Comparative analysis of pregnancy outcomes in different time intervals following GnRH antagonist stimulation and modified natural frozen-thawed embryo transfers.
Li Dong, Yan Su, Mian-Qiu Zhang, Jing-Wen Sun, Hui Ji
{"title":"Comparative analysis of pregnancy outcomes in different time intervals following GnRH antagonist stimulation and modified natural frozen-thawed embryo transfers.","authors":"Li Dong, Yan Su, Mian-Qiu Zhang, Jing-Wen Sun, Hui Ji","doi":"10.1080/14647273.2024.2424347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To evaluate whether the interval between oocyte retrieval and frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) affects clinical outcomes using modified natural cycle (mNC) regimen following freeze-all GnRH antagonist stimulation. A total of 542 patients underwent first mNC-FET were divided into two groups: immediate (FET conducted in the first menstrual cycle after freeze-all) and delayed (FET performed in the second or subsequent menstrual cycle) groups. The immediate group was associated with a notably reduced duration between oocyte retrieval and transfer day (35.5 ± 5.8 <i>vs.</i> 88.7 ± 35.5 d, <i>P</i> < 0.001). Regarding pregnancy results, the immediate cycles resulted in comparable implantation rate (55.3% <i>vs</i>. 57.2%, <i>P =</i> 0.624), clinical pregnancy rate (66.9% <i>vs</i>. 72.2%, <i>P =</i> 0.236), abortion rate (16.1% <i>vs</i>. 12.7%, <i>P =</i> 0.402), ongoing pregnancy rate (59.0% <i>vs</i>. 65.0%, <i>P =</i> 0.204), and live birth rate (56.1% <i>vs</i>. 63.0%, <i>P =</i> 0.149) with the delayed cycles. After the multivariable logistic regression analysis, the difference in live birth outcome between the two regimens remained insignificant (immediate <i>vs</i>. delayed protocol: adjusted odds ratio = 0.87, 95% confidence interval= 0.56-1.33). Immediate mNC-FET following a freeze-all antagonist cycle displayed promising clinical outcomes and significantly shortened the time to conception compared to delayed FET.</p>","PeriodicalId":13006,"journal":{"name":"Human Fertility","volume":"27 1","pages":"2424347"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Fertility","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2024.2424347","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
To evaluate whether the interval between oocyte retrieval and frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) affects clinical outcomes using modified natural cycle (mNC) regimen following freeze-all GnRH antagonist stimulation. A total of 542 patients underwent first mNC-FET were divided into two groups: immediate (FET conducted in the first menstrual cycle after freeze-all) and delayed (FET performed in the second or subsequent menstrual cycle) groups. The immediate group was associated with a notably reduced duration between oocyte retrieval and transfer day (35.5 ± 5.8 vs. 88.7 ± 35.5 d, P < 0.001). Regarding pregnancy results, the immediate cycles resulted in comparable implantation rate (55.3% vs. 57.2%, P = 0.624), clinical pregnancy rate (66.9% vs. 72.2%, P = 0.236), abortion rate (16.1% vs. 12.7%, P = 0.402), ongoing pregnancy rate (59.0% vs. 65.0%, P = 0.204), and live birth rate (56.1% vs. 63.0%, P = 0.149) with the delayed cycles. After the multivariable logistic regression analysis, the difference in live birth outcome between the two regimens remained insignificant (immediate vs. delayed protocol: adjusted odds ratio = 0.87, 95% confidence interval= 0.56-1.33). Immediate mNC-FET following a freeze-all antagonist cycle displayed promising clinical outcomes and significantly shortened the time to conception compared to delayed FET.
期刊介绍:
Human Fertility is a leading international, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to furthering research and promoting good practice in the areas of human fertility and infertility. Topics included span the range from molecular medicine to healthcare delivery, and contributions are welcomed from professionals and academics from the spectrum of disciplines concerned with human fertility. It is published on behalf of the British Fertility Society.
The journal also provides a forum for the publication of peer-reviewed articles arising out of the activities of the Association of Biomedical Andrologists, the Association of Clinical Embryologists, the Association of Irish Clinical Embryologists, the British Andrology Society, the British Infertility Counselling Association, the Irish Fertility Society and the Royal College of Nursing Fertility Nurses Group.
All submissions are welcome. Articles considered include original papers, reviews, policy statements, commentaries, debates, correspondence, and reports of sessions at meetings. The journal also publishes refereed abstracts from the meetings of the constituent organizations.