ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2025
Corpus luteum number and maternal circulatory adaptation from early pregnancy onwards: the Rotterdam Periconception Cohort (Predict Study).
Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing endometrial preparation protocols and clinical outcomes: lessons learned from 3507 vitrified-warmed euploid transfers.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- Heterogeneous offspring growth in spontaneous versus in vitro fertilization pregnancies: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
study questionIs the number of corpora lutea (CL) associated with maternal circulatory adaptation to pregnancy, as assessed by blood pressure and uterine artery Doppler pulsatility and resistance indices? SUMMARY ANSWER: Pregnancies without a corpus luteum have a higher mean arterial pressure throughout pregnancy and lower uterine artery pulsatility and resistance indices in the first and second trimesters, compared to pregnancies where one or more than one corpus luteum is present. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Different modes of conception result in varying numbers of corpus luteum in early pregnancy. Previous research has demonstrated significant differences in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and birthweight in women with 0, 1, and multiple CL, as well as altered maternal cardiovascular adaptation. Although direct causal evidence is limited, these differences are thought to reflect the presence or absence of corpus luteum-derived hormones, suboptimal decidualization in programmed cycles, or both. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This prospective study used data from the ongoing Rotterdam Periconception Cohort, including women with singleton pregnancies enrolled from 2010 to 2022 at the Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, a tertiary care facility. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
methodsThe study population for this research involved pregnancies in 1986 women: 1456 with one corpus luteum (1292 due to natural conception or insemination and 164 due to natural cycle frozen embryo transfer), 457 with more than one corpus luteum (due to fresh embryo transfer), and 73 with no corpus luteum (due to artificial cycle (AC)-FET). Linear mixed models were adjusted for maternal age, body mass index, nulliparity, smoking, pre-existing hypertension, and uterine artery Doppler outcomes, including mean arterial pressure. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Adjusted mean arterial pressure during pregnancy was significantly higher in women with 0 vs 1 CL (β + 2.19 mmHg, 95% CI [0.43-3.95], P = 0.015), but was not different between those with >1 and 1 CL (β -0.35 mmHg [-1.22 to 0.53], P = 0.438). This was also true for diastolic but not for systolic blood pressure. Uterine artery Doppler indices were available for 624 women. Adjusted uterine artery pulsatility index (PI) and resistance index (RI) were significantly lower in women with 0 CL compared to 1 CL, both at 11 weeks (PI: 1.53, 95% CI [1.38-1.69] vs 1.72 [1.65-1.79], P = 0.026; RI: 0.69, [0.66-0.73] vs 0.73 [0.72-0.75], P = 0.034) and at 22 weeks gestational age (PI: 0.64 [0.57-0.72] vs 0.81 [0.78-0.85], P < 0.001; RI: 0.44 [0.41-0.46] vs 0.51 [0.50-0.53], P < 0.001). In pregnancies with >1 CL, uterine artery indices were comparable to the 1 CL group, except for a slightly higher RI at 22 weeks (0.54 [0.52-0.55], P = 0.011). Restricting the analyses to only pregnancies conceived using ARTs did not change the observed directions of the effects. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study was conducted in a tertiary hospital setting, which may limit generalizability to other populations. Details on luteal support were incomplete, and the corpus luteum number was inferred based on the mode of conception, which could introduce confounding by indication. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
findingsThese results align with previous literature and provide robust evidence from a large cohort, adjusting for confounders. Notably, uterine artery models were additionally adjusted for the observed differences in mean arterial pressure. However, despite this adjustment, the differences in uterine artery indices between CL groups persisted, indicating that these cannot be explained by the higher mean arterial pressure and suggesting the involvement of distinct vascular mechanisms. The observed differences in circulatory adaptation to pregnancy between conceptions with corpus luteum numbers may underlie the higher incidence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy after conception without a corpus luteum. Additionally, these insights further support the preference for certain ARTs, where feasible, to optimize maternal and neonatal outcomes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was funded by the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Internal Medicine of the Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The authors declare no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study is registered at the Dutch Trial Register (NTR6854).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.