Comparison of two mainstream endometrial preparation regimens in vitrified–warmed embryo transfers after PGT

Which of the two mainstream endometrial preparation regimens, assisted natural cycle (NC) or hormone replacement treatment cycle (HRT), help frozen–thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles after preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) achieve better clinical outcomes? This retrospective analysis included 3...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Reproductive biomedicine online 2022-02, Vol.44 (2), p.239-246
Main Authors: Fu, Yu, Chen, Dongjia, Cai, Bing, Xu, Yan, Zhu, Shuhua, Ding, Chenhui, Wang, Yali, Wang, Jing, Li, Rong, Guo, Jing, Pan, Jiafu, Zeng, Yanhong, Zhong, Yiping, Shen, Xiaoting, Zhou, Canquan
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Abortion, Spontaneous - epidemiology
Cesarean Section
Cryopreservation
Embryo Transfer - methods
Female
Genetic Testing
Hormone replacement treatment
Humans
Infant, Newborn
Live Birth
Natural cycle
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Complications
Pregnancy Rate
Preimplantation genetic testing
Premature Birth
Retrospective Studies
Vitrified–warmed embryo transfer
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Which of the two mainstream endometrial preparation regimens, assisted natural cycle (NC) or hormone replacement treatment cycle (HRT), help frozen–thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles after preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) achieve better clinical outcomes? This retrospective analysis included 3400 vitrified–warmed single blastocyst transfer cycles after PGT from January 2011 to November 2020, and involved 2332 patients with regular menstrual cycles. The decision to proceed with an assisted NC (n = 827) or HRT (n = 2573) before FET was reached based on a combination of patient preference and physician guidance. Clinical pregnancy rate, live birth rate, early miscarriage rate and obstetric outcomes were compared. No significant difference was observed between the assisted NC and HRT groups in terms of clinical pregnancy rate (51.6% versus 50.7%, P = 0.634), live birth rate (44.0% versus 43.4%, P = 0.746) or early miscarriage rate (12.6% versus 12.0%, P = 0.707). Multivariate analysis indicated that the endometrial preparation protocol was not an independent factor for a clinical pregnancy or live birth. In the HRT group, the Caesarean section rate (64.7% versus 51.9%, P 
ISSN:1472-6483
1472-6491
DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.09.009