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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Agha-Hosseini, Marzieh, Hashemi, Leila, Aleyasin, Ashraf, Ghasemi, Marzieh, Sarvi, Fatemeh, Shabani Nashtaei, Maryam, Khodarahmian, Mahshad
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