ObjectiveThis study set out to investigate the pregnancy outcome of natural cycle
regimen versus other endometrial preparation protocols with vitrification
thawed blastocyst transfer (VTBT) cycles.MethodsThis control trial study was carried out on 123 women undergoing VTBT. The
women were randomly divided into three groups of endometrial preparation
before VTBT; 1. Modified natural ovulation cycle with using HCG (n=32) 2.
Mild hormonally stimulated cycle by low dose Clomiphene Citrate (n=30) and
3. Artificial cycle induced with estradiol and progesterone supplementation
(n=61). Following endometrial preparation, the thawed blastocyst was
vitrified and transferred. Reproductive outcome and endometrium
characteristic were evaluated in the three groups.ResultsThe three above-mentioned protocols resulted in clinical pregnancy rates of
21.43% vs. 13.79% vs. 15.25%,
respectively; without statistical differences. The ongoing pregnancy rates
did not show any significant differences among the three groups (21.43%
vs. 13.79% vs. 13.56%), respectively. In addition, the
miscarriage rates were compared in the three groups. The endometrial
thickness on the day of progesterone or human chorionic gonadotropin
administration were more frequently observed in the artificial and modified
natural cycle versus hormonally stimulated groups (8.34±0.89 vs.
7.3±1.4, p<0.001; 8.13±0.95 vs.
7.3±1.4, p<0.001). There was no significant
difference regarding triple-line endometrial patterns in the three
groups.ConclusionThe natural cycle with HCG trigger could be considered as an alternative
protocol to mild hormonally or artificial cycle regimens in vitrification
thawed blastocyst transfers.
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.