medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2017, Number 09

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2017; 85 (09)

Comparison of pregnancy rate for embryos transferred in natural cycle vs cycles with endometrial preparation

Gutiérrez-Frusch JA; Roque-Sánchez AM, Durán-Monterrosas LA, Carballo-Mondragón E, Kably-Ambe A

Language: Spanish
References: 27
Page: 595-605
PDF size: 400.64 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objetive: Compare pregnancy rates of thawed embryo transfer between natural cycle and endometrial preparation.
Materials and Methods: This is a comparative, retrospective, observational study. 951 medical files where reviewed in the from January 2010 to January 2014. 75 files met with the inclusion criteria. The cycle where divided into two groups. The first group, thawed embryos where transferred during a natural cycle without any hormonal therapy. The second group, thawed embryos where transferred to a prepared endometrium with GnRH agonist and exogenous estrogen. Two embryos where transferred if the patient had two or more viable thawed embryos and one in all other cases. Variables analyzed in both groups where, age, body mass index, FSH, LH, and estrogen at the beginning of the cycle, progesterone on the day of initiating luteal support, LH and estradiol the day of embryo transfer, post-thaw embryo survival rate, number of embryos transferred, embryo quality and pregnancy rate. Groups where then divided according to the embryo quality forming a good quality cohort and a regular quality cohort. In both groups transfers during a natural cycle where compared with embryo transfer to a prepared endometrium.
Results: There was no difference observed in embryo survival or number of embryos transferred between both groups. Embryo quality was statistically better in the group with prepared endometrium. There was no statistical significant difference in pregnancy rate between the two groups. In cycles with good quality embryos there was no statistical difference in pregnancy rate when embryos where transferred during a natural cycle versus those transferred to a prepared endometrium. In cycles with regular quality embryos there was a statistical significant difference in pregnancy rate. Pregnancy rate for thawed-embryo transfer during a natural cycle was 15% and 33.3% when the transfer was to a prepared endometrium (p = 0.02).
Conclusion: Endometrial preparation increases de pregnancy rate when regular quality thawed-embryos are transferred.


REFERENCES

  1. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, IVF success rate reports: 2013. http://www.SART.org.

  2. Melo MA, Meseguer M, Garrido N, Bosch E, Pellicer A, RemohI J. The significance of premature luteinizationin an oocytedonation programme. Hum. Reprod. 2006;21:1503-1507.

  3. Fatemi HM, Popovic-Todorovic B. Implantation in assisted reproduction: a look at endometrial receptivity. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2013;27, 530-538.

  4. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C, Thomas S. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozenthawed embryo transfer in normal responders. Fertil. Steril. 2011;96: 344-348.

  5. Peña JE, Chang PL, Chan LK, Zeitoun K, Thornton MH, Sauer MV. Supraphysiological estradiol levels do not affect oocyte and embryo quality in oocyte donation cycles. Hum Reprod 2002;17:83-87.

  6. Imudia AN, Goldman RH, Awonuga AO, Wright DL, Styer AK, Toth TL. The impact of supraphysiologic serum estradiol levels on peri-implantation embryo development and early pregnancy outcome following in vitro fertilization cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:65-71.

  7. Fauser BCJM, Nargund G, Anderson AN, Norman R, Tarlatzis B, Boivin J, Ledger W. Mild ovarian stimulation for IVF: 10 years later. Hum Reprod 2010;25:2678-2684.

  8. Kably-Ambe A, Estevez-González S, Carballo-Mondragon E, Durán-Monterrosas L. Análisis comparativo de la tasa de embarazo-ovocitos capturados en un programa de fertilización in vitro. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2008;76:256-260.

  9. Sunkara SK, Rittenberg V, Raine-Fenning N, Bhattacharya S, Zamora J, Coomarasamy A. Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1768- 1774.

  10. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C. Freeze-all can be a superior therapy to another fresh cycle in patients with prior fresh blastocyst implantation failure. Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 2014;29(3):286- 290

  11. Horcajadas JA, Díaz-Gimeno P, Pellicer A, Simon C. Uterine receptivity and the ramifications of ovarian stimulation on endometrial function. Semin. Reprod. Med. 2007;25:454- 460.

  12. Roque M, Valle M, Guimarães F, Sampaio M, Geber S. Freeze-all policy: fresh vs. frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Fertility and Sterility, 2015;103:1190-1193.

  13. Loutradi KE, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Papanikolaou EG, Pados G, Bontis I, Tarlatzis BC. Cryopreservation of human embryos by vitrification or slow freezing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:186-193.

  14. Liebermann J, Nawroth F, Isachenko V, Isachenko E, Rahimi G, Tucker MJ. Potential importance of vitrification in reproductive medicine. Biol Reprod 2002;67:1671-80.

  15. Z Li, YA Wang W, Ledger DH, et al. Sullivan Clinical outcomes following cryopreservation of blastocysts by vitrification or slow freezing: a population-based cohort study Hum. Reprod. 2014;29:2794-2801.

  16. Glujovsky D, Riestra B, Sueldo C, Fiszbjan G, et al. Vitrification versus slow freezing for women undergoing oocyte cryopreservation. The Cochrane Library 2014.

  17. Schoolcraft W, Sinton E, Schlenker T, et al. Lower pregnancy rate with premature luteinization during pituitary suppression with leuprolide acetate. Fertil Steril 1991;55:563-6.

  18. Glujovsky D, Blake DA, Farquhar CM, Bardach A. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. The Cochrane Library 2015.

  19. Veleva Z, Orava M, Nuojua-Huttunen S, Tapanainen JS, Martikainen, H. Factors affecting the outcome of frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Hum Reprod, 2013;28:9; 2425-2431.

  20. Gelbaya TA, Nardo LG, Hunter HR, Fitzgerald, CT, et al. Cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfer in natural or downregulated hormonally controlled cycles: a retrospective study. Fertil Steril 2006;85: 603-609.

  21. Shapiro BS, Richter KS, Harris DC, Daneshmand ST. A comparison of day 5 and day 6 blastocyst transfers. Fertility and Sterility, 2001;75:1126-1130.

  22. Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod 2011;26:1270-83.

  23. Kosmas IP, Kolibianakis EM, Devroey P. Association of estradiol levels on the day of hCG administration and pregnancy achievement in IVF: a systematic review. Hum Reprod 2004, 19:2446-2453.

  24. Glujovsky D, Pesce R, Fiszbajn G, Sueldo C, Hart RJ, Ciapponi A. Endometrial preparation for women undergoing embryo transfer with frozen embryos or embryos derived from donor oocytes. The Cochrane Library 2010.

  25. Gabrielsen A, Fedder J, Agerholm I. Parameters predicting the implantation rate of thawed IVF/ICSI embryos: a retrospective study. Reprod Biomed Online 2006;12:70–76.

  26. Salumets A, Suikkari AM, Makinen S, Karro H, Roos A, Tuuri T. Frozen embryo transfers: implications of clinical and embryological factors on the pregnancy outcome. Hum Reprod 2006;21:2368-2374.

  27. Sole M, Santalo J, Rodriguez I, Boada M, Coroleu B, Barri PN, Veiga A. Correlation between embryological factors and pregnancy rate: development of an embryo score in a cryopreservation programme. J Assist Reprod Genet 2010;28:129-136.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com