Cargando…
Endometrial preparation methods prior to frozen embryo transfer: A retrospective cohort study comparing true natural cycle, modified natural cycle and artificial cycle
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of three endometrial preparation methods prior to frozen embryo transfer (FET): Natural cycle (NC), modified natural cycle (mNC), and programmed/artificial cycle (AC) protocols. Primary outcomes investigated were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9470615/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35094106 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06371-6 |
_version_ | 1784788882723700736 |
---|---|
author | Mensing, Lena Dahlberg, Emilie S. Bay, Bjørn Gabrielsen, Anette Knudsen, Ulla B. |
author_facet | Mensing, Lena Dahlberg, Emilie S. Bay, Bjørn Gabrielsen, Anette Knudsen, Ulla B. |
author_sort | Mensing, Lena |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of three endometrial preparation methods prior to frozen embryo transfer (FET): Natural cycle (NC), modified natural cycle (mNC), and programmed/artificial cycle (AC) protocols. Primary outcomes investigated were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and live birth rate (LBR). METHODS: A retrospective study on 2080 FET cycles including patients ≤ 35 years with a BMI ≤ 30 who underwent FET with a single autologous blastocyst stage embryo at Aarhus University Hospital or Horsens Regional Hospital in the period 2013–2019. Only blastocysts frozen by vitrification were included. No luteal phase support (LPS) was used in natural cycles. RESULTS: In NC, mNC and AC, CPRs were 34.9%, 40.6% and 32.0%, while LBRs were 32.3%, 36.3% and 26.6%, respectively. There were no significant differences in main outcomes when comparing AC with NC [LBR: OR = 0.9 (0.6; 1.2), p = 0.4]. Compared to NC, mNC-FET displayed significantly higher positive hCG, implantation rate, CPR and LBR [LBR: OR = 1.4 (1.0; 1.9), p = 0.03]. An analysis with mNC as reference group demonstrated significantly better outcomes in the mNC group compared to AC [LBR: OR 0.6 (0.5; 0.8), p = < 0.01]. CONCLUSION: The present study overall demonstrated better outcomes including LBR with mNC protocol as compared to NC and AC protocol, while comparison of AC and NC showed both protocols to be equally effective. A programmed cycle may be necessary for women with anovulatory cycles; however, normo-ovulating women may be offered a natural cycle protocol. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 3-3013-3047/1 and 31-1522-44. Date of registration: June 24, 2019 and April 23, 2020. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9470615 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-94706152022-09-15 Endometrial preparation methods prior to frozen embryo transfer: A retrospective cohort study comparing true natural cycle, modified natural cycle and artificial cycle Mensing, Lena Dahlberg, Emilie S. Bay, Bjørn Gabrielsen, Anette Knudsen, Ulla B. Arch Gynecol Obstet Original Article PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of three endometrial preparation methods prior to frozen embryo transfer (FET): Natural cycle (NC), modified natural cycle (mNC), and programmed/artificial cycle (AC) protocols. Primary outcomes investigated were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and live birth rate (LBR). METHODS: A retrospective study on 2080 FET cycles including patients ≤ 35 years with a BMI ≤ 30 who underwent FET with a single autologous blastocyst stage embryo at Aarhus University Hospital or Horsens Regional Hospital in the period 2013–2019. Only blastocysts frozen by vitrification were included. No luteal phase support (LPS) was used in natural cycles. RESULTS: In NC, mNC and AC, CPRs were 34.9%, 40.6% and 32.0%, while LBRs were 32.3%, 36.3% and 26.6%, respectively. There were no significant differences in main outcomes when comparing AC with NC [LBR: OR = 0.9 (0.6; 1.2), p = 0.4]. Compared to NC, mNC-FET displayed significantly higher positive hCG, implantation rate, CPR and LBR [LBR: OR = 1.4 (1.0; 1.9), p = 0.03]. An analysis with mNC as reference group demonstrated significantly better outcomes in the mNC group compared to AC [LBR: OR 0.6 (0.5; 0.8), p = < 0.01]. CONCLUSION: The present study overall demonstrated better outcomes including LBR with mNC protocol as compared to NC and AC protocol, while comparison of AC and NC showed both protocols to be equally effective. A programmed cycle may be necessary for women with anovulatory cycles; however, normo-ovulating women may be offered a natural cycle protocol. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 3-3013-3047/1 and 31-1522-44. Date of registration: June 24, 2019 and April 23, 2020. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-01-30 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9470615/ /pubmed/35094106 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06371-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 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/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Mensing, Lena Dahlberg, Emilie S. Bay, Bjørn Gabrielsen, Anette Knudsen, Ulla B. Endometrial preparation methods prior to frozen embryo transfer: A retrospective cohort study comparing true natural cycle, modified natural cycle and artificial cycle |
title | Endometrial preparation methods prior to frozen embryo transfer: A retrospective cohort study comparing true natural cycle, modified natural cycle and artificial cycle |
title_full | Endometrial preparation methods prior to frozen embryo transfer: A retrospective cohort study comparing true natural cycle, modified natural cycle and artificial cycle |
title_fullStr | Endometrial preparation methods prior to frozen embryo transfer: A retrospective cohort study comparing true natural cycle, modified natural cycle and artificial cycle |
title_full_unstemmed | Endometrial preparation methods prior to frozen embryo transfer: A retrospective cohort study comparing true natural cycle, modified natural cycle and artificial cycle |
title_short | Endometrial preparation methods prior to frozen embryo transfer: A retrospective cohort study comparing true natural cycle, modified natural cycle and artificial cycle |
title_sort | endometrial preparation methods prior to frozen embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study comparing true natural cycle, modified natural cycle and artificial cycle |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9470615/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35094106 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06371-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mensinglena endometrialpreparationmethodspriortofrozenembryotransferaretrospectivecohortstudycomparingtruenaturalcyclemodifiednaturalcycleandartificialcycle AT dahlbergemilies endometrialpreparationmethodspriortofrozenembryotransferaretrospectivecohortstudycomparingtruenaturalcyclemodifiednaturalcycleandartificialcycle AT baybjørn endometrialpreparationmethodspriortofrozenembryotransferaretrospectivecohortstudycomparingtruenaturalcyclemodifiednaturalcycleandartificialcycle AT gabrielsenanette endometrialpreparationmethodspriortofrozenembryotransferaretrospectivecohortstudycomparingtruenaturalcyclemodifiednaturalcycleandartificialcycle AT knudsenullab endometrialpreparationmethodspriortofrozenembryotransferaretrospectivecohortstudycomparingtruenaturalcyclemodifiednaturalcycleandartificialcycle |