在冷冻胚胎移植周期中,改良自然方案似乎优于自然和人工方案制备子宫内膜。

IF 1 Q2 Medicine
Minerva ginecologica Pub Date : 2020-08-01 Epub Date: 2020-05-13 DOI:10.23736/S0026-4784.20.04570-0
Mete Isikoglu, Batu Aydinuraz, Aysenur Avci, Ayse Kendirci Ceviren
{"title":"在冷冻胚胎移植周期中,改良自然方案似乎优于自然和人工方案制备子宫内膜。","authors":"Mete Isikoglu,&nbsp;Batu Aydinuraz,&nbsp;Aysenur Avci,&nbsp;Ayse Kendirci Ceviren","doi":"10.23736/S0026-4784.20.04570-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although several studies claim higher success rates in natural cycle (NC) and modified natural cycle (mNC) protocols, currently, there is no consensus on the most effective method of endometrium preparation prior to frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles. We aimed to find out the best protocol by comparing three different protocols for preparing the endometrium in FET cycles.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a private in-vitro fertilization (IVF) center. Medical records of all patients enrolled in frozen embryo transfer cycles between November 2017 and February 2019 were reviewed. Group I (N.=94) included patients who underwent artificial endometrial preparation (AC), group II (N.=23) confined patients enrolled in mNC and group III (N.=12) included patients who had NC protocol. Main outcome parameters were clinical pregnancy rates, implantation rates and miscarriage rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a tendency towards higher clinical pregnancy rate in mNC group. Clinical pregnancy rates of the three groups were 54.3%, 65.2% and 33.3% respectively (P=0.199). Implantation rate was significantly higher in group II (34%, 50% and 12% respectively, P=0.006). Miscarriage rates were similar for the three groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although not reaching a statistically significant level, there is a tendency towards higher implantation rate and pregnancy rate in mNC protocol compared to true NC and AC protocols.</p>","PeriodicalId":18745,"journal":{"name":"Minerva ginecologica","volume":" ","pages":"195-201"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Modified natural protocol seems superior to natural and artificial protocols for preparing the endometrium in frozen embryo transfer cycles.\",\"authors\":\"Mete Isikoglu,&nbsp;Batu Aydinuraz,&nbsp;Aysenur Avci,&nbsp;Ayse Kendirci Ceviren\",\"doi\":\"10.23736/S0026-4784.20.04570-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although several studies claim higher success rates in natural cycle (NC) and modified natural cycle (mNC) protocols, currently, there is no consensus on the most effective method of endometrium preparation prior to frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles. We aimed to find out the best protocol by comparing three different protocols for preparing the endometrium in FET cycles.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a private in-vitro fertilization (IVF) center. Medical records of all patients enrolled in frozen embryo transfer cycles between November 2017 and February 2019 were reviewed. Group I (N.=94) included patients who underwent artificial endometrial preparation (AC), group II (N.=23) confined patients enrolled in mNC and group III (N.=12) included patients who had NC protocol. Main outcome parameters were clinical pregnancy rates, implantation rates and miscarriage rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a tendency towards higher clinical pregnancy rate in mNC group. Clinical pregnancy rates of the three groups were 54.3%, 65.2% and 33.3% respectively (P=0.199). Implantation rate was significantly higher in group II (34%, 50% and 12% respectively, P=0.006). Miscarriage rates were similar for the three groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although not reaching a statistically significant level, there is a tendency towards higher implantation rate and pregnancy rate in mNC protocol compared to true NC and AC protocols.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18745,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minerva ginecologica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"195-201\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minerva ginecologica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4784.20.04570-0\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/5/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva ginecologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4784.20.04570-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/5/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:虽然一些研究声称自然周期(NC)和改良自然周期(mNC)方案的成功率更高,但目前,在冷冻胚胎移植(FET)周期之前最有效的子宫内膜准备方法尚未达成共识。我们的目的是通过比较FET周期中制备子宫内膜的三种不同方案来找出最佳方案。方法:本回顾性队列研究在一家私人体外受精(IVF)中心进行。回顾了2017年11月至2019年2月期间参与冷冻胚胎移植周期的所有患者的医疗记录。第一组(n =94)包括人工子宫内膜准备(AC)的患者,第二组(n =23)包括mNC的受限患者,第三组(n =12)包括NC方案的患者。主要结局参数为临床妊娠率、着床率和流产率。结果:mNC组临床妊娠率有较高的趋势。三组临床妊娠率分别为54.3%、65.2%、33.3% (P=0.199)。II组植入率显著高于对照组(分别为34%、50%和12%,P=0.006)。三组的流产率相似。结论:虽然没有达到统计学上的显著水平,但与真NC和AC方案相比,mNC方案有更高的着床率和妊娠率的趋势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Modified natural protocol seems superior to natural and artificial protocols for preparing the endometrium in frozen embryo transfer cycles.

Background: Although several studies claim higher success rates in natural cycle (NC) and modified natural cycle (mNC) protocols, currently, there is no consensus on the most effective method of endometrium preparation prior to frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles. We aimed to find out the best protocol by comparing three different protocols for preparing the endometrium in FET cycles.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a private in-vitro fertilization (IVF) center. Medical records of all patients enrolled in frozen embryo transfer cycles between November 2017 and February 2019 were reviewed. Group I (N.=94) included patients who underwent artificial endometrial preparation (AC), group II (N.=23) confined patients enrolled in mNC and group III (N.=12) included patients who had NC protocol. Main outcome parameters were clinical pregnancy rates, implantation rates and miscarriage rates.

Results: There was a tendency towards higher clinical pregnancy rate in mNC group. Clinical pregnancy rates of the three groups were 54.3%, 65.2% and 33.3% respectively (P=0.199). Implantation rate was significantly higher in group II (34%, 50% and 12% respectively, P=0.006). Miscarriage rates were similar for the three groups.

Conclusions: Although not reaching a statistically significant level, there is a tendency towards higher implantation rate and pregnancy rate in mNC protocol compared to true NC and AC protocols.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Minerva ginecologica
Minerva ginecologica OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The journal Minerva Ginecologica publishes scientific papers on obstetrics and gynecology. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of editorials, original articles, review articles, case reports, therapeutical notes, special articles and letters to the Editor. Manuscripts are expected to comply with the instructions to authors which conform to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Editors by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (www.icmje.org). Articles not conforming to international standards will not be considered for acceptance.
×
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