Cumulative pregnancy and live birth rates following intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilization in couples with unexplained infertility

N. Kozar, B. Kovačič, M. Reljic, V. Kovač
{"title":"Cumulative pregnancy and live birth rates following intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilization in couples with unexplained infertility","authors":"N. Kozar, B. Kovačič, M. Reljic, V. Kovač","doi":"10.18690/actabiomed.186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: There are multiple options for the treatment of unexplained infertility. Two of the most commonly used treatments are intrauterine insemination (IUI) and in vitro fertilization (IVF). The aim of our research was to analyze and compare the success rates of IUI and IVF procedures in the treatment of unexplained infertility. \nMethods: This was a retrospective study including 914 cycles of IUI performed for 355 couples, and 302 IVF cycles performed for 161 couples. All cases involved unexplained infertility and were treated in our department between 2012 and 2014. We analyzed differences in pregnancy, live birth rate, multiple pregnancy rate, and predictive factors for IUI. \nResults:There was a significant difference between IUI and IVF in terms of cumulative pregnancy and live birth rates after 4 cycles (22.0% vs. 71.8%; p < 0.001 for clinical pregnancy rates and 16.1% vs. 64.8%for live birth rate). Differences between the two techniques in terms of twin live birth rates were not significant (16.5% for IUI vs. 17.6% for IVF; p=0.936). Using logistic regression, we found that the duration of infertility, total sperm count, and the type of stimulation, were significant predictive factors for IUI (p = 0.014, p = 0.036 and p = 0.046, respectively). \nConclusion: As expected, according to pregnancy rate, IVF is a better option for the treatment of idiopathic infertility than IUI. However, IUI should not be underestimated since it offers reasonable success rates with significantly less invasiveness. To improve the outcome of treatment for unexplained infertility, we suggest that treatment methods should be chosen with respect to predictive factors.","PeriodicalId":186880,"journal":{"name":"Acta Medico-Biotechnica","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Medico-Biotechnica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18690/actabiomed.186","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

Purpose: There are multiple options for the treatment of unexplained infertility. Two of the most commonly used treatments are intrauterine insemination (IUI) and in vitro fertilization (IVF). The aim of our research was to analyze and compare the success rates of IUI and IVF procedures in the treatment of unexplained infertility. Methods: This was a retrospective study including 914 cycles of IUI performed for 355 couples, and 302 IVF cycles performed for 161 couples. All cases involved unexplained infertility and were treated in our department between 2012 and 2014. We analyzed differences in pregnancy, live birth rate, multiple pregnancy rate, and predictive factors for IUI. Results:There was a significant difference between IUI and IVF in terms of cumulative pregnancy and live birth rates after 4 cycles (22.0% vs. 71.8%; p < 0.001 for clinical pregnancy rates and 16.1% vs. 64.8%for live birth rate). Differences between the two techniques in terms of twin live birth rates were not significant (16.5% for IUI vs. 17.6% for IVF; p=0.936). Using logistic regression, we found that the duration of infertility, total sperm count, and the type of stimulation, were significant predictive factors for IUI (p = 0.014, p = 0.036 and p = 0.046, respectively). Conclusion: As expected, according to pregnancy rate, IVF is a better option for the treatment of idiopathic infertility than IUI. However, IUI should not be underestimated since it offers reasonable success rates with significantly less invasiveness. To improve the outcome of treatment for unexplained infertility, we suggest that treatment methods should be chosen with respect to predictive factors.
不明原因不孕症夫妇宫内授精和体外授精后的累计妊娠率和活产率
目的:不明原因不孕症的治疗有多种选择。最常用的两种治疗方法是宫内人工授精(IUI)和体外受精(IVF)。我们研究的目的是分析和比较人工授精和体外受精治疗不明原因不孕症的成功率。方法:回顾性研究包括355对夫妇的914个IUI周期和161对夫妇的302个IVF周期。所有病例均为不明原因不孕,于2012 - 2014年间在我科就诊。我们分析了妊娠、活产率、多胎妊娠率和IUI预测因素的差异。结果:IUI与IVF在4个周期后的累计妊娠率和活产率方面存在显著差异(22.0% vs. 71.8%;临床妊娠率P < 0.001,活产率P < 64.8%)。两种技术在双胞胎活产率方面的差异不显著(IUI为16.5%,IVF为17.6%;p = 0.936)。通过logistic回归,我们发现不孕持续时间、精子总数和刺激类型是IUI的显著预测因素(p = 0.014、p = 0.036和p = 0.046)。结论:正如预期的那样,根据妊娠率,IVF是治疗特发性不孕症的更好选择。然而,IUI不应该被低估,因为它提供了合理的成功率和明显更少的侵入性。为了提高不明原因不孕症的治疗效果,我们建议应根据预测因素选择治疗方法。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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