Abstract
Background: Nowadays, the choice of frozen embryo transfer (FET) regimens is mainly guided by personal convenience. Clinicians prefer the predictability and reliability of artificial cycle (AC) FET and have extended its usage to general in vitro fertilization population. More recent primary studies are beginning to challenge the comparability of AC-FET and suggest reduced clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate (LBR) compared with those in modified natural cycle (mNC) FET (ovulation triggered by human chorionic gonadotrophin) and stimulated cycle (SC) FET.Objective: To assess the pregnancy outcomes within matched mNC-FET, SC-FET, and AC-FET cycles by using propensity score matching (PSM) in a larger cohort.Methods: A total of 16,946 women who underwent their first autologous FET cycle between July 2014 and July 2017 were evaluated. PSM, using the nearest neighbor matching, were established to adjust the baseline features within the three protocols in proportion of 1:1 (mNC-FET vs. SC-FET, mNC-FET vs. AC-FET, SC-FET vs. AC-FET). Furthermore, there were 3,567, 2,917, and 3,964 cycles compared between matched mNC-FET and SC-FET, mNC-FET and AC-FET, and SC-FET and AC-FET after the PSM, respectively.Results: LBR was significant lower in the AC-FET group than that in the mNC-FET (40.0 vs. 43.3%) and SC-FET groups (40.9 vs. 46.5%). The adjusted odds ratios (95% CIs) were 1.11 (1.00, 1.24) for mNC/AC (P = 0.044) and 0.84 (0.76, 0.92) for AC/SC (P < 0.001), which indicated that the AC-FET group was associated with lowest LBR. The LBR was comparable between matched mNC-FET and SC-FET after adjusting for endometrial thickness. Moreover, a lower clinical pregnancy rate and a higher risk of early pregnancy loss were discovered in AC-FET cycles compared with those in SC-FET.Conclusion: In view of our data, AC used for scheduling FET was associated with lower LBR compared with SC and modified natural cycle. This interpretation requires future verification from well-designed prospective multicenter randomized clinical trials, although the comparisons in our study were conducted in the homogenous population after the PSM.
Highlights
With the development of cryopreservation technology, the threshold for freezing is falling, and increasing numbers of embryos are being electively frozen and reserved for deferred transfer [1]
There were 3,567, 2,917, and 3,964 cycles compared between matched modified natural cycle (mNC)-frozen embryo transfer (FET) and stimulated cycle (SC)-FET, mNC-FET and artificial cycle (AC)-FET, and SC-FET and AC-FET after the propensity score matching (PSM), respectively
The adjusted odds ratios were 1.11 (1.00, 1.24) for mNC/AC (P = 0.044) and 0.84 (0.76, 0.92) for AC/SC (P < 0.001), which indicated that the AC-FET group was associated with lowest live birth rate (LBR)
Summary
With the development of cryopreservation technology, the threshold for freezing is falling, and increasing numbers of embryos are being electively frozen and reserved for deferred transfer [1]. The first large randomized controlled trial on this topic, including 1,032 patients, was conducted by Groenewoud et al [4] This non-inferiority trial of mNC-FET vs AC-FET was concured with previous studies; the LBR was 11.5%, which may underestimate the overall situation. The choice of frozen embryo transfer (FET) regimens is mainly guided by personal convenience. Clinicians prefer the predictability and reliability of artificial cycle (AC) FET and have extended its usage to general in vitro fertilization population. More recent primary studies are beginning to challenge the comparability of AC-FET and suggest reduced clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate (LBR) compared with those in modified natural cycle (mNC) FET (ovulation triggered by human chorionic gonadotrophin) and stimulated cycle (SC) FET
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
