The main limitation in the quality of the evidence was risk of bias associated with poor reporting of methods in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Final oocyte maturation triggering with GnRH agonist instead of HCG in fresh autologous GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI treatment cycles prevents OHSS to the detriment of the live birth rate. In donor-recipient cycles, use of GnRH agonists instead of HCG resulted in a lower incidence of OHSS, with no evidence of a difference in live birth rate.Evidence suggests that GnRH agonist as a final oocyte maturation trigger in fresh autologous cycles is associated with a lower live birth rate, a lower ongoing pregnancy rate (pregnancy beyond 12 weeks) and a higher rate of early miscarriage (less than 12 weeks). GnRH agonist as an oocyte maturation trigger could be useful for women who choose to avoid fresh transfers (for whatever reason), women who donate oocytes to recipients or women who wish to freeze their eggs for later use in the context of fertility preservation.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus HCG for oocyte triggering in antagonist assisted reproductive technology cycles

BACKGROUND

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocols for pituitary down regulation in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) allow the use of GnRH agonists for triggering final oocyte maturation. Currently, human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) is still the standard medication for this purpose. The effectiveness of triggering with a GnRH agonist compared to HCG measured as pregnancy and ovarian hyperstimulation(OHSS) rates are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of a GnRH agonist with HCG for triggering final oocyte maturation in IVF and ICSI patients undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in a GnRH antagonist protocol followed by embryo transfer. 

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE , EMBASE, the National Research Register, the Medical Research Council's Clinical Trials Register, and the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database. We also examined the reference lists of all known primary studies and review articles, citation lists of relevant publications and abstracts of major scientific meetings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled studies (RCTs) reporting data comparing clinical outcomes for women undergoing IVF and ICSI cycles and using a GnRH agonist in comparison with HCG for final oocyte maturation triggering.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 11 RCTs (n = 1055). Eight studies assessed fresh autologous cycles and three studies assessed donor-recipient cycles. In fresh-autologous cycles, GnRH agonist was less effective than HCG in terms of the live birth rate per randomised woman (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.68; 4 RCTs) and ongoing pregnancy rate per randomised woman (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.65; 8 RCTs). For a group with a 30% live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate using HCG, the rate would be between 12% and 22% using an GnRH agonist. Moderate to severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) incidence per randomised woman was significantly lower in the GnRH agonist group compared to the HCG group (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82; 5 RCTs). For a group with a 3% OHSS rate using HCG the rate would be between 0% and 2.6% using GnRH agonist. In donor recipient cycles, there was no evidence of a statistical difference in the live birth rate per randomised woman (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.61; 1 RCT).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We do not recommend that GnRH agonists be routinely used as a final oocyte maturation trigger in fresh autologous cycles because of lowered live birth rates and ongoing pregnancy rates. An exception could be made for women with high risk of OHSS, after appropriate counselling.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus HCG for oocyte triggering in antagonist assisted reproductive technology cycles

BACKGROUND

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocols for pituitary down regulation in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) allow the use of GnRH agonists for triggering final oocyte maturation. Currently, human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) is still the standard medication for this purpose. The effectiveness of triggering with a GnRH agonist compared to HCG measured as pregnancy and ovarian hyperstimulation(OHSS) rates are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of a GnRH agonist with HCG for triggering final oocyte maturation in IVF and ICSI patients undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in a GnRH antagonist protocol followed by embryo transfer. 

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE , EMBASE, the National Research Register, the Medical Research Council's Clinical Trials Register, and the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database. We also examined the reference lists of all known primary studies and review articles, citation lists of relevant publications and abstracts of major scientific meetings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled studies (RCTs) reporting data comparing clinical outcomes for women undergoing IVF and ICSI cycles and using a GnRH agonist in comparison with HCG for final oocyte maturation triggering.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 11 RCTs (n = 1055). Eight studies assessed fresh autologous cycles and three studies assessed donor-recipient cycles. In fresh-autologous cycles, GnRH agonist was less effective than HCG in terms of the live birth rate per randomised woman (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.68; 4 RCTs) and ongoing pregnancy rate per randomised woman (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.65; 8 RCTs). For a group with a 30% live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate using HCG, the rate would be between 12% and 22% using an GnRH agonist. Moderate to severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) incidence per randomised woman was significantly lower in the GnRH agonist group compared to the HCG group (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82; 5 RCTs). For a group with a 3% OHSS rate using HCG the rate would be between 0% and 2.6% using GnRH agonist. In donor recipient cycles, there was no evidence of a statistical difference in the live birth rate per randomised woman (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.61; 1 RCT).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We do not recommend that GnRH agonists be routinely used as a final oocyte maturation trigger in fresh autologous cycles because of lowered live birth rates and ongoing pregnancy rates. An exception could be made for women with high risk of OHSS, after appropriate counselling.

