P–652 Higher live birth rates with controlled ovarian stimulation vs. natural cycles in donor sperm IUI

Abstract

Abstract Study question Are pregnancy rates after intra uterine insemination-donor sperm (IUI-D) in good prognosis patients with controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) different from those in natural cycles? Summary answer In good prognosis patients, IUI-D cycles with COS provided higher pregnancy outcomes compared to IUI-D in natural cycles. What is known already There is no consensus about the systematic use of COS for IUI-D in good prognosis patients, considering efficacy, safety, and efficiency. The objective of this study is to compare the clinical pregnancy rate in good prognosis patients undergoing an IUI-D cycle with COS versus natural cycle (NC). Study design, size, duration Retrospective cohort study of 5,369 first IUI-D performed between January 2012 and September 2019 in one fertility center. IUI-D with COS (n = 4,417) versus natural cycles (n = 952) were compared. Differences in pregnancy outcomes between study groups were evaluated using a Pearson’s Chi2 test. A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Participants/materials, setting, methods Good prognosis patients were defined as women aged ≤38 years old, with a BMI ≤35 Kg/m2, and having regular menses. The indications for IUI-D were an absence of male partner or a sever partner male factor. COS consisted in a standard protocol of r-FSH or hMG-HP, in a dose between 25 IU to 75 IU, depending on the patient’s age and the acceptance of multiple pregnancy, to obtain between 1 to 2 follicles at ovulation. Main results and the role of chance Average age was slightly higher in COS patients (33.0±3.8 versus 31.6±4.1 years old in NC), as was BMI (23.7±3.6 in COS vs 23.08±4.1 in NC). Further, in the last follicular control, estradiol was higher (321±180 vs 244±108 pg/ml), LH was lower in (14 vs 28 UI/L), and the number of follicles > 16mm was higher (1.06±0.5 vs 0.96±0.4) in COS vs NC, respectively. Progesterone levels did not differ between groups. Stimulated cycles provided significantly better results for all pregnancy outcomes (p < 0.001): biochemical pregnancy rate was 27.8% in COS versus 23.0% in NC; clinical pregnancy rate was 20.5% versus 14.8%; ongoing pregnancy rate was 18.5% versus 13.3%; and live birth rate was 16.8% versus 12.3%. While the analysis was not adjusted for potential confounding factors, baseline characteristics between groups were very similar, so we could expect that the improved reproductive results were due to COS. Limitations, reasons for caution The main limitation of the study is its retrospective nature and the collection of data from one clinic. Differences found between study groups should be confirmed in a prospective controlled trial. Wider implications of the findings: In good prognosis patients undergoing their first IUI-D, controlled ovarian stimulation provides better reproductive outcomes; further analysis of cumulative pregnancy rate after 3 cycles would provide information for recommendations on the complete treatment cycle. Trial registration number non applicable