Natural cycle frozen embryo transfer: a survey of current assisted reproductive technology practices in the U.S

Purpose Emerging data suggests improved obstetric outcomes with frozen embryo transfer (FET) in an ovulatory or natural cycle (NC-FETs), as compared to programmed endometrial preparation. The objective of this study is to better understand practice patterns and provider attitudes regarding the use o...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics 2023-04, Vol.40 (4), p.891-899
Main Authors: Lee, Jacqueline C., Calzada-Jorge, Natalia S., Hipp, Heather S., Kawwass, Jennifer F.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Assisted Reproduction Technologies
Cross-Sectional Studies
Cryopreservation - methods
Embryo transfer
Embryo Transfer - methods
Endometrium
Female
Gynecology
Human Genetics
Humans
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Rate
Progesterone
Reproductive Medicine
Reproductive Techniques, Assisted
Reproductive technologies
Reproductive technology
Retrospective Studies
Surveys
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:Purpose Emerging data suggests improved obstetric outcomes with frozen embryo transfer (FET) in an ovulatory or natural cycle (NC-FETs), as compared to programