Different subtypes of ultrasound‐diagnosed adenomyosis and in vitro fertilization outcomes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Introduction Adenomyosis prevalence among women with infertility is increasing; their management during in vitro fertilization is usually based on ultrasound diagnosis alone. Herein, we summarize the latest evidence on the impact of ultrasound‐diagnosed adenomyosis on in vitro fertilization outcomes...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica 2023-06, Vol.102 (6), p.657-668
Main Authors: Wang, Xia‐Li, Xu, Zi‐Wei, Huang, Yan‐Yan, Lin, Shu, Lyu, Guo‐Rong
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Abortion, Spontaneous - epidemiology
adenomyosis
Adenomyosis - complications
Adenomyosis - diagnostic imaging
assisted reproduction
Birth rate
Clinical outcomes
Endometriosis
Endometriosis - complications
Endometriosis - diagnostic imaging
Female
Fertilization in Vitro
Humans
In vitro fertilization
Infertility
Infertility, Female - diagnostic imaging
Infertility, Female - etiology
Infertility, Female - therapy
Live Birth - epidemiology
Meta-analysis
Miscarriage
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Rate
Systematic Review
Ultrasonic imaging
ultrasound
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Introduction Adenomyosis prevalence among women with infertility is increasing; their management during in vitro fertilization is usually based on ultrasound diagnosis alone. Herein, we summarize the latest evidence on the impact of ultrasound‐diagnosed adenomyosis on in vitro fertilization outcomes. Material and methods The study was registered with The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022355584). We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to January 31, 2023, for cohort studies on the impact of adenomyosis on in vitro fertilization outcomes. Fertility outcomes were compared according to the presence of adenomyosis as diagnosed by ultrasound, concurrent endometriosis and adenomyosis, and MRI‐based or MRI‐ and ultrasound‐based adenomyosis diagnosis. Live birth rate was the primary outcome while clinical pregnancy and miscarriage rates were secondary outcomes. Results Women diagnosed with adenomyosis by ultrasound had lower live birth (odds ratio [OR] = 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53–0.82, grade: very low), lower clinical pregnancy (OR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.53–0.77, grade: very low), and higher miscarriage (OR = 1.81; 95% CI: 1.35–2.44, grade: very low) rates than those without adenomyosis. Notably, symptomatic and diffuse, but not asymptomatic adenomyosis as diagnosed by ultrasound, adversely affected in vitro fertilization outcomes, with lower live birth (OR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.34–0.96, grade: very low), clinical pregnancy (OR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.57–0.85, grade: low), and miscarriage (OR = 2.48, 95% CI: 1.28–4.82, grade: low) rates; and lower live birth (OR = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.23–0.59, grade: low) and clinical pregnancy (OR = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.34–0.75, grade: low), but not miscarriage rate (OR = 2.18; 95% CI: 0.72–6.62, grade: very low), respectively. Concurrent adenomyosis in endometriosis is associated with a significantly lower live birth rate (OR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.26–0.75, grade: low) than endometriosis alone. Finally, the use of MRI‐based or MRI‐ and ultrasound‐based adenomyosis diagnosis showed no significant association with in vitro fertilization outcomes (grade: very low for all outcomes). Conclusions Considering ultrasound findings, symptoms, and different subtypes of adenomyosis may aid in offering personalized counseling, improving treatment decisions, and achieving better outcomes of in vitro fertilization. As ultrasound‐diagnosed asymptomatic adenomyosis did not affect IVF outcomes,
ISSN:0001-6349
1600-0412
DOI:10.1111/aogs.14580