Background

Recurrent pregnancy loss negatively affects the reproductive outcomes of natural conception. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies has been the focus of interventions in women with recurrent pregnancy loss. However, the risk of no embryos being available, high costs, and uncertainties surrounding its effectiveness limit its use. Factors beyond euploidy, such as an appropriate intrauterine environment, are also important for improving the reproductive outcomes in women with recurrent pregnancy loss. It remains unknown whether a history of recurrent pregnancy loss can affect reproductive outcomes after fertility treatment.

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the impact of history of recurrent pregnancy loss on the reproductive outcomes of women undergoing fertility treatment.

Study Design

This was a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent their first frozen embryo transfer cycle or intrauterine insemination cycle between January 2014 and July 2020 in Shanghai, China. We excluded couples with known karyotypic abnormalities (eg, balanced translocation) or uterine malformation. We performed multivariate binary logistic regressions for biochemical pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth rates to investigate the associations between recurrent pregnancy loss history and reproductive outcomes.

Results

A total of 29,825 women who underwent frozen embryo transfer cycles and 5476 women who underwent intrauterine insemination cycles were included in this study. In those who underwent frozen embryo transfer, history of recurrent pregnancy loss was not significantly associated with biochemical pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.87–1.63), miscarriage (adjusted odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.78–1.26), or live birth rates (adjusted odds ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.79–1.06). Similarly, in frozen embryo transfer cycles that led to clinical pregnancy, recurrent pregnancy loss history was not significantly associated with live birth (adjusted odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.76–1.28) or miscarriage rates (adjusted odds ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.81–1.35). In women with intrauterine insemination, history of recurrent pregnancy loss showed no significant associations with fertility outcomes in all cycles ([adjusted odds ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.88–2.10] for live birth rate and [adjusted odds ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.75–4.01], for miscarriage rate) and in cycles that led to clinical pregnancy ([adjusted odds ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.31–1.63] for live birth rate and [adjusted odds ratio, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.58–3.63] for miscarriage rate).

Conclusion

In women without obvious chromosome abnormality and uterine malformation who undergo fertility treatment, recurrent pregnancy loss history was not significantly associated with miscarriage and live birth rates, suggesting that it has little or no prognostic value in predicting the reproductive outcomes of frozen embryo transfer or intrauterine insemination cycles.