Cargando…

Systematic review update and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials of ovarian stimulation versus artificial cycle for endometrial preparation prior to frozen embryo transfer in women with polycystic ovary syndrome

PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the short-term reproductive and long-term obstetric outcomes after endometrial preparations by ovarian stimulation protocols and hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) prior to frozen embryo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Yingying, Wu, Ling, Li, Tin Chiu, Wang, Chi Chiu, Zhang, Tao, Chung, Jacqueline Pui Wah
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8976372/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35366912
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12958-022-00931-4
_version_ 1784680552802025472
author Zhang, Yingying
Wu, Ling
Li, Tin Chiu
Wang, Chi Chiu
Zhang, Tao
Chung, Jacqueline Pui Wah
author_facet Zhang, Yingying
Wu, Ling
Li, Tin Chiu
Wang, Chi Chiu
Zhang, Tao
Chung, Jacqueline Pui Wah
author_sort Zhang, Yingying
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the short-term reproductive and long-term obstetric outcomes after endometrial preparations by ovarian stimulation protocols and hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) prior to frozen embryo transfer (FET). METHOD: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant studies. Primary outcome was live birth rate, secondary outcomes included the rates of clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, implantation and hCG-postive, cycle cancellation, ectopic pregnancy, preterm birth, preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes mellitus and abnormal placentation. RESULTS: Nine studies, including 8327 patients with PCOS, were identified. Live birth rate was significantly higher (RR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.03–1.19) and miscarriage rate (RR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.46–0.78) was significantly lower in stimulated protocol compared to the rates in HRT. While the rates of ongoing pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, implantation, hCG-positive, cycle cancellation and ectopic pregnancy showed no significant difference between the two protocols. Compared HRT with different stimulation protocols, significantly higher clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.20–1.98) were found in letrozole group, but not in the other subgroups. For the obstetric outcomes, the preterm birth and preeclampsia rates were significantly lower in the stimulated group compared to that in the HRT group (RR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.74–0.98; RR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.40–0.82, respectively), while gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes mellitus and abnormal placentation rates showed no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: The present data suggest that ovarian stimulation protocol as an endometrial preparation regimen prior to FET might be superior to HRT protocol with a significantly higher rate of live birth, lower risk of miscarriage, preterm birth and preeclampsia. Our study showed stimulated protocol is better than HRT regimen as an endometrial preparation for women with PCOS. However, quality of the evidence is low, more well-designed RCT studies are still needed to confirm the results before clinical recommendation, particularly direct comparisons between letrozole and other stimulated regimens. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12958-022-00931-4.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8976372
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89763722022-04-03 Systematic review update and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials of ovarian stimulation versus artificial cycle for endometrial preparation prior to frozen embryo transfer in women with polycystic ovary syndrome Zhang, Yingying Wu, Ling Li, Tin Chiu Wang, Chi Chiu Zhang, Tao Chung, Jacqueline Pui Wah Reprod Biol Endocrinol Review PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the short-term reproductive and long-term obstetric outcomes after endometrial preparations by ovarian stimulation protocols and hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) prior to frozen embryo transfer (FET). METHOD: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant studies. Primary outcome was live birth rate, secondary outcomes included the rates of clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, implantation and hCG-postive, cycle cancellation, ectopic pregnancy, preterm birth, preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes mellitus and abnormal placentation. RESULTS: Nine studies, including 8327 patients with PCOS, were identified. Live birth rate was significantly higher (RR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.03–1.19) and miscarriage rate (RR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.46–0.78) was significantly lower in stimulated protocol compared to the rates in HRT. While the rates of ongoing pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, implantation, hCG-positive, cycle cancellation and ectopic pregnancy showed no significant difference between the two protocols. Compared HRT with different stimulation protocols, significantly higher clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.20–1.98) were found in letrozole group, but not in the other subgroups. For the obstetric outcomes, the preterm birth and preeclampsia rates were significantly lower in the stimulated group compared to that in the HRT group (RR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.74–0.98; RR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.40–0.82, respectively), while gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes mellitus and abnormal placentation rates showed no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: The present data suggest that ovarian stimulation protocol as an endometrial preparation regimen prior to FET might be superior to HRT protocol with a significantly higher rate of live birth, lower risk of miscarriage, preterm birth and preeclampsia. Our study showed stimulated protocol is better than HRT regimen as an endometrial preparation for women with PCOS. However, quality of the evidence is low, more well-designed RCT studies are still needed to confirm the results before clinical recommendation, particularly direct comparisons between letrozole and other stimulated regimens. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12958-022-00931-4. BioMed Central 2022-04-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8976372/ /pubmed/35366912 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12958-022-00931-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Review
Zhang, Yingying
Wu, Ling
Li, Tin Chiu
Wang, Chi Chiu
Zhang, Tao
Chung, Jacqueline Pui Wah
Systematic review update and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials of ovarian stimulation versus artificial cycle for endometrial preparation prior to frozen embryo transfer in women with polycystic ovary syndrome
title Systematic review update and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials of ovarian stimulation versus artificial cycle for endometrial preparation prior to frozen embryo transfer in women with polycystic ovary syndrome
title_full Systematic review update and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials of ovarian stimulation versus artificial cycle for endometrial preparation prior to frozen embryo transfer in women with polycystic ovary syndrome
title_fullStr Systematic review update and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials of ovarian stimulation versus artificial cycle for endometrial preparation prior to frozen embryo transfer in women with polycystic ovary syndrome
title_full_unstemmed Systematic review update and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials of ovarian stimulation versus artificial cycle for endometrial preparation prior to frozen embryo transfer in women with polycystic ovary syndrome
title_short Systematic review update and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials of ovarian stimulation versus artificial cycle for endometrial preparation prior to frozen embryo transfer in women with polycystic ovary syndrome
title_sort systematic review update and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials of ovarian stimulation versus artificial cycle for endometrial preparation prior to frozen embryo transfer in women with polycystic ovary syndrome
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8976372/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35366912
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12958-022-00931-4
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangyingying systematicreviewupdateandmetaanalysisofrandomizedandnonrandomizedcontrolledtrialsofovarianstimulationversusartificialcycleforendometrialpreparationpriortofrozenembryotransferinwomenwithpolycysticovarysyndrome
AT wuling systematicreviewupdateandmetaanalysisofrandomizedandnonrandomizedcontrolledtrialsofovarianstimulationversusartificialcycleforendometrialpreparationpriortofrozenembryotransferinwomenwithpolycysticovarysyndrome
AT litinchiu systematicreviewupdateandmetaanalysisofrandomizedandnonrandomizedcontrolledtrialsofovarianstimulationversusartificialcycleforendometrialpreparationpriortofrozenembryotransferinwomenwithpolycysticovarysyndrome
AT wangchichiu systematicreviewupdateandmetaanalysisofrandomizedandnonrandomizedcontrolledtrialsofovarianstimulationversusartificialcycleforendometrialpreparationpriortofrozenembryotransferinwomenwithpolycysticovarysyndrome
AT zhangtao systematicreviewupdateandmetaanalysisofrandomizedandnonrandomizedcontrolledtrialsofovarianstimulationversusartificialcycleforendometrialpreparationpriortofrozenembryotransferinwomenwithpolycysticovarysyndrome
AT chungjacquelinepuiwah systematicreviewupdateandmetaanalysisofrandomizedandnonrandomizedcontrolledtrialsofovarianstimulationversusartificialcycleforendometrialpreparationpriortofrozenembryotransferinwomenwithpolycysticovarysyndrome