Kristin Van Heertum, Stephen Somkuti, Jennifer Nichols, Jay Schinfeld, Michael Sobel, Larry Barmat
{"title":"自体子宫内膜共培养与传统体外受精的随机对照试验。","authors":"Kristin Van Heertum, Stephen Somkuti, Jennifer Nichols, Jay Schinfeld, Michael Sobel, Larry Barmat","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>OBJECTIVE: To determine if autologous endometrial cell coculture improves embryo development and clinical outcomes.\n\nSTUDY DESIGN: Patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomized to either traditional in vitro fertilization (IVF) (control, n=73) or autologous endometrial cell coculture (AECC) (n=61). All patients underwent endometrial biopsy on cycle day 5–10 post luteinizing hormone surge. A total of 129 patients underwent embryo transfer (69 control, 60 AECC). Clinical outcomes as well as embryonic quality measures were then compared between the 2 groups.\n\nRESULTS: The mean age, day 3 follicle-stimulating hormone, number of oocytes collected, and clinical outcomes were similar between the 2 groups. Embryo development was overall similar, with the exception that embryonic grade was significantly better with AECC than with control: 1.5 (0.04) vs. 2.6 (0.03), p<0.0001. There was no difference in implantation, live birth or multiple gestation rates.\n\nCONCLUSION: This is one of the largest prospective randomized controlled trials of AECC versus traditional IVF. There was significant improvement in embryo morphology in the coculture group, although clinical outcomes were similar between the groups. Further studies are necessary to achieve enough power to fully delineate the effects of coculture on IVF outcome.</p>","PeriodicalId":50063,"journal":{"name":"生殖医学杂志","volume":"62 5-6","pages":"329-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Randomized Controlled Trial of Autologous Endometrial Coculture Versus Traditional in Vitro Fertilization.\",\"authors\":\"Kristin Van Heertum, Stephen Somkuti, Jennifer Nichols, Jay Schinfeld, Michael Sobel, Larry Barmat\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>OBJECTIVE: To determine if autologous endometrial cell coculture improves embryo development and clinical outcomes.\\n\\nSTUDY DESIGN: Patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomized to either traditional in vitro fertilization (IVF) (control, n=73) or autologous endometrial cell coculture (AECC) (n=61). All patients underwent endometrial biopsy on cycle day 5–10 post luteinizing hormone surge. A total of 129 patients underwent embryo transfer (69 control, 60 AECC). Clinical outcomes as well as embryonic quality measures were then compared between the 2 groups.\\n\\nRESULTS: The mean age, day 3 follicle-stimulating hormone, number of oocytes collected, and clinical outcomes were similar between the 2 groups. Embryo development was overall similar, with the exception that embryonic grade was significantly better with AECC than with control: 1.5 (0.04) vs. 2.6 (0.03), p<0.0001. There was no difference in implantation, live birth or multiple gestation rates.\\n\\nCONCLUSION: This is one of the largest prospective randomized controlled trials of AECC versus traditional IVF. There was significant improvement in embryo morphology in the coculture group, although clinical outcomes were similar between the groups. Further studies are necessary to achieve enough power to fully delineate the effects of coculture on IVF outcome.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50063,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"生殖医学杂志\",\"volume\":\"62 5-6\",\"pages\":\"329-32\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"生殖医学杂志\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"生殖医学杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Randomized Controlled Trial of Autologous Endometrial Coculture Versus Traditional in Vitro Fertilization.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if autologous endometrial cell coculture improves embryo development and clinical outcomes.
STUDY DESIGN: Patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomized to either traditional in vitro fertilization (IVF) (control, n=73) or autologous endometrial cell coculture (AECC) (n=61). All patients underwent endometrial biopsy on cycle day 5–10 post luteinizing hormone surge. A total of 129 patients underwent embryo transfer (69 control, 60 AECC). Clinical outcomes as well as embryonic quality measures were then compared between the 2 groups.
RESULTS: The mean age, day 3 follicle-stimulating hormone, number of oocytes collected, and clinical outcomes were similar between the 2 groups. Embryo development was overall similar, with the exception that embryonic grade was significantly better with AECC than with control: 1.5 (0.04) vs. 2.6 (0.03), p<0.0001. There was no difference in implantation, live birth or multiple gestation rates.
CONCLUSION: This is one of the largest prospective randomized controlled trials of AECC versus traditional IVF. There was significant improvement in embryo morphology in the coculture group, although clinical outcomes were similar between the groups. Further studies are necessary to achieve enough power to fully delineate the effects of coculture on IVF outcome.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Reproductive Medicine® has been the essential tool of Obstetricians and Gynecologists since 1968. As a highly regarded professional journal and the official periodical of six medical associations, JRM® brings timely and relevant information on the latest procedures and advances in the field of reproductive medicine. Published bimonthly, JRM® contains peer-reviewed articles and case reports submitted by top specialists. Common topics include research, clinical practice, and case reports related to general obstetrics and gynecology, infertility, female cancers, gynecologic surgery, contraception, and medical education.