Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Clinical Significance of Embryonic Chromosomal Errors in Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: an Analysis of 1107 Miscarriages

  • Reproductive Genetics: Original Article
  • Published:
Reproductive Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this study was to characterize the relationship between embryonic chromosomal errors in the products of conception (POC) and maternal age, gestational age (GA) of pregnancy loss, and findings on routine recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) workup. This is a retrospective cohort study of women with a history of ≥ 2 pregnancy losses and who underwent cytogenetic testing on the POC of a subsequent pregnancy loss at an academic tertiary RPL referral center. The association between the odds of embryonic chromosomal errors in POC and maternal age, GA of pregnancy loss, as well as RPL work up findings was investigated. A total of 1107 miscarriages were analyzed from 741 women. There was an overall linear relationship between embryonic chromosomal errors and maternal age, with a nearly twofold increase in the odds of chromosomal error with every 5-year increase in maternal age (P < 0.0001). The association between chromosomal errors and GA was also linear (P = 0.0001), with most losses having no chromosomal errors after 13 weeks’ gestation. Women with ≥ 1 positive findings on routine RPL diagnostic workup had lower odds of embryonic chromosomal errors compared to those with a normal workup [OR 0.57 (95% CI = 0.41–0.80)]. Notably, the estimated prevalence of chromosomal error remained high (> 60%) in women ≥ 35 years old irrespective of findings on routine evaluation. While embryonic chromosomal errors were associated with advanced maternal age, early GA of loss, and a negative routine RPL evaluation, the prevalence of chromosomal errors remained high in all subpopulations. These findings suggest that primary cytogenetic testing on POCs should be offered at the time of second and subsequent pregnancy losses in all RPL patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its Supplementary Information.

References

  1. Stirrat GM. Recurrent miscarriage. Lancet. 1990;336(8716):673–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chester MR, Tirlapur A, Jayaprakasan K. Current management of recurrent pregnancy loss. Obstet Gynaecol. 2022;24(4):260–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Definitions of infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(1):63.

  4. Bender Atik R, et al. ESHRE guideline: recurrent pregnancy loss. Hum Reprod Open. 2018;2018(2):hoy004.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The investigation and treatment of couples with recurrent first-trimester and second-trimester miscarriage. In: Green-top Guideline No. 17. London: RCOG; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Stephenson M, Kutteh W. Evaluation and management of recurrent early pregnancy loss. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;50(1):132–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Stephenson MD. Frequency of factors associated with habitual abortion in 197 couples. Fertil Steril. 1996;66(1):24–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jaslow CR, Carney JL, Kutteh WH. Diagnostic factors identified in 1020 women with two versus three or more recurrent pregnancy losses. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(4):1234–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Evaluation and treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(5):1103–11.

  10. Bernardi LA, Plunkett BA, Stephenson MD. Is chromosome testing of the second miscarriage cost saving? A decision analysis of selective versus universal recurrent pregnancy loss evaluation. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(1):156–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Popescu F, Jaslow CR, Kutteh WH. 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):579–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dahdouh EM, Kutteh WH. Genetic testing of products of conception in recurrent pregnancy loss evaluation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;43(1):120–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Johnson DS, et al. Preclinical validation of a microarray method for full molecular karyotyping of blastomeres in a 24-h protocol. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(4):1066–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Chambers JM, Hastie TJ. Statistical models in S. Pacific Grove: Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Benjamini Y, Yekutieli D. The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Ann Stat. 2001;29(4):1165–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Franasiak JM, et al. The nature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the female partner: a review of 15,169 consecutive trophectoderm biopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(3):656-663.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tsutsumi M, et al. Age-related decrease of meiotic cohesins in human oocytes. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(5):e96710.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Duncan FE, et al. Chromosome cohesion decreases in human eggs with advanced maternal age. Aging Cell. 2012;11(6):1121–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shimoi G, et al. Destabilization of spindle assembly checkpoint causes aneuploidy during meiosis II in murine post-ovulatory aged oocytes. J Reprod Dev. 2019;65(1):57–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Huo P, et al. High accuracy of quantitative fluorescence polymerase chain reaction combined with non-invasive pre-natal testing for mid-pregnancy diagnosis of common fetal aneuploidies: a single-center experience in China. Exp Ther Med. 2019;18(1):711–21.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Mehta GD, Agarwal M, Ghosh SK. Functional characterization of kinetochore protein, Ctf19 in meiosis I: an implication of differential impact of Ctf19 on the assembly of mitotic and meiotic kinetochores in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Microbiol. 2014;91(6):1179–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hassold T, Hunt P. To err (meiotically) is human: the genesis of human aneuploidy. Nat Rev Genet. 2001;2(4):280–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Simpson J, Carson S. Genetic and nongenetic causes of pregnancy loss. The Global Library of Women’s Medicine. 2013. https://doi.org/10.3843/GLOWM.10319

  24. Soler A, et al. Overview of chromosome abnormalities in first trimester miscarriages: a series of 1,011 consecutive chorionic villi sample karyotypes. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2017;152(2):81–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Menasha J, et al. Incidence and spectrum of chromosome abnormalities in spontaneous abortions: new insights from a 12-year study. Genet Med. 2005;7(4):251–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hassold T, Chiu D. Maternal age-specific rates of numerical chromosome abnormalities with special reference to trisomy. Hum Genet. 1985;70(1):11–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Warburton D, et al. Monosomy X: a chromosomal anomaly associated with young maternal age. Lancet. 1980;1(8161):167–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Terry J. The value of ancillary testing in amniotic fluid infection/inflammation-related early pregnancy loss and perinatal death in British Columbia. BC Med J. 2021;63(9):383–7.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Qi ST, et al. Arrested human embryos are more likely to have abnormal chromosomes than developing embryos from women of advanced maternal age. J Ovarian Res. 2014;7:65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Wapner RJ, Lewis D. Genetics and metabolic causes of stillbirth. Semin Perinatol. 2002;26(1):70–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility at the University of British Columbia supported the authors throughout the study period and manuscript preparation. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of British Columbia, 4500 Oak Street, Vancouver, BC, V6H 3N1, Canada

    Ann Korkidakis, Irene Jiang, Faten F. AbdelHafez & Mohamed A. Bedaiwy

  2. Women’s Health Research Institute, BC Women’s Hospital and Health Centre, 4500 Oak Street, Vancouver, BC, V6H 3N1, Canada

    Arianne Y. Albert & Mohamed A. Bedaiwy

  3. Department of Pathology, BC Children’s Hospital, 4480 Oak Street, Vancouver, BC, V6H 3V4, Canada

    Jefferson Terry

  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt

    Faten F. AbdelHafez

Authors
  1. Ann Korkidakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arianne Y. Albert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Irene Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jefferson Terry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Faten F. AbdelHafez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mohamed A. Bedaiwy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamed A. Bedaiwy.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 36 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Korkidakis, A., Albert, A.Y., Jiang, I. et al. The Clinical Significance of Embryonic Chromosomal Errors in Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: an Analysis of 1107 Miscarriages. Reprod. Sci. 30, 3019–3026 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-023-01239-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-023-01239-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation