Yıl: 2022 Cilt: 19 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 28 - 34 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.4274/tjod.galenos.2021.17981 İndeks Tarihi: 23-06-2022

Comparison of natural and artificial cycles in frozen- thawed embryo transfer: A retrospective analysis of 1696 cycles

Öz:
Objective: This study aimed to compare the pregnancy outcomes of natural cycles (NC) and artificial cycles (AC) in patients undergoing endometrial preparation for frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET). Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in a private infertility clinic between September 2016 and January 2021 and reviewed 1696 FET cycles. Among these FET cycles, endometrial preparation protocols that are performed as the NC (group 1) and AC (group 2) were analyzed. Outcome measures were live birth rates (LBR), clinical pregnancy rates (CPR), implantation rates (IR), and miscarriage rates (MR). Results: The mean serum estradiol level before progesterone supplementation was significantly higher in group 2, whereas endometrial thickness before progesterone supplementation was higher in group 1 (p<0.05). The mean number of transferred embryos and embryo quality score rates regarding cleavage and blastocyst stages were similar in both groups. The IR and MR were similar between groups (p>0.05). Additionally, CPR and LBR were similar in groups 1 (39.2% and 32.8%) and 2 (37.3% and 28.5%) (p=0.517, p=0.134, respectively). Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that female age at embryo freezing time and the number of transferred embryos were predictable variables of live birth [odds ratio (OR): 0.970, confidence interval (CI): 0.948-0.991, p<0.05, and OR: 1.359, CI: 1.038-1.780, p<0.05, respectively]. Conclusion: Suitable endometrial preparation is essential to obtain successful pregnancy rates; however, no superiority was determined in NC or AC protocols in frozen-thawed cycles. One of these protocols may be performed depending on menstrual regularity and clinical experience.
Anahtar Kelime:

Dondurulmuş çözülmüş embriyo transferinde doğal siklus ve yapay siklusun karşılaştırılması: 1696 döngünün retrospektif analizi

Öz:
Amaç: Bu çalışma donmuş çözülmüş embriyo transferi için endometriyal hazırlık yapılan hastalarda doğal ve yapay siklusların gebelik sonuçlarını karşılaştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu retrospektif kohort çalışması Eylül 2016 ile Aralık 2020 arasında özel bir infertilite kliniğinde yürütülmüştür. Toplamda 1696 siklus gözden geçirildi. Bu sikluslardan, endometriyal hazırlık protokolleri doğal siklus (grup 1) ve yapay siklus (grup 2) olarak gerçekleştirilenler bu çalışmada incelenmiştir. Sonuç ölçütleri canlı doğum oranları, klinik gebelik oranları, implantasyon oranları ve düşük oranlarıydı. Bulgular: Grup 2’de progesteron takviyesi öncesi ortalama serum estradiol seviyesi anlamlı olarak yüksek iken, progesteron takviyesi öncesi endometriyal kalınlık grup 1’de daha yüksekti (p<0,05). Gruplar arasında ortalama transfer edilen embriyo sayısı ve klivaj ve blastosist evreleri ile ilgili embriyo kalite skor oranları benzerdi. İmplantasyon ve düşük oranları gruplar arasında farklı değildi (p>0,05). Ayrıca, klinik gebelik ve canlı doğum oranları grup 1(%39,2 ve %32,8) ve grup 2 (%37,3 ve %28,5) arasında benzerdi (sırasıyla, p=0,517, p=0,134). Çok değişkenli lojistik regresyon analizleri, embriyo dondurma zamanındaki kadın yaşının ve transfer edilen embriyo sayısının canlı doğumun predikte edilebilir değişkenleri olduğunu ortaya çıkardı [risk oranı (OR): 0,970, güven aralığı (GA): 0,948-0,991, p<0,05 ve OR: 1,359, GA: 1,038-1,780, p<0,05, sırasıyla]. Sonuç: Başarılı gebelik oranlarını elde edebilmek için uygun endometriyumun hazırlanması mutlak gerekli olsa da, donmuş çözülmüş sikluslarda doğal veya yapay siklus protokolleri arasında bir üstünlük görülmemektedir. Bu protokollerden biri adet düzenine ve klinik deneyime bağlı olarak uygulanabilir.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • 1. Rezazadeh Valojerdi M, Eftekhari-Yazdi P, Karimian L, Hassani F, Movaghar B. Vitrification versus slow freezing gives excellent survival, post warming embryo morphology and pregnancy outcomes for human cleaved embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet 2009;26:347-54.
  • 2. de Mouzon J, Goossens V, Bhattacharya S, Castilla JA, Ferraretti AP, Korsak V, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2006: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2010;25:1851-62.
  • 3. Pakes C, Volovsky M, Rozen G, Agresta F, Gardner DK, Polyakov A. Comparing pregnancy outcomes between natural cycles and artificial cycles following frozen-thaw embryo transfers. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2020;60:804-9.
  • 4. Sahin G, Acet F, Calimlioglu N, Meseri R, Tavmergen Goker EN, Tavmergen E. Live birth after frozen-thawed embryo transfer: which endometrial preparation protocol is better? J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2020;49:101782.
  • 5. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C. Freeze- all can be a superior therapy to another fresh cycle in patients with prior fresh blastocyst implantation failure. Reprod Biomed Online 2014;29:286-90.
  • 6. Roque M, Lattes K, Serra S, Solà I, Geber S, Carreras R, et al. Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2013;99:156- 62.
  • 7. Roque M, Valle M, Guimarães F, Sampaio M, Geber S. Freeze-all policy: fresh vs. frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2015;103:1190-3.
  • 8. Cerrillo M, Herrero L, Guillén A, Mayoral M, García-Velasco JA. Impact of Endometrial Preparation Protocols for Frozen Embryo Transfer on Live Birth Rates. Rambam Maimonides Med J 2017;8:e0020.
  • 9. Kalem Z, Namlı Kalem M, Bakırarar B, Kent E, Gurgan T. Natural cycle versus hormone replacement therapy cycle in frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Saudi Med J 2018;39:1102-8.
  • 10. Groenewoud ER, Cohlen BJ, Al-Oraiby A, Brinkhuis EA, Broekmans FJ, de Bruin JP, et al. A randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial of modified natural versus artificial cycle for cryo-thawed embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2016;31:1483-92.
  • 11. Ghobara T, Gelbaya TA, Ayeleke RO. Cycle regimens for frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;7:CD003414
  • 12. Guan Y, Fan H, Styer AK, Xiao Z, Li Z, Zhang J, et al. A modified natural cycle results in higher live birth rate in vitrified-thawed embryo transfer for women with regular menstruation. Syst Biol Reprod Med 2016;62:335-42.
  • 13. Wu H, Zhou P, Lin X, Wang S, Zhang S. Endometrial preparation for frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 2021;38:1913-26.
  • 14. Hardarson T, Hanson C, Sjögren A, Lundin K. Human embryos with unevenly sized blastomeres have lower pregnancy and implantation rates: indications for aneuploidy and multinucleation. Hum Reprod 2001;16:313-8.
  • 15. Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. Culture and transfer of human blastocysts. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1999;11:307-11.
  • 16. Yarali H, Polat M, Mumusoglu S, Yarali I, Bozdag G. Preparation of endometrium for frozen embryo replacement cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 2016;33:1287-304.
  • 17. Morozov V, Ruman J, Kenigsberg D, Moodie G, Brenner S. Natural cycle cryo-thaw transfer may improve pregnancy outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet 2007;24:119-23.
  • 18. Orvieto R, Feldman N, Lantsberg D, Manela D, Zilberberg E, Haas J. Natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer-can we improve cycle outcome? J Assist Reprod Genet 2016;33:611-5.
  • 19. Givens CR, Markun LC, Ryan IP, Chenette PE, Herbert CM, Schriock ED. Outcomes of natural cycles versus programmed cycles for 1677 frozen-thawed embryo transfers. Reprod Biomed Online 2009;19:380- 4.
  • 20. Zheng Y, Li Z, Xiong M, Luo T, Dong X, Huang B, et al. Hormonal replacement treatment improves clinical pregnancy in frozen-thawed embryos transfer cycles: a retrospective cohort study. Am J Transl Res 2013;6:85-90.
  • 21. Fu Y, Chen D, Cai B, Xu Y, Zhu S, Ding C, et al. Comparison of two mainstream endometrial preparation regimens in vitrified-warmed embryo transfers after PGT. Reprod Biomed Online 2022;44:239-46.
  • 22. Su Y, Ji H, Jiang W, Xu L, Lu J, Zhao C, et al. Effect of unplanned spontaneous follicular growth and ovulation on pregnancy outcomes in planned artificial frozen embryo transfer cycles: a propensity score matching study. Hum Reprod 2021;36:1542-51.
  • 23. Beck-Fruchter R, Nothman S, Baram S, Geslevich Y, Weiss A. Progesterone and estrogen levels are associated with live birth rates following artificial cycle frozen embryo transfers. J Assist Reprod Genet 2021;38:2925-31.
  • 24. El-Toukhy T, Coomarasamy A, Khairy M, Sunkara K, Seed P, Khalaf Y, et al. The relationship between endometrial thickness and outcome of medicated frozen embryo replacement cycles. Fertil Steril 2008;89:832- 9.
  • 25. Levron J, Yerushalmi GM, Brengauz M, Gat I, Katorza E. Comparison between two protocols for thawed embryo transfer: natural cycle versus exogenous hormone replacement. Gynecol Endocrinol 2014;30:494-7.
  • 26. Kim CH, Lee YJ, Lee KH, Kwon SK, Kim SH, Chae HD, et al. The effect of luteal phase progesterone supplementation on natural frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Obstet Gynecol Sci 2014;57:291-6.
  • 27. Bjuresten K, Landgren BM, Hovatta O, Stavreus-Evers A. Luteal phase progesterone increases live birth rate after frozen embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2011;95:534-7.
  • 28. Groenewoud ER, Cantineau AE, Kollen BJ, Macklon NS, Cohlen BJ. What is the optimal means of preparing the endometrium in frozen- thawed embryo transfer cycles? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2013;19:458-70.
  • 29. Eftekhar M, Rahsepar M, Rahmani E. Effect of progesterone supplementation on natural frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Fertil Steril 2013;7:13-20.
APA Demirdag E, Guler I, CEVHER AKDULUM M, Şahin Toruk E, Tufan A, ERDEM A, Erdem M (2022). Comparison of natural and artificial cycles in frozen- thawed embryo transfer: A retrospective analysis of 1696 cycles. , 28 - 34. 10.4274/tjod.galenos.2021.17981
Chicago Demirdag Erhan,Guler Ismail,CEVHER AKDULUM M. Funda,Şahin Toruk Esin,Tufan Ayşe duygu,ERDEM AHMET,Erdem Mehmet Comparison of natural and artificial cycles in frozen- thawed embryo transfer: A retrospective analysis of 1696 cycles. (2022): 28 - 34. 10.4274/tjod.galenos.2021.17981
MLA Demirdag Erhan,Guler Ismail,CEVHER AKDULUM M. Funda,Şahin Toruk Esin,Tufan Ayşe duygu,ERDEM AHMET,Erdem Mehmet Comparison of natural and artificial cycles in frozen- thawed embryo transfer: A retrospective analysis of 1696 cycles. , 2022, ss.28 - 34. 10.4274/tjod.galenos.2021.17981
AMA Demirdag E,Guler I,CEVHER AKDULUM M,Şahin Toruk E,Tufan A,ERDEM A,Erdem M Comparison of natural and artificial cycles in frozen- thawed embryo transfer: A retrospective analysis of 1696 cycles. . 2022; 28 - 34. 10.4274/tjod.galenos.2021.17981
Vancouver Demirdag E,Guler I,CEVHER AKDULUM M,Şahin Toruk E,Tufan A,ERDEM A,Erdem M Comparison of natural and artificial cycles in frozen- thawed embryo transfer: A retrospective analysis of 1696 cycles. . 2022; 28 - 34. 10.4274/tjod.galenos.2021.17981
IEEE Demirdag E,Guler I,CEVHER AKDULUM M,Şahin Toruk E,Tufan A,ERDEM A,Erdem M "Comparison of natural and artificial cycles in frozen- thawed embryo transfer: A retrospective analysis of 1696 cycles." , ss.28 - 34, 2022. 10.4274/tjod.galenos.2021.17981
ISNAD Demirdag, Erhan vd. "Comparison of natural and artificial cycles in frozen- thawed embryo transfer: A retrospective analysis of 1696 cycles". (2022), 28-34. https://doi.org/10.4274/tjod.galenos.2021.17981
APA Demirdag E, Guler I, CEVHER AKDULUM M, Şahin Toruk E, Tufan A, ERDEM A, Erdem M (2022). Comparison of natural and artificial cycles in frozen- thawed embryo transfer: A retrospective analysis of 1696 cycles. Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 19(1), 28 - 34. 10.4274/tjod.galenos.2021.17981
Chicago Demirdag Erhan,Guler Ismail,CEVHER AKDULUM M. Funda,Şahin Toruk Esin,Tufan Ayşe duygu,ERDEM AHMET,Erdem Mehmet Comparison of natural and artificial cycles in frozen- thawed embryo transfer: A retrospective analysis of 1696 cycles. Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 19, no.1 (2022): 28 - 34. 10.4274/tjod.galenos.2021.17981
MLA Demirdag Erhan,Guler Ismail,CEVHER AKDULUM M. Funda,Şahin Toruk Esin,Tufan Ayşe duygu,ERDEM AHMET,Erdem Mehmet Comparison of natural and artificial cycles in frozen- thawed embryo transfer: A retrospective analysis of 1696 cycles. Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol.19, no.1, 2022, ss.28 - 34. 10.4274/tjod.galenos.2021.17981
AMA Demirdag E,Guler I,CEVHER AKDULUM M,Şahin Toruk E,Tufan A,ERDEM A,Erdem M Comparison of natural and artificial cycles in frozen- thawed embryo transfer: A retrospective analysis of 1696 cycles. Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2022; 19(1): 28 - 34. 10.4274/tjod.galenos.2021.17981
Vancouver Demirdag E,Guler I,CEVHER AKDULUM M,Şahin Toruk E,Tufan A,ERDEM A,Erdem M Comparison of natural and artificial cycles in frozen- thawed embryo transfer: A retrospective analysis of 1696 cycles. Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2022; 19(1): 28 - 34. 10.4274/tjod.galenos.2021.17981
IEEE Demirdag E,Guler I,CEVHER AKDULUM M,Şahin Toruk E,Tufan A,ERDEM A,Erdem M "Comparison of natural and artificial cycles in frozen- thawed embryo transfer: A retrospective analysis of 1696 cycles." Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 19, ss.28 - 34, 2022. 10.4274/tjod.galenos.2021.17981
ISNAD Demirdag, Erhan vd. "Comparison of natural and artificial cycles in frozen- thawed embryo transfer: A retrospective analysis of 1696 cycles". Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 19/1 (2022), 28-34. https://doi.org/10.4274/tjod.galenos.2021.17981