PCOS patients; how the endometrium can be ready for frozen embryo transfer? A retrospective study

Pituitary Suppression with Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonist Prior to Artificial Endometrial Preparation in Frozen-Thawed Embryo Transfer Cycles: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Different Protocols and Infertile Populations

This study investigates the effect of GnRHa pretreatment on pregnancy outcomes in artificial endometrial preparation for frozen-thawed embryo transfer (AC-FET) cycles. A systematic review of English language studies published before 1 September 2022, was conducted, excluding conference papers and preprints. Forty-one studies involving 43,021 participants were analyzed using meta-analysis, with a sensitivity analysis ensuring result robustness. The study found that GnRHa pretreatment generally improved the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), implantation rate (IR), and live birth rate (LBR). However, discrepancies existed between randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies; RCTs showed no significant differences in outcomes for GnRHa-treated cycles. Depot GnRHa protocols outperformed daily regimens in LBR. Extended GnRHa pretreatment (two to five cycles) significantly improved CPR and IR compared to shorter treatment. Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) saw substantial benefits from GnRHa pretreatment, including improved CPR and LBR and reduced miscarriage rates. In contrast, no significant benefits were observed in women with regular menstruation. More rigorous research is needed to solidify these findings.

Pretreatment with a GnRH agonist and hormone replacement treatment protocol could not improve live birth rate for PCOS women undergoing frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles

BACKGROUND

The ideal protocols of endometrial preparation for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) patients are lacking and need further declaration. Our objective was to compare the clinical outcomes of frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) with and without pretreatment gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) in PCOS patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we used propensity score matching (PSM) to compare the live birth rate between patients who underwent FET with hormone replacement treatment (HRT) and patients with GnRHa pretreatment (GnRHa + HRT). Patients using GnRHa + HRT (n = 514) were matched with 514 patients using HRT.

RESULTS

The live birth rate was higher in the GnRHa + HRT group compared with the HRT group with no significant difference (60.12% vs 56.03%, p = 0.073). The clinical pregnancy rate (75.29% vs 70.62%), miscarriage rate (14.20% vs 13.81%) and ectopic pregnancy rate (0.39% vs 0.19%) were similar between the two groups. The preterm birth rate in GnRHa + HRT was higher than HRT (20.23% vs 13.04%). No difference was found in live birth between GnRHa +HRT and HRT before adjusting for covariates (crude OR 1.22, 95%CI, 0.99-1.51, p = 0.062) and after PSM (OR 1.47, 95%CI, 0.99-2.83, p = 0.068). In addition, there is a marginally difference after adjusting for covariates (aOR 1.56, 95%CI, 1.001-2.41, p = 0.048), this finding with p-value close to 0.05 represent insufficient empirical evidence. Similar results were obtained after propensity score matching in the entire cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

GnRHa pretreatment could not improve the live birth rate in women with PCOS.

Comparison of Stimulated Cycles with Low Dose r-FSH versus Hormone Replacement Cycles for Endometrial Preparation Prior to Frozen-Thawed Embryo Transfer in Young Women with Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study from China

Objective

The principal purpose of this study was to compare reproductive outcomes for stimulated cycles (STC) and hormone replacement cycles (HRC) for endometrial preparation before frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) in young women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of 1434 FET cycles from January, 2017 to March, 2020 in our reproductive center, in which stimulated and hormone replacement cycles were used for endometrial preparation. Pregnancy outcomes of couples undergoing routine STC-FET or HRC-FET were analyzed by propensity score matching (PSM) and multivariable logistic regression analyses.

Results

Data on 1234 HRC protocols (86% of the total) and 200 STC protocols (14%) were collected. After PSM, 199 patients were included in both groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in positive pregnancy rate (52.7% vs 54.8%, p=0.763), clinical pregnancy rate (51.8% vs 52.8%, p=0.841), live birth rate (45.2% vs 43.7%, p=0.762), pregnancy loss rate (9.7% vs 16.2%, p=0.164) and ectopic pregnancy rate (1.5% vs 0.5%, p=0.615) between STC and HRC protocols. Subsequent multivariate logistic regression analysis also yielded similar results.

Conclusion

STC for endometrial preparation had similar pregnancy outcomes compared with HRC protocols. Evidence is available which shows that for young women with PCOS in preparation for FET, HRC could be a reasonable choice for patients who are unwilling to accept injections. However, STC may reduce unnecessary anxiety and operational costs and offer more flexibility for patients. Eventually, we must embrace the concepts of individualization, securitization, and optimization in the clinic.