The freeze-all strategy has emerged as an alternative to fresh embryo transfer (ET) during in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. Although fresh ET is the norm during assisted reproductive therapies (ART), there are many concerns about the possible adverse effects of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) over the endometrium. The supra-physiologic hormonal levels that occur during a conventional COS are associated with modifications in the peri-implantation endometrium, which may be related to a decrease in pregnancy rates and poorer obstetric and perinatal outcomes when comparing fresh to frozen-thawed embryo transfers. The main objective of this study was to assess the available literature regarding the freeze-all strategy in IVF cycles, in regards to effectiveness and safety. Although there are many potential advantages in performing a freeze-all cycle over a fresh ET, it seems that the freeze-all strategy is not designed for all IVF patients. There is a need to develop a non-invasive clinical tool to evaluate the endometrial receptivity during a fresh cycle, which enables the selection of patients that would benefit from this strategy. Today, it is reasonable to perform elective cryopreservation of all oocytes/embryos in cases with a risk of OHSS development, and in patients with supra-physiologic hormonal levels during the follicular phase of COS. It is not clear if all normal responders and poor responders may benefit from this strategy.
The objective of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the literature and to identify the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of letrozole to clomiphene citrate (CC) for ovulation induction in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). An exhaustive electronic literature search was performed using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases until October 2014. Seven prospective RCTs comparing the use of letrozole to CC in PCOS patients met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the seven included studies accounted for 1833 patients (906 in the letrozole group and 927 in the CC group) and for 4999 ovulation induction cycles (2455 in the letrozole group and 2544 in the CC group). Five of the included studies reported data on live birth rates. There was a statistically significant increase in the live birth and pregnancy rates in the letrozole group when compared to the CC group, with a relative risk (RR) = 1.55 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.26-1.90; I(2) = 0%) and RR = 1.38 (95% CI: 1.05-1.83; I(2) = 61%), respectively. There were no differences in the multiple pregnancy, miscarriage and ovulation rates between the two groups. Our study found that letrozole is superior to CC when considering the live birth and pregnancy rates in patients with PCOS.
Purpose To establish a ratio of the P level to the number of follicles (P/F ratio) on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration and to evaluate whether this ratio is associated with in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcome. Methods This study was conducted between January 2012 and June 2013. A total of 337 patients with cleavage-stage day-3 fresh embryo transfer with P levels ≤1.5 ng/mL on the day of hCG administration were included in the study. The main outcome was ongoing pregnancy rate. Result(s) The P/F ratio was calculated according to the equation (P[ng/mL]/number of follicles) on the day of final oocyte maturation. Using ROC, we established a cut-off level of 0.075 for the P/F ratio. The area under the curve (AUC) (0.756; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.704-0.807) indicated that it was a good prognostic test. In group 1 (patients under 36 years old), the ongoing pregnancy rates were 57 and 30 % for patients with P/F ratios≤.075 and>.075, respectively, (p= 0.003). In group 2 (patients between 36 and 39 years old), the ongoing pregnancy rates were 58 % and 17 % (p=0.001) for patients with P/F ratios ≤.075 and>.075, respectively. In group 3 (patients≥40 years old), the ongoing pregnancy rates were 41.7 and 10.9 % (p=0.001) for patients with P/F ratios≤.075 and>.075, respectively. Conclusions The P/F ratio is a good prognostic test for predicting IVF outcome that can correlate the P level with ovarian response.
ObjectiveTo evaluate if there are differences in the risks of obstetric outcomes in IVF/ICSI singleton pregnancies when compared fresh to frozen-thawed embryo transfers (FET).MethodsThis was a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the obstetric outcomes in singleton pregnancies after FET and fresh embryo transfer. The outcomes included in this study were pregnancy-induced hypertension (PIH), pre-eclampsia, placenta previa, and placenta accreta.ResultsThe search yielded 654 papers, 6 of which met the inclusion criteria and reported on obstetric outcomes. When comparing pregnancies that arose from FET or fresh embryo transfer, there was an increase in the risk of obstetric complications in pregnancies resulting from FET when compared to those emerging from fresh embryo transfers in PIH (aOR 1.82; 95% CI 1.24-2.68), pre-eclampsia (aOR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07, 1.63), and placenta accreta (aOR 3.51, 95% CI 2.04-6.05). There were no significant differences in the risk between the FET and fresh embryo transfer groups when evaluating placenta previa (aOR 0.70; 95% CI 0.46-1.08).ConclusionThe obstetric outcomes observed in pregnancies arising from ART may differ among fresh and FET cycles. Thus, when evaluating to perform a fresh embryo transfer or a freeze-all cycle, these differences found in obstetric outcomes between fresh and FET should be taken into account. The adverse obstetric outcomes after FET found in this study emphasize that the freeze-all policy should not be offered to all the patients, but should be offered to those with a clear indication of the benefit of this strategy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.