MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4400298195 · doi:10.1093/humrep/deae108.743

P-388 The science of frozen embryo transfer, is modified natural cycle better?

2024· article· en· W4400298195 sur OpenAlexaff
Hassan Hamze, Wadad Alameh, Robert Hemmings, Wael Jamal, Ashkan Banan, Camille Sylvestre

Notice bibliographique

RevueHuman Reproduction · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueReproductive Biology and Fertility
Établissements canadiensUniversité de Montréal
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNatural cycleEmbryo transferAndrologyEmbryoGynecologyMedicineBiologyPregnancyCell biologyGenetics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Study question Do live birth rate, obstetric outcomes and number of clinic visits differ between frozen embryo transfer in modified natural and artificial cycle? Summary answer Modified natural cycle yielded a higher live birth rate for the similar number of visits, less hypertension, but higher rate of gestational diabetes. What is known already A frozen embryo transfer in a modified natural cycle entails procedure timing such that it coincides with the woman’s ovulatory cycle. Conversely, a frozen embryo transfer in an artificial cycle involves controlled hormonal stimulation, with the subsequent scheduling of embryo transfer. Based on the current evidence, there is no difference in pregnancy rates between modified natural cycle and artificial cycle. Frozen embryo transfer during an artificial cycle allows for greater flexibility for the patient and physicians. However, it seems to be associated with higher risk of adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes. Study design, size, duration 1206 frozen embryo transfer cycles between January 1st, 2022, and December 31st, 2022 were retrospectively studied. Patients older than 40, with recurrent implantation failure, and recurrent pregnancy loss were excluded. Patients were divided according to their age, BMI, AMH, and the type of embryo transfer protocol. Compared outcomes were endometrial thickness, biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, number of clinic visits prior to transfer, obstetric complications, livebirth rate, and livebirth weight. Participants/materials, setting, methods Patients in the modified natural cycle group were followed by ultrasound and when the endometrium reached a thickness ≥ 7mm, and a dominant follicle ≥ 15 mm, HCG trigger was given, and the embryo (blastocyst) transferred 7 days later. In the artificial cycle group, patients received estrogen supplementation either orally or by patches and when the endometrium reached a thickness ≥ 7 mm, embryo transfer was scheduled following intramuscular progesterone administration for 6 days. Main results and the role of chance Patients with modified natural cycle (n = 250) embryo transfers have better clinical pregnancy rate compared to the embryo transfers (n = 250) in artificial cycles (63,6% vs 55,2% p = 0,05), and significantly better live birth rate (57,2% vs 43,9% p = 0,003) despite similar biochemical pregnancy rate (64% vs 61% p = 0,48). The miscarriage rate was significantly lower in modified natural compared to artificial cycles (10,2 % vs 20,99%, p = 0,008). Similar results were found with the transfer of PGTA tested embryos. There was no difference in the endometrial thickness between the 2 groups. The number of visits was higher in the modified natural cycle group, but the difference was not clinically significant (1,57 days vs 1,2 days). When comparing the obstetric outcomes, patients with a modified natural cycle transfer had a lower risk of hypertension (6,6% vs 13,5 % p = 0,10), but a significantly higher risk of gestational diabetes (19% vs 8,3% p = 0,02). No difference was observed regarding the birth weight, percentage of preterm birth or mode of delivery. Regression analysis was performed to identify any cofounder that might have affected the clinical pregnancy rate, and the results showed that the type of transfer was the only factor affecting the outcomes (OR: 1,23 CI: 1,03- 1,46) Limitations, reasons for caution The main limitation of this study is its retrospective nature. A randomized controlled study should be performed to confirm these findings. Wider implications of the findings Modified natural embryo transfer could be used to improve pregnancy outcomes. With proper scheduling, embryo transfer could be done with a similar number of visits for modified natural cycles and artificial cycles. More studies are needed to assess the increased risk of gestational diabetes with natural cycle embryo transfer. Trial registration number NCT06053827

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,403
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,362

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,034
Tête enseignante GPT0,310
Écart entre enseignants0,277 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHuman ReproductionMême sujetReproductive Biology and FertilityTravaux en français237 207