Synchronised approach for intrauterine insemination in subfertile couples

BACKGROUND

Intrauterine insemination (IUI) should logically be performed around the moment of ovulation. Since spermatozoa and oocytes have only limited survival times correct timing is essential. As it is not known which technique of timing for IUI results in the best treatment outcome, we compared different techniques for timing IUI and different time intervals.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of different synchronisation methods in natural and stimulated cycles for IUI in subfertile couples.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched for all publications which described randomised controlled trials of the timing of IUI. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), (1966 to March 2009), EMBASE (1974 to March 2009) and Science Direct (1966 to March 2009) electronic databases. Furthermore, we checked the reference lists of all obtained studies and performed a handsearch of conference abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only truly randomised controlled trials comparing different timing methods for IUI were included. The following interventions were evaluated: detection of luteinising hormone (LH) in urine or blood, single test; human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration; combination of LH detection and hCG administration; basal body temperature chart; ultrasound detection of ovulation; gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist administration; or other timing methods.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the trials to be included according to the above mentioned criteria. We performed statistical analyses in accordance with the guidelines for statistical analysis developed by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies were included comparing urinary LH surge versus hCG injection; recombinant hCG versus urinary hCG; and hCG versus a GnRH agonist. One study compared the optimum time interval from hCG injection to IUI. The results of these studies showed no significant differences between different timing methods for IUI expressed as live birth rates: hCG versus LH surge (odds ratio (OR) 1.0, 95% CI 0.06 to 18); urinary hCG versus recombinant hCG (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.0); and hCG versus GnRH agonist (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.1). All the secondary outcomes analysed showed no significant differences between treatment groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to advise one particular treatment option over another. The choice should be based on hospital facilities, convenience for the patient, medical staff, costs and drop-out levels. Since different time intervals between hCG and IUI did not result in different pregnancy rates, a more flexible approach might be allowed.

Minimal ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate: a large-scale retrospective study

Enclomiphene, an isomeric component of clomiphene citrate, acts antagonistically to the oestradiol receptor at the hypothalamus level, inhibiting both negative and positive feedback, and resulting in the induction of ovarian stimulation and suppression of ovulation. The minimal ovarian stimulation protocol takes full advantage of these characteristics of clomiphene citrate. Administration of 50 mg clomiphene citrate is initiated on cycle day 3, and from day 8 patients receive 150 IU of FSH every other day. When the size of the dominant follicle and the oestradiol concentration reach the predefined values, gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist is administered to induce follicular maturation. Oocytes are then retrieved 32-35 h later. Because the short half-life of enclomiphene (24 h) is of critical importance in this protocol, it is necessary to continue oral administration of clomiphene citrate until the day before maturation is triggered. Of all 43,433 cycles initiated, the rates for oocyte retrieval and embryo cleavage were 83 and 64% respectively. The mean number of oocytes retrieved was 2.2. The rates for live births, miscarriages, and ectopic pregnancies, in relation to initiated cycles, including cases of frozen-thawed transfer, were 11.1, 3.4 and 0.2% respectively.

GnRH agonist as novel luteal support: results of a randomized, parallel group, feasibility study using intranasal administration of buserelin*

BACKGROUND

The study objective was to investigate whether repeated intranasal administration of a GnRH agonist could provide convenient and safe luteal support.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients with unexplained infertility were enrolled. All patients were treated with an aromatase inhibitor. When ovulation trigger criteria were met, patients were randomly allocated to either 5000 IU hCG (group A), or 200 microg intranasal buserelin followed by 100 microg every 3 days (group B), 100 microg every 2 days (group C), or 100 microg every day (group D), up to day 14 of the luteal phase. All patients underwent intrauterine insemination.

