Interventions to optimize embryo transfer in women undergoing assisted conception: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analyses.

IF 14.8 1区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Bede Tyler, Hugo Walford, Jennifer Tamblyn, Stephen D Keay, Dimitrios Mavrelos, Ephia Yasmin, Bassel H Al Wattar
{"title":"Interventions to optimize embryo transfer in women undergoing assisted conception: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analyses.","authors":"Bede Tyler,&nbsp;Hugo Walford,&nbsp;Jennifer Tamblyn,&nbsp;Stephen D Keay,&nbsp;Dimitrios Mavrelos,&nbsp;Ephia Yasmin,&nbsp;Bassel H Al Wattar","doi":"10.1093/humupd/dmac009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Several interventions and techniques are suggested to improve the outcome of embryo transfer (ET) in assisted conception. However, there remains no consensus on the optimal practice, with high variations among fertility specialists.</p><p><strong>Objective and rationale: </strong>We conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aiming to identify effective interventions that could be introduced around the time of ET to improve reproductive outcomes.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched the electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL) from inception until March 2021 using a multi-stage search strategy of MeSH terms and keywords, and included all RCTs that evaluated an intervention in the 24-h period before/after ET in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Our primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate post-ET confirmed as viable pregnancy on ultrasound scan. We assessed the risk of bias in included trials and extracted data in duplicate. We pooled data using a random-effect meta-analysis and reported using risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. We explored publication bias and effect modifiers using subgroup analyses.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Our search yielded 3685 citations of which we included 188 RCTs (38 interventions, 59 530 participants) with a median sample size of 200 (range 26-1761). The quality of included RCTs was moderate with most showing a low risk of bias for randomization (118/188, 62.8%) and attrition (105/188, 55.8%) but there was a significant risk of publication bias (Egger's test P = 0.001). Performing ET with ultrasound guidance versus clinical touch (n = 24, RR 1.265, 95% CI 1.151-1.391, I2 = 38.53%), hyaluronic acid versus routine care (n = 9, RR 1.457, 95% CI 1.197-1.261, I2 = 46.48%) and the use of a soft versus hard catheter (n = 27, RR 1.122, 95% CI 1.028-1.224, I2 = 57.66%) led to higher clinical pregnancy rates. Other pharmacological add-ons also showed a beneficial effect including granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF: n = 4, RR 1.774, 95% CI 1.252-2.512, I2 = 0), Atosiban (n = 7, RR 1.493, 95% CI 1.184-1.882, I2 = 68.27%) and hCG (n = 17, RR 1.232, 95% CI 1.099-1.382, I2 = 57.76%). Bed rest following ET was associated with a reduction in clinical pregnancy (n = 6, RR 0.857, 95% CI 0.741-0.991, I2 = 0.01%). Other commonly used interventions, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, prophylactic antibiotics, acupuncture and cervical mucus removal, did not show a significant benefit on reproductive outcomes. Our effect estimates for other important outcomes, including miscarriage and live birth, were limited by the varied reporting across included RCTs.</p><p><strong>Wider implications: </strong>Using ultrasound guidance, soft catheters and hyaluronic acid at the time of ET appears to increase clinical pregnancy rates. The use of Atosiban, G-CSF and hCG showed a trend towards increased clinical pregnancy rate, but larger trials are required before adopting these interventions in clinical practice. Bed rest post-ET was associated with a reduction in clinical pregnancy and should not be recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":55045,"journal":{"name":"Human Reproduction Update","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":14.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9631462/pdf/","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Reproduction Update","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmac009","RegionNum":1,"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: 7

Abstract

Background: Several interventions and techniques are suggested to improve the outcome of embryo transfer (ET) in assisted conception. However, there remains no consensus on the optimal practice, with high variations among fertility specialists.

Objective and rationale: We conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aiming to identify effective interventions that could be introduced around the time of ET to improve reproductive outcomes.

Search methods: We searched the electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL) from inception until March 2021 using a multi-stage search strategy of MeSH terms and keywords, and included all RCTs that evaluated an intervention in the 24-h period before/after ET in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Our primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate post-ET confirmed as viable pregnancy on ultrasound scan. We assessed the risk of bias in included trials and extracted data in duplicate. We pooled data using a random-effect meta-analysis and reported using risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. We explored publication bias and effect modifiers using subgroup analyses.

