Natural vs. artificial cycle for frozen embryo transfer: impact on clinical and obstetric outcomes.

IF 1.9
Maria do Carmo Borges de Souza, Roberto de Azevedo Antunes, Marcelo Marinho de Souza, Ana Cristina Allemand Mancebo, Thaísa Damasceno Renovato, Verônica de Almeida Raupp, Ana Luísa Bruno Marinho de Souza, Flávia Fernandes Sequeira, Brenda Maria Loureiro de Melo, Karina Abelha Rabaço
{"title":"Natural vs. artificial cycle for frozen embryo transfer: impact on clinical and obstetric outcomes.","authors":"Maria do Carmo Borges de Souza, Roberto de Azevedo Antunes, Marcelo Marinho de Souza, Ana Cristina Allemand Mancebo, Thaísa Damasceno Renovato, Verônica de Almeida Raupp, Ana Luísa Bruno Marinho de Souza, Flávia Fernandes Sequeira, Brenda Maria Loureiro de Melo, Karina Abelha Rabaço","doi":"10.5935/1518-0557.20260045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare clinical, obstetric, and neonatal outcomes between natural and artificial endometrial preparation protocols for frozen embryo transfer (FET) in cycles involving single euploid blastocyst transfer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective observational study included only single embryo transfers of thawed day 5 or 6 good-quality blastocysts submitted to preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) between January 2022 and May 2024. Patients were allocated to either natural or artificial endometrial preparation groups, and each group was further stratified into three subgroups according to luteal phase support: oral dydrogesterone, vaginal micronized progesterone, or combined treatment. Exclusion criteria were submucosal fibroids, endometrial polyps, intramural fibroids ≥5 cm, and hydrosalpinx detected on transvaginal ultrasound. Clinical pregnancy, live birth, miscarriage, neonatal birth weight, and gestational complications were analyzed using odds ratios (OR), confidence intervals (CI), p-values, generalized linear models, and z test, as appropriate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The natural cycle group showed significantly better reproductive outcomes, with higher clinical pregnancy rates (OR=0.37; 95%CI: 0.13-1.02; p=0.047) and live birth rates (OR=0.46; 95%CI: 0.24-0.89; p=0.022), whereas the artificial cycle group had a significantly higher miscarriage rate (OR=2.96; 95%CI: 1.51-5.96; p=0.002). Analysis across the six subgroups demonstrated a significant advantage in clinical pregnancy among patients undergoing natural cycles with oral progesterone support. In contrast, miscarriage was significantly more frequent in the artificial cycle subgroup receiving oral progesterone than in the corresponding natural cycle subgroup. Neonatal birth weight was higher in artificial preparation cycles by a mean of 135.81 g, although this difference was not statistically significant (95%CI: -138.29 to 409.90; p=0.326). Among gestational complications, only gestational diabetes differed significantly between groups (z=2.156; p=0.03), while no significant differences were observed for preeclampsia or HELLP syndrome.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>True natural cycles were associated with significantly higher clinical pregnancy and live birth rates, as well as lower miscarriage rates, than artificial cycles in euploid frozen embryo transfer cycles.</p>","PeriodicalId":520656,"journal":{"name":"JBRA assisted reproduction","volume":" ","pages":"548-555"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13544554/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBRA assisted reproduction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20260045","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

Objective: To compare clinical, obstetric, and neonatal outcomes between natural and artificial endometrial preparation protocols for frozen embryo transfer (FET) in cycles involving single euploid blastocyst transfer.

Methods: This retrospective observational study included only single embryo transfers of thawed day 5 or 6 good-quality blastocysts submitted to preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) between January 2022 and May 2024. Patients were allocated to either natural or artificial endometrial preparation groups, and each group was further stratified into three subgroups according to luteal phase support: oral dydrogesterone, vaginal micronized progesterone, or combined treatment. Exclusion criteria were submucosal fibroids, endometrial polyps, intramural fibroids ≥5 cm, and hydrosalpinx detected on transvaginal ultrasound. Clinical pregnancy, live birth, miscarriage, neonatal birth weight, and gestational complications were analyzed using odds ratios (OR), confidence intervals (CI), p-values, generalized linear models, and z test, as appropriate.

Results: The natural cycle group showed significantly better reproductive outcomes, with higher clinical pregnancy rates (OR=0.37; 95%CI: 0.13-1.02; p=0.047) and live birth rates (OR=0.46; 95%CI: 0.24-0.89; p=0.022), whereas the artificial cycle group had a significantly higher miscarriage rate (OR=2.96; 95%CI: 1.51-5.96; p=0.002). Analysis across the six subgroups demonstrated a significant advantage in clinical pregnancy among patients undergoing natural cycles with oral progesterone support. In contrast, miscarriage was significantly more frequent in the artificial cycle subgroup receiving oral progesterone than in the corresponding natural cycle subgroup. Neonatal birth weight was higher in artificial preparation cycles by a mean of 135.81 g, although this difference was not statistically significant (95%CI: -138.29 to 409.90; p=0.326). Among gestational complications, only gestational diabetes differed significantly between groups (z=2.156; p=0.03), while no significant differences were observed for preeclampsia or HELLP syndrome.

Conclusion: True natural cycles were associated with significantly higher clinical pregnancy and live birth rates, as well as lower miscarriage rates, than artificial cycles in euploid frozen embryo transfer cycles.

冷冻胚胎移植的自然周期与人工周期:对临床和产科结果的影响。
目的:比较冷冻胚胎移植(FET)周期中涉及单个整倍体囊胚移植的自然和人工子宫内膜制备方案的临床、产科和新生儿结局。方法:这项回顾性观察性研究仅包括在2022年1月至2024年5月期间,将解冻后的5或6个优质囊胚进行着床前非整倍体基因检测(PGT-A)的单胚胎移植。将患者分为天然或人工子宫内膜准备组,每组根据黄体期支持进一步分为三个亚组:口服地屈孕酮、阴道微粉孕酮或联合治疗。排除标准为粘膜下肌瘤、子宫内膜息肉、壁内肌瘤≥5 cm、经阴道超声检查发现输卵管积水。采用比值比(OR)、置信区间(CI)、p值、广义线性模型和适当的z检验分析临床妊娠、活产、流产、新生儿出生体重和妊娠并发症。结果:自然周期组生殖结局明显较好,临床妊娠率(OR=0.37; 95%CI: 0.13 ~ 1.02; p=0.047)和活产率(OR=0.46; 95%CI: 0.24 ~ 0.89; p=0.022)高于人工周期组,流产率(OR=2.96; 95%CI: 1.51 ~ 5.96; p=0.002)高于自然周期组。对六个亚组的分析表明,口服黄体酮支持的自然周期患者在临床妊娠中具有显著优势。相比之下,口服黄体酮的人工周期亚组的流产发生率明显高于相应的自然周期亚组。在人工准备周期中,新生儿出生体重平均增加135.81 g,尽管这一差异无统计学意义(95%CI: -138.29至409.90;p=0.326)。妊娠期并发症中,只有妊娠期糖尿病组间差异有统计学意义(z=2.156; p=0.03),而子痫前期和HELLP综合征组间差异无统计学意义。结论:在整倍体冷冻胚胎移植周期中,真正的自然周期比人工周期具有更高的临床妊娠率和活产率,以及更低的流产率。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书