Cargando…
Fertility Preservation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Modified But Uncompromised
Purpose: Throughout COVID-19, our clinic remained operational for patients requiring urgent fertility preservation (FP). This study aimed to characterize changes to clinical protocols during the first wave of COVID-19 and compare outcomes to historical controls. Methods: We performed a retrospective...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8812503/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35136874 http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/whr.2021.0107 |
_version_ | 1784644665939591168 |
---|---|
author | Trawick, Emma Babayev, Elnur Potapragada, Nivedita Elvikis, Jennifer Smith, Kristin Goldman, Kara N. |
author_facet | Trawick, Emma Babayev, Elnur Potapragada, Nivedita Elvikis, Jennifer Smith, Kristin Goldman, Kara N. |
author_sort | Trawick, Emma |
collection | PubMed |
description | Purpose: Throughout COVID-19, our clinic remained operational for patients requiring urgent fertility preservation (FP). This study aimed to characterize changes to clinical protocols during the first wave of COVID-19 and compare outcomes to historical controls. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study at a university fertility center examining all patients who underwent medically indicated FP cycles during the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) COVID-19 Task Force-recommended suspension of fertility treatment (March 17–May 11, 2020) and patients from the same time period in 2019. FP care was modified for safety during the first wave of COVID-19 with fewer monitoring visits and infection control measures. FP cycle characteristics and outcomes were compared across years. Results: The volume of cycles was nearly 30% higher in 2020 versus 2019 (27 vs. 19). Diagnoses, age, and anti-Mullerian hormone were similar between cohorts. More patients elected to pursue embryo cryopreservation over oocyte cryopreservation in 2020 versus 2019 (45.8% vs. 5.2%, p < 0.005). Patients managed during COVID-19 had fewer monitoring visits (5 ± 1 vs. 6 ± 1, p = 0.02), and 37.5% of cycles utilized a blind trigger injection. There was no difference in total days of ovarian stimulation (11 ± 1 vs. 11 ± 2, p > 0.05), but 2020 cycles utilized more gonadotropin (4770 ± 1480 vs. 3846 ± 1438, p = 0.04). There was no difference in total oocytes retrieved (19 ± 14 vs. 22 ± 12, p > 0.05) or mature oocytes vitrified (15 ± 12 vs. 17 ± 9, p > 0.05) per cycle. Conclusions: FP continued during COVID-19, and more cycles were completed in 2020 versus 2019. Despite minimized monitoring, outcomes were optimal and equivalent to historical controls, suggesting FP care can be adapted without compromising outcomes. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8812503 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88125032022-02-07 Fertility Preservation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Modified But Uncompromised Trawick, Emma Babayev, Elnur Potapragada, Nivedita Elvikis, Jennifer Smith, Kristin Goldman, Kara N. Womens Health Rep (New Rochelle) Original Article Purpose: Throughout COVID-19, our clinic remained operational for patients requiring urgent fertility preservation (FP). This study aimed to characterize changes to clinical protocols during the first wave of COVID-19 and compare outcomes to historical controls. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study at a university fertility center examining all patients who underwent medically indicated FP cycles during the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) COVID-19 Task Force-recommended suspension of fertility treatment (March 17–May 11, 2020) and patients from the same time period in 2019. FP care was modified for safety during the first wave of COVID-19 with fewer monitoring visits and infection control measures. FP cycle characteristics and outcomes were compared across years. Results: The volume of cycles was nearly 30% higher in 2020 versus 2019 (27 vs. 19). Diagnoses, age, and anti-Mullerian hormone were similar between cohorts. More patients elected to pursue embryo cryopreservation over oocyte cryopreservation in 2020 versus 2019 (45.8% vs. 5.2%, p < 0.005). Patients managed during COVID-19 had fewer monitoring visits (5 ± 1 vs. 6 ± 1, p = 0.02), and 37.5% of cycles utilized a blind trigger injection. There was no difference in total days of ovarian stimulation (11 ± 1 vs. 11 ± 2, p > 0.05), but 2020 cycles utilized more gonadotropin (4770 ± 1480 vs. 3846 ± 1438, p = 0.04). There was no difference in total oocytes retrieved (19 ± 14 vs. 22 ± 12, p > 0.05) or mature oocytes vitrified (15 ± 12 vs. 17 ± 9, p > 0.05) per cycle. Conclusions: FP continued during COVID-19, and more cycles were completed in 2020 versus 2019. Despite minimized monitoring, outcomes were optimal and equivalent to historical controls, suggesting FP care can be adapted without compromising outcomes. Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers 2022-01-31 /pmc/articles/PMC8812503/ /pubmed/35136874 http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/whr.2021.0107 Text en © Emma Trawick et al., 2022; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License [CC-BY] (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Trawick, Emma Babayev, Elnur Potapragada, Nivedita Elvikis, Jennifer Smith, Kristin Goldman, Kara N. Fertility Preservation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Modified But Uncompromised |
title | Fertility Preservation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Modified But Uncompromised |
title_full | Fertility Preservation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Modified But Uncompromised |
title_fullStr | Fertility Preservation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Modified But Uncompromised |
title_full_unstemmed | Fertility Preservation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Modified But Uncompromised |
title_short | Fertility Preservation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Modified But Uncompromised |
title_sort | fertility preservation during the covid-19 pandemic: modified but uncompromised |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8812503/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35136874 http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/whr.2021.0107 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT trawickemma fertilitypreservationduringthecovid19pandemicmodifiedbutuncompromised AT babayevelnur fertilitypreservationduringthecovid19pandemicmodifiedbutuncompromised AT potapragadanivedita fertilitypreservationduringthecovid19pandemicmodifiedbutuncompromised AT elvikisjennifer fertilitypreservationduringthecovid19pandemicmodifiedbutuncompromised AT smithkristin fertilitypreservationduringthecovid19pandemicmodifiedbutuncompromised AT goldmankaran fertilitypreservationduringthecovid19pandemicmodifiedbutuncompromised |