Outcomes: Our search yielded 3685 citations of which we included 188 RCTs (38 interventions, 59 530 participants) with a median sample size of 200 (range 26-1761). The quality of included RCTs was moderate with most showing a low risk of bias for randomization (118/188, 62.8%) and attrition (105/188, 55.8%) but there was a significant risk of publication bias (Egger's test P = 0.001). Performing ET with ultrasound guidance versus clinical touch (n = 24, RR 1.265, 95% CI 1.151-1.391, I2 = 38.53%), hyaluronic acid versus routine care (n = 9, RR 1.457, 95% CI 1.197-1.261, I2 = 46.48%) and the use of a soft versus hard catheter (n = 27, RR 1.122, 95% CI 1.028-1.224, I2 = 57.66%) led to higher clinical pregnancy rates. Other pharmacological add-ons also showed a beneficial effect including granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF: n = 4, RR 1.774, 95% CI 1.252-2.512, I2 = 0), Atosiban (n = 7, RR 1.493, 95% CI 1.184-1.882, I2 = 68.27%) and hCG (n = 17, RR 1.232, 95% CI 1.099-1.382, I2 = 57.76%). Bed rest following ET was associated with a reduction in clinical pregnancy (n = 6, RR 0.857, 95% CI 0.741-0.991, I2 = 0.01%). Other commonly used interventions, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, prophylactic antibiotics, acupuncture and cervical mucus removal, did not show a significant benefit on reproductive outcomes. Our effect estimates for other important outcomes, including miscarriage and live birth, were limited by the varied reporting across included RCTs.

Wider implications: Using ultrasound guidance, soft catheters and hyaluronic acid at the time of ET appears to increase clinical pregnancy rates. The use of Atosiban, G-CSF and hCG showed a trend towards increased clinical pregnancy rate, but larger trials are required before adopting these interventions in clinical practice. Bed rest post-ET was associated with a reduction in clinical pregnancy and should not be recommended.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

优化辅助受孕妇女胚胎移植的干预措施:一项全面的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:提出了几种干预措施和技术来改善辅助受孕胚胎移植(ET)的结果。然而,在最佳实践上仍然没有达成共识,生育专家之间存在很大差异。目的和理由:我们对随机对照试验(rct)进行了全面的系统回顾和荟萃分析,旨在确定可在ET前后引入的有效干预措施,以改善生殖结果。检索方法:我们使用MeSH术语和关键词的多阶段检索策略检索了从初始到2021年3月的电子数据库(MEDLINE、EMBASE和Cochrane CENTRAL),并纳入了所有评估体外受精/ICSI妇女体外受精前后24小时内干预措施的随机对照试验。我们的主要结局是临床妊娠率,经超声扫描确认为妊娠。我们评估了纳入试验的偏倚风险,并提取了重复的数据。我们使用随机效应荟萃分析合并数据,并使用95% CI的风险比(RR)进行报告。我们使用亚组分析探讨了发表偏倚和效应修饰因子。结果:我们的检索获得了3685条引用,其中包括188项随机对照试验(38项干预措施,59530名受试者),中位样本量为200(范围26-1761)。纳入的rct质量为中等,大多数随机化偏倚风险较低(118/188,62.8%),磨耗风险较低(105/188,55.8%),但发表偏倚风险显著(Egger检验P = 0.001)。超声引导与临床触摸进行ET (n = 24, RR 1.265, 95% CI 1.151-1.391, I2 = 38.53%)、透明质酸与常规护理(n = 9, RR 1.457, 95% CI 1.197-1.261, I2 = 46.48%)、软导管与硬导管的使用(n = 27, RR 1.122, 95% CI 1.028-1.224, I2 = 57.66%)导致临床妊娠率较高。其他附加药物包括粒细胞集落刺激因子(G-CSF: n = 4, RR 1.774, 95% CI 1.252-2.512, I2 = 0)、阿托西班(n = 7, RR 1.493, 95% CI 1.184-1.882, I2 = 68.27%)和hCG (n = 17, RR 1.232, 95% CI 1.099-1.382, I2 = 57.76%)也显示出有益的效果。ET后卧床休息与临床妊娠减少相关(n = 6, RR 0.857, 95% CI 0.741-0.991, I2 = 0.01%)。其他常用的干预措施,如非甾体抗炎药、预防性抗生素、针灸和宫颈粘液清除,对生殖结果没有显着的好处。我们对其他重要结局(包括流产和活产)的效果估计受到纳入随机对照试验中不同报告的限制。更广泛的意义:在ET时使用超声引导、软导管和透明质酸似乎可以增加临床妊娠率。阿托西班、G-CSF和hCG的使用有增加临床妊娠率的趋势,但在临床实践中采用这些干预措施之前,需要进行更大规模的试验。et后卧床休息与临床妊娠减少有关,不应推荐。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Human Reproduction Update
Human Reproduction Update 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
28.80
自引率
1.50%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Human Reproduction Update is the leading journal in its field, boasting a Journal Impact FactorTM of 13.3 and ranked first in Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology (Source: Journal Citation ReportsTM from Clarivate, 2023). It specializes in publishing comprehensive and systematic review articles covering various aspects of human reproductive physiology and medicine. The journal prioritizes basic, transitional, and clinical topics related to reproduction, encompassing areas such as andrology, embryology, infertility, gynaecology, pregnancy, reproductive endocrinology, reproductive epidemiology, reproductive genetics, reproductive immunology, and reproductive oncology. Human Reproduction Update is published on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), maintaining the highest scientific and editorial standards.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信