Thawed embryo transfer: natural or replaced endometrial cycle? A 5000 patients observational study

Comparison of two endometrial preparation methods for frozen-thawed embryo transfer in anovulatory PCOS patients: impact on miscarriage rate

OBJECTIVE

- Some studies have suggested that patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) are at high risk of miscarriage. However, this still remains controversial. Several potential factors might explain this association: obesity, hyperinsulinemia and hyperandrogenism. Artificial and stimulated cycles appear to be comparable for endometrial preparation in frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) in PCOS patients. Only a few studies have assessed miscarriage rates specifically in PCOS. We have evaluated the impact of endometrial preparation on FET outcomes in anovulatory PCOS patients.

METHODS

- A retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Lille University Hospital, including 255 FET cycles in 134 PCOS patients between January 2011 and December 2017. PCOS was defined by the presence of at least two of the three Rotterdam's criteria. Patients were under 35 years old. Two endometrial preparation protocol were studied: stimulated cycle (gonadotropins on the second day of the cycle and luteal phase support including natural progesterone 600 mg/day) and artificial cycle (6 mg oral estradiol valerate and 800 mg micronized vaginal progesterone daily).

RESULTS

- 137 FET were performed under stimulated cycle and 118 FET under artificial cycle. Early pregnancy rates (30% versus 37.3%, p = NS), miscarriage rates (22% versus 25%, p = NS) and live birth rates (23.4% versus 26.3%, p = NS) were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

- In anovulatory PCOS women, the type of endometrial preparation does not influence FET outcomes, specifically regarding the miscarriage rate.

Frozen Blastocyst Embryo Transfer: Comparison of Protocols and Factors Influencing Outcome

Background: Various factors, including treatment protocols, can influence the outcomes of frozen embryo transfers (FETs). The study objectives were to compare different endometrial preparation protocols of FET cycles and to evaluate the factors, including the endometrial thickness (ET), that affect outcomes. Methods: This observational cohort study involved 5037 women undergoing FETs at eight tertiary clinics in the UK between January 2016 and March 2019. The endometrial preparation protocols used were natural cycle (NC-FETs), artificial hormone support cycle with oestradiol valerate but without pituitary downregulation (AC-FETs) and artificial hormone support cycle with agonist downregulation (ACDR-FETs). Results: The mean (±SD) ages across NC-FET, AC-FET and ACDR-FET groups were 36.5 (±4.2), 35.9 (±5.0) and 36.4(±4.9) years, respectively. LBRs were comparable (40.7%, 175/430; 36.8%, 986/2658; and 36.7%, 716/1949, respectively) across the three groups. Clinical pregnancy, implantation, multiple pregnancies, miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy rates were also similar. In the regression analysis of variables including age, duration of infertility, number of embryos transferred, protocol type and endometrial thickness, age was the only significant predictor of LBRs, although its predictive ability was poor (AUC: 0.55). With the overall LBR of the study population being 37.1%, the post-test probability of a live birth at an ET of <5 mm was 0%, and at 5–5.9, 6–6.9, 7–7.9 and 8–8.9 mm, the probabilities were 16.7%, 33.8%, 36.7% and 37.7%, respectively. The LBR remained above 35% up to the 14–14.9 mm range and then declined gradually to 23% for the 17–25 mm range. Conclusions: The FET outcomes were similar for the three protocols used for endometrial preparation. The protocol type and endometrial thickness were not predictive of FET outcomes; age was the only predictive variable, despite its low predictive ability.