Progesterone-modified natural cycle preparation for frozen embryo transfer

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Reproductive biomedicine online Pub Date : 2024-07-02 DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2024.104350
Nikolay Kornilov , Alex Polyakov , Anastasiya Mungalova , Lubov Yakovleva , Pavel Yakovlev
{"title":"Progesterone-modified natural cycle preparation for frozen embryo transfer","authors":"Nikolay Kornilov ,&nbsp;Alex Polyakov ,&nbsp;Anastasiya Mungalova ,&nbsp;Lubov Yakovleva ,&nbsp;Pavel Yakovlev","doi":"10.1016/j.rbmo.2024.104350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Research question</h3><p>Is there any difference in clinical outcomes between the progesterone-modified natural cycle (P4mNC) and hormone replacement therapy (HRT) endometrial preparation protocols after single euploid blastocyst frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles?</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>A retrospective cohort study was performed at a single, private, high-volume fertility centre. Patients who underwent single euploid blastocyst FET between January 2017 and December 2019 were included. A total of 1933 FET cycles were reviewed, and 723 FET cycles from 548 patients met the inclusion criteria. Two groups were compared according to endometrial preparation: 327 P4mNC-FET and 396 HRT-FET cycles. The primary outcome was the live birth rate. The secondary outcomes included the clinical pregnancy rate and the miscarriage rate.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There were no differences in the clinical pregnancy rate (50.2% versus 47.0%, <em>P</em> = 0.688), miscarriage rate (9.8% versus 14.5%, <em>P</em> = 0.115) and live birth rate (45.0% versus 39.6%, <em>P</em> = 0.331) between the P4mNC-FET and HRT-FET groups after covariate adjustments.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>There were no differences in the clinical outcomes between the P4mNC-FET and HRT-FET cycles. These results indicate that P4mNC-FET cycles produce clinical outcomes comparable to those of more traditional HRT-FET while allowing greater flexibility in the timing of embryo transfer.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":21134,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive biomedicine online","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S147264832400539X/pdfft?md5=d299876a20a489f69c453f9bb5907010&pid=1-s2.0-S147264832400539X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reproductive biomedicine online","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S147264832400539X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research question

Is there any difference in clinical outcomes between the progesterone-modified natural cycle (P4mNC) and hormone replacement therapy (HRT) endometrial preparation protocols after single euploid blastocyst frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles?

Design

A retrospective cohort study was performed at a single, private, high-volume fertility centre. Patients who underwent single euploid blastocyst FET between January 2017 and December 2019 were included. A total of 1933 FET cycles were reviewed, and 723 FET cycles from 548 patients met the inclusion criteria. Two groups were compared according to endometrial preparation: 327 P4mNC-FET and 396 HRT-FET cycles. The primary outcome was the live birth rate. The secondary outcomes included the clinical pregnancy rate and the miscarriage rate.

Results

There were no differences in the clinical pregnancy rate (50.2% versus 47.0%, P = 0.688), miscarriage rate (9.8% versus 14.5%, P = 0.115) and live birth rate (45.0% versus 39.6%, P = 0.331) between the P4mNC-FET and HRT-FET groups after covariate adjustments.

Conclusions

There were no differences in the clinical outcomes between the P4mNC-FET and HRT-FET cycles. These results indicate that P4mNC-FET cycles produce clinical outcomes comparable to those of more traditional HRT-FET while allowing greater flexibility in the timing of embryo transfer.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于冷冻胚胎移植的黄体酮改良自然周期制备法
研究问题单个极性囊胚冷冻胚胎移植(FET)周期后,黄体酮修饰自然周期(P4mNC)和激素替代疗法(HRT)子宫内膜准备方案的临床结果是否存在差异?研究纳入了在 2017 年 1 月至 2019 年 12 月期间接受单倍体囊胚冷冻胚胎移植的患者。共回顾了1933个FET周期,548名患者的723个FET周期符合纳入标准。根据子宫内膜制备情况对两组进行了比较:327 个 P4mNC-FET 周期和 396 个 HRT-FET 周期。主要结果是活产率。结果临床妊娠率(50.2% 对 47.0%,P = 0.688)、流产率(9.8% 对 14.5%,P = 0.115)和活产率(45.2% 对 47.0%,P = 0.688)均无差异。结论P4mNC-FET 和 HRT-FET 周期的临床结果没有差异。这些结果表明,P4mNC-FET 周期产生的临床结果与更传统的 HRT-FET 相当,同时在胚胎移植时间上具有更大的灵活性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Reproductive biomedicine online
Reproductive biomedicine online 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
7.50%
发文量
391
审稿时长
50 days
期刊介绍: Reproductive BioMedicine Online covers the formation, growth and differentiation of the human embryo. It is intended to bring to public attention new research on biological and clinical research on human reproduction and the human embryo including relevant studies on animals. It is published by a group of scientists and clinicians working in these fields of study. Its audience comprises researchers, clinicians, practitioners, academics and patients. Context: The period of human embryonic growth covered is between the formation of the primordial germ cells in the fetus until mid-pregnancy. High quality research on lower animals is included if it helps to clarify the human situation. Studies progressing to birth and later are published if they have a direct bearing on events in the earlier stages of pregnancy.
期刊最新文献
Ultra-fast vitrification and rapid elution of human oocytes: part I. germinal vesicle model validation. Ultra-fast vitrification and rapid elution of human oocytes: Part II - verification of blastocyst development from mature oocytes. Inside Front Cover - Affiliations and First page of TOC Front Matter - Continued TOC Outside Back Cover - Editorial Board
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1