Cargando…
Natural cycle versus artificial cycle in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: A randomized prospective trial
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether there was a difference in pregnancy outcomes between modified natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer (NC-FET) cycles and artificial cycles (AC)-FET in women who all had regular menstrual cycles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred seventy patients who met the in...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Galenos Publishing
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5894530/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29662710 http://dx.doi.org/10.4274/tjod.47855 |
_version_ | 1783313506930524160 |
---|---|
author | Agha-Hosseini, Marzieh Hashemi, Leila Aleyasin, Ashraf Ghasemi, Marzieh Sarvi, Fatemeh Shabani Nashtaei, Maryam Khodarahmian, Mahshad |
author_facet | Agha-Hosseini, Marzieh Hashemi, Leila Aleyasin, Ashraf Ghasemi, Marzieh Sarvi, Fatemeh Shabani Nashtaei, Maryam Khodarahmian, Mahshad |
author_sort | Agha-Hosseini, Marzieh |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether there was a difference in pregnancy outcomes between modified natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer (NC-FET) cycles and artificial cycles (AC)-FET in women who all had regular menstrual cycles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred seventy patients who met the inclusion criteria and had at least two cryopreserved embryos were included in a prospective randomized controlled trial. Eighty-five patients were randomized based on Bernoulli distribution into the following two groups: 1) Modified NC-FET using human chorionic gonadotropin for ovulation induction and 2) AC-FET, in which endometrial timing was programmed with estrogen and progesterone. The main studied outcome measure was the clinical pregnancy rate per cycle. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the two groups with regard to the chemical, clinical, and ongoing pregnancy rates (48.2% vs 45.9%, p>0.05; 38.9% vs 35.3%, p>0.05; and 37.6% vs 34.1%, p>0.05, respectively), as well as the live birth or miscarriage rates per cycle (35.3% vs 31.8%, p>0.05; and 1.2% vs 1.2%, p>0.05, respectively). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that although both FET protocols are equally effective in terms of pregnancy outcomes in women with regular menstrual cycles, NC-FET is more favorable because it requires no medication, has no adverse events, and has a significant cost reduction. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5894530 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Galenos Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58945302018-04-16 Natural cycle versus artificial cycle in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: A randomized prospective trial Agha-Hosseini, Marzieh Hashemi, Leila Aleyasin, Ashraf Ghasemi, Marzieh Sarvi, Fatemeh Shabani Nashtaei, Maryam Khodarahmian, Mahshad Turk J Obstet Gynecol Clinical Investigation OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether there was a difference in pregnancy outcomes between modified natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer (NC-FET) cycles and artificial cycles (AC)-FET in women who all had regular menstrual cycles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred seventy patients who met the inclusion criteria and had at least two cryopreserved embryos were included in a prospective randomized controlled trial. Eighty-five patients were randomized based on Bernoulli distribution into the following two groups: 1) Modified NC-FET using human chorionic gonadotropin for ovulation induction and 2) AC-FET, in which endometrial timing was programmed with estrogen and progesterone. The main studied outcome measure was the clinical pregnancy rate per cycle. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the two groups with regard to the chemical, clinical, and ongoing pregnancy rates (48.2% vs 45.9%, p>0.05; 38.9% vs 35.3%, p>0.05; and 37.6% vs 34.1%, p>0.05, respectively), as well as the live birth or miscarriage rates per cycle (35.3% vs 31.8%, p>0.05; and 1.2% vs 1.2%, p>0.05, respectively). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that although both FET protocols are equally effective in terms of pregnancy outcomes in women with regular menstrual cycles, NC-FET is more favorable because it requires no medication, has no adverse events, and has a significant cost reduction. Galenos Publishing 2018-03 2018-03-29 /pmc/articles/PMC5894530/ /pubmed/29662710 http://dx.doi.org/10.4274/tjod.47855 Text en ©Copyright 2018 by Turkish Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology published by Galenos Publishing House. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Investigation Agha-Hosseini, Marzieh Hashemi, Leila Aleyasin, Ashraf Ghasemi, Marzieh Sarvi, Fatemeh Shabani Nashtaei, Maryam Khodarahmian, Mahshad Natural cycle versus artificial cycle in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: A randomized prospective trial |
title | Natural cycle versus artificial cycle in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: A randomized prospective trial |
title_full | Natural cycle versus artificial cycle in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: A randomized prospective trial |
title_fullStr | Natural cycle versus artificial cycle in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: A randomized prospective trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Natural cycle versus artificial cycle in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: A randomized prospective trial |
title_short | Natural cycle versus artificial cycle in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: A randomized prospective trial |
title_sort | natural cycle versus artificial cycle in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a randomized prospective trial |
topic | Clinical Investigation |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5894530/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29662710 http://dx.doi.org/10.4274/tjod.47855 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT aghahosseinimarzieh naturalcycleversusartificialcycleinfrozenthawedembryotransferarandomizedprospectivetrial AT hashemileila naturalcycleversusartificialcycleinfrozenthawedembryotransferarandomizedprospectivetrial AT aleyasinashraf naturalcycleversusartificialcycleinfrozenthawedembryotransferarandomizedprospectivetrial AT ghasemimarzieh naturalcycleversusartificialcycleinfrozenthawedembryotransferarandomizedprospectivetrial AT sarvifatemeh naturalcycleversusartificialcycleinfrozenthawedembryotransferarandomizedprospectivetrial AT shabaninashtaeimaryam naturalcycleversusartificialcycleinfrozenthawedembryotransferarandomizedprospectivetrial AT khodarahmianmahshad naturalcycleversusartificialcycleinfrozenthawedembryotransferarandomizedprospectivetrial |