RESULTS

Follicular development was similar in all groups with 1.1 +/- 0.3 follicles > or = 16 mm, 229.4 +/- 95.2 pg/ml estradiol (E2) and 0.8 +/- 0.5 ng/ml progesterone (mean+/-SD). The luteal phase duration (median; 95% confidence interval) was 15 (14.1, 15.0), 14 (12.5, 15.5), 15 (11.8, 18.2) and 15 (14.4, 15.6) days in groups A, B, C and D respectively. From luteal phase day 7 onwards, progesterone levels tended to be higher in group D compared with A. On day 14 of the luteal phase, progesterone levels were 3.0 (0.8, 5.2), 1.7 (-0.5, 3.9), 3.9 (-0.7, 8.5) and 7.7 (3.4, 11.9) ng/ml in groups A, B, C and D respectively (P = 0.045). No pregnancy was recorded in group A, but there was one biochemical pregnancy in group B, one biochemical and one singleton clinical pregnancy in group C, and two singleton clinical pregnancies in group D.

CONCLUSION

Intranasal administration of buserelin could be effective to provide luteal support. This treatment was associated with a good pregnancy rate (5/18, 28%).

Endometrial evaluation is not predictive for in vitro fertilization treatment

PURPOSE

The main purpose of this study was to evaluate ovarian function by clomiphene citrate (CC) challenge test in a group of tubal infertile women and to study endometrial morphological maturation in the early luteal phase of CC-stimulated cycles as compared to in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment outcome.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Four women presented with strongly retarded, proliferative endometrium in the luteal phase. Of these, three presented with impaired ovarian function, high basal follicle-stimulating hormone, and high follicle-stimulating hormone levels after clomiphene stimulation on cycle day 10. In the remaining 30 women, showing an in-phase endometrium after CC stimulation, a comparison of six morphological characteristics did not reveal any significant differences between the 14 women who did become pregnant and the 16 who did not. No significant differences in endometrial thickness were observed between the groups. Significant differences were found when comparing estradiol and progesterone area under the curve during the luteal phase (P < 0.001 and P < 0.01, respectively) between those who did and those who did not become pregnant.

CONCLUSIONS

Luteal endometrium morphology was not a sharp instrument to detect differences between women who did and women who did not become pregnant following IVF treatment, while ovarian function, as measured by hormonal markers, seemed to be a more reliable prognostic factor for IVF treatment outcome.

Chromosomal analysis of early fetal losses in relation to transvaginal ultrasonographic detection of fetal heart motion after infertility

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prognostic value of transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) detection of fetal heart motion (FHM) in view of maternal age and chromosomal analysis of spontaneously aborted fetal tissue.

DESIGN

A 3-year retrospective, descriptive study.

SETTING

Two medical center-based infertility-care facilities.

PATIENT(S)

336 pregnancies were initiated by intrauterine insemination or embryo transfer for women of reproductive age who were seeking infertility treatment.

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

beta hCG levels measured > 40 mIU/mL at 4-5 weeks' gestation and were followed by an initial TVUS at 5-8 weeks. Of these pregnancies, 52 ended in a first trimester loss. Twenty were defined by failure to detect FHM by 7 weeks' gestation (Group I), and 32 were marked by the loss of prior FHM at a mean of 2.6 weeks later (Group II). Fetal tissue was removed by dilatation and suction curettage. Cytogenetic studies were performed from short-term cultures of dissected chorionic villi and/or sac.

RESULT(S)

Chromosomal aberrations were found in 75.0% of abortuses in Group I and 65.6% in Group II. Different types of chromosomal abnormalities were present in each these groups. The maternal age-related trisomies which can progress to term (i.e., 13, 18, 21) were associated with early TVUS detection of FHM. The frequency of chromosomal abnormalities varied significantly with maternal age, with normal fetal karyotypes in 7 of 11 (63.6%) women < 35 years, but only in 9 of 41 (22.0%) women > or = 35 years despite the detection of FHM in 24 of 41 (58.5%) of these older women. Detection of FHM was associated with pregnancies continuing beyond the first trimester in 284 of 316 (90.0%) overall, but differed significantly with age (166 of 174 [95.4%] women < 35 years vs. 118 of 142 [83.1%] women > or = 35 years).

CONCLUSION(S)

Although the occurrence of chromosomal abnormalities in spontaneous demises did not differ according to TVUS detection of FHM, the types of aberrations were distributed differently. Since maternal age remains a significant factor in early fetal loss, TVUS detection of FHM should not be as reassuring for women > or = 35 years as for younger women.