Frozen embryo transfer after PGT-A cycles: To wait or not to wait?

Maria Cerrillo , Maria Cruz , Natalia Basile , Alfredo Guillen , Fernando Bronet , Juan Antonio García-Velasco
{"title":"Frozen embryo transfer after PGT-A cycles: To wait or not to wait?","authors":"Maria Cerrillo ,&nbsp;Maria Cruz ,&nbsp;Natalia Basile ,&nbsp;Alfredo Guillen ,&nbsp;Fernando Bronet ,&nbsp;Juan Antonio García-Velasco","doi":"10.1016/j.medre.2020.09.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The aim of the study is to assess whether delaying frozen embryo transfer (FET) after pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) cycle provides any benefit for reproductive outcomes.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Retrospective cohort study including a total of 913 frozen embryo transfers related to 5104 PGT-A cycles performed between May 2016 and March 2017 at IVI clinics. We compared the FET performed the month following the ovarian puncture (OPU) (<em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->184) with the FET delayed one or more months (<em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->700). The main outcome was clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and the secondary outcomes were implantation (IR) and miscarriage rates.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>No significant statistical differences were detected between groups as regards patient age and cycle parameters. Similar results were also observed concerning metaphase II oocytes (11<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->0.8 vs 10<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->0.4, <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.03), number of blastocysts (4.3<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->0.4 vs 3.8<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->0.2, <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.122), euploid embryos (2.1<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->0.3 vs 1.8<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->0.1, <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.039), or transferred embryos (1.1<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->0.1 vs 1.1<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->0.2, <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.52). Finally, no significant differences were found in CPR (52.7% vs 54.9%, <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.33). The multivariate logistic regression showed that the number of euploid (OR<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->1.170, 1.062–1.288; <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.001) and transferred embryos (OR<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->2.530, 1.703–1.509; <em>P</em>&lt;<!--> <!-->.001) significantly affected the probability of getting pregnant, while the timing of the frozen embryo transfer (OR<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->1.090, 0.787–1.509; <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.604) did not have a significant effect on reproductive outcomes.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Delaying frozen embryo transfer after PGT-A cycles does not seem to improve outcomes in terms of pregnancy rates.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100911,"journal":{"name":"Medicina Reproductiva y Embriología Clínica","volume":"7 3","pages":"Pages 83-88"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicina Reproductiva y Embriología Clínica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2340932020300177","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

The aim of the study is to assess whether delaying frozen embryo transfer (FET) after pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) cycle provides any benefit for reproductive outcomes.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study including a total of 913 frozen embryo transfers related to 5104 PGT-A cycles performed between May 2016 and March 2017 at IVI clinics. We compared the FET performed the month following the ovarian puncture (OPU) (n = 184) with the FET delayed one or more months (n = 700). The main outcome was clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and the secondary outcomes were implantation (IR) and miscarriage rates.

Results

No significant statistical differences were detected between groups as regards patient age and cycle parameters. Similar results were also observed concerning metaphase II oocytes (11 ± 0.8 vs 10 ± 0.4, p = 0.03), number of blastocysts (4.3 ± 0.4 vs 3.8 ± 0.2, p = 0.122), euploid embryos (2.1 ± 0.3 vs 1.8 ± 0.1, p = 0.039), or transferred embryos (1.1 ± 0.1 vs 1.1 ± 0.2, p = 0.52). Finally, no significant differences were found in CPR (52.7% vs 54.9%, p = 0.33). The multivariate logistic regression showed that the number of euploid (OR = 1.170, 1.062–1.288; p = 0.001) and transferred embryos (OR = 2.530, 1.703–1.509; P< .001) significantly affected the probability of getting pregnant, while the timing of the frozen embryo transfer (OR = 1.090, 0.787–1.509; p = 0.604) did not have a significant effect on reproductive outcomes.

Conclusions

Delaying frozen embryo transfer after PGT-A cycles does not seem to improve outcomes in terms of pregnancy rates.

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
PGT-A周期后的冷冻胚胎移植:等待还是不等待?
目的本研究的目的是评估在胚胎着床前非整倍体(PGT-A)周期基因检测后延迟冷冻胚胎移植(FET)是否对生殖结果有任何益处。方法回顾性队列研究,包括2016年5月至2017年3月在IVI诊所进行的913例冷冻胚胎移植,涉及5104个PGT-A周期。我们比较了卵巢穿刺(OPU)后一个月进行的FET (n = 184)和延迟一个月或更长时间进行的FET (n = 700)。主要指标为临床妊娠率(CPR),次要指标为着床率(IR)和流产率。结果两组患者年龄、周期参数差异无统计学意义。中期II期卵母细胞(11±0.8 vs 10±0.4,p = 0.03)、囊胚数(4.3±0.4 vs 3.8±0.2,p = 0.122)、整倍体胚胎(2.1±0.3 vs 1.8±0.1,p = 0.039)和移植胚胎(1.1±0.1 vs 1.1±0.2,p = 0.52)也有类似的结果。最后,心肺复苏术无显著差异(52.7% vs 54.9%, p = 0.33)。多因素logistic回归分析表明,整倍体数量(OR = 1.170, 1.062 ~ 1.288;p = 0.001)和移植胚胎(OR = 2.530, 1.703-1.509;术中;.001)显著影响怀孕概率,而冷冻胚胎移植时机(OR = 1.090, 0.787-1.509;P = 0.604)对生殖结局无显著影响。结论PGT-A周期后延迟冷冻胚胎移植似乎不能改善妊娠率。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Extended embryo culture up to 14 days Impact of administration route on serum progesterone levels in women undergoing artificial endometrial preparation Efecto de la abstinencia sexual masculina en los resultados reproductivos Sperm DNA fragmentation and microfluidics: A new era in human sperm selection Aplicación de la inteligencia artificial en el laboratorio de reproducción asistida. Trabajo de revisión
×
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