Conclusions
In conclusion, balanced translocation is the most common phenotype in RM
carriers, and LBR of subsequent first pregnancy is similar to the
non-carriers. The present studies can help to provide more scientific
clinical consultation, such as more accurate diagnosis and the
prognostic outcome of subsequent pregnancy, and help doctors to raise
awareness of miscarriage-related chromosome problems and foster a
theoretical basis for reasonable treatment.
Figure 1. The flow chart presents the process of collecting
abnormal chromosomal carriers from 5680 RM couples in our Outpatient
service.
Figure 2. A. The distribution of four aberrant types in the 121
RM couples. B. The respective numbers of female and male in the four
aberrant type couples. C and D. The distribution of four aberrant types
in the 55 pregnancy and 66 non-pregnancy couples.
Figure 3. The percents of aberrant chromosome No. in the
balanced translocation and inversion RM patients.
Figure 4. The live birth rates in the non-carriers and carriers
of four aberrant types.
Table 1. Analysis of combined non-genetic etiological factors
and live birth rate of 229 RM non-carriers and 55 carriers.
Table 2. Detailed chromosome karyotype of 55 RM carriers and
their pregnancy outcomes.
Table 3. Pregnancy outcomes of 34 RM couples with female
carriers and 21 RM couples with male carriers.
Table 4. Other relevant causes of 40 RM couples with live birth
and 15 RM couples with miscarriage again.
Disclosure of interests :All authors declare
that they have no conflict of interest in the article.
Contribution to authorship: PS.Z played the role in the
conception and planning, M.C collected the data, S. L analyzed and wrote
up of the work.
Ethics approval: The study was approved of the Ethic Committee
of The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University according
to the declaration of Helsinki.
Study funding: This work was supported by a grant to M.D. Li
Shan from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.
81901497)
1. Bender Atik, R., et al., ESHRE guideline: recurrent pregnancy
loss. Hum Reprod Open, 2018. 2018 (2): p. hoy004.
2. Kochhar, P.K. and P. Ghosh, Reproductive outcome of couples
with recurrent miscarriage and balanced chromosomal abnormalities. J
Obstet Gynaecol Res, 2013. 39 (1): p. 113-20.
3. Shahine, L. and R. Lathi, Recurrent pregnancy loss: evaluation
and treatment. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am, 2015. 42 (1): p.
117-34.
4. Larsen, E.C., et al., New insights into mechanisms behind
miscarriage. BMC Med, 2013. 11 : p. 154.
5. Sánchez, J.M., et al., Cytogenetic study of spontaneous
abortions by transabdominal villus sampling and direct analysis of
villi. Prenat Diagn, 1999. 19 (7): p. 601-3.
6. Stern, J.J., et al., Frequency of abnormal karyotypes among
abortuses from women with and without a history of recurrent spontaneous
abortion. Fertil Steril, 1996. 65 (2): p. 250-3.
7. Ogasawara, M., et al., Embryonic karyotype of abortuses in
relation to the number of previous miscarriages. Fertil Steril, 2000.73 (2): p. 300-4.
8. Carp, H., et al., Karyotype of the abortus in recurrent
miscarriage. Fertil Steril, 2001. 75 (4): p. 678-82.
9. Flynn, H., et al., Comparison of reproductive outcome,
including the pattern of loss, between couples with chromosomal
abnormalities and those with unexplained repeated miscarriages. J
Obstet Gynaecol Res, 2014. 40 (1): p. 109-16.
10. ACOG practice bulletin. Management of recurrent pregnancy
loss. Number 24, February 2001. (Replaces Technical Bulletin Number 212,
September 1995). American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2002. 78 (2): p. 179-90.
11. Stephenson, M.D. and S. Sierra, Reproductive outcomes in
recurrent pregnancy loss associated with a parental carrier of a
structural chromosome rearrangement. Hum Reprod, 2006. 21 (4):
p. 1076-82.
12. Elkarhat, Z., et al., Chromosomal abnormalities in couples
with recurrent spontaneous miscarriage: a 21-year retrospective study, a
report of a novel insertion, and a literature review. J Assist Reprod
Genet, 2019. 36 (3): p. 499-507.
13. Lizneva, D., et al., Criteria, prevalence, and phenotypes of
polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril, 2016. 106 (1): p.
6-15.
14. Coccia, M.E. and F. Rizzello, Ovarian reserve. Ann N Y Acad
Sci, 2008. 1127 : p. 27-30.
15. Diejomaoh, M.F., Recurrent spontaneous miscarriage is still a
challenging diagnostic and therapeutic quagmire. Med Princ Pract, 2015.24 Suppl 1 (Suppl 1): p. 38-55.
16. Redin, C., et al., The genomic landscape of balanced
cytogenetic abnormalities associated with human congenital anomalies.Nat Genet, 2017. 49 (1): p. 36-45.
17. Popescu, F., C.R. Jaslow, and W.H. Kutteh, Recurrent pregnancy
loss evaluation combined with 24-chromosome microarray of miscarriage
tissue provides a probable or definite cause of pregnancy loss in over
90% of patients. Hum Reprod, 2018. 33 (4): p. 579-587.
18. Fryns, J.P. and G. Van Buggenhout, Structural chromosome
rearrangements in couples with recurrent fetal wastage. Eur J Obstet
Gynecol Reprod Biol, 1998. 81 (2): p. 171-6.
19. Morin, S.J., et al., Translocations, inversions and other
chromosome rearrangements. Fertil Steril, 2017. 107 (1): p.
19-26.
20. Carp, H., et al., Parental karyotype and subsequent live
births in recurrent miscarriage. Fertil Steril, 2004. 81 (5):
p. 1296-301.
21. Goddijn, M., et al., Clinical relevance of diagnosing
structural chromosome abnormalities in couples with repeated
miscarriage. Hum Reprod, 2004. 19 (4): p. 1013-7.
22. Franssen, M.T., et al., Reproductive outcome after chromosome
analysis in couples with two or more miscarriages: index
[corrected]-control study. Bmj, 2006. 332 (7544): p.
759-63.
23. Sugiura-Ogasawara, M., et al., Subsequent pregnancy outcomes
in recurrent miscarriage patients with a paternal or maternal carrier of
a structural chromosome rearrangement. J Hum Genet, 2008.53 (7): p. 622-628.
24. Murugappan, G., et al., Intent to treat analysis of in vitro
fertilization and preimplantation genetic screening versus expectant
management in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss. Hum Reprod, 2016.31 (8): p. 1668-74.
25. Maithripala, S., et al., Prevalence and Treatment Choices for
Couples with Recurrent Pregnancy Loss Due to Structural Chromosomal
Anomalies. J Obstet Gynaecol Can, 2018. 40 (6): p. 655-662.
26. Iews, M., et al., Does preimplantation genetic diagnosis
improve reproductive outcome in couples with recurrent pregnancy loss
owing to structural chromosomal rearrangement? A systematic review.Reprod Biomed Online, 2018. 36 (6): p. 677-685.
27. Hyde, K.J. and D.J. Schust, Genetic considerations in
recurrent pregnancy loss. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med, 2015.5 (3): p. a023119.
28. van den Berg, M.M., et al., Genetics of early miscarriage.Biochim Biophys Acta, 2012. 1822 (12): p. 1951-9.
29. Carp, H., et al., Embryonic karyotype in recurrent miscarriage
with parental karyotypic aberrations. Fertil Steril, 2006.85 (2): p. 446-50.
30. Desjardins, M.K. and M.D. Stephenson, ”Information-rich”
reproductive outcomes in carriers of a structural chromosome
rearrangement ascertained on the basis of recurrent pregnancy loss.Fertil Steril, 2012. 97 (4): p. 894-903.
31. Dong, Z., et al., Genome Sequencing Explores Complexity of
Chromosomal Abnormalities in Recurrent Miscarriage. Am J Hum Genet,
2019. 105 (6): p. 1102-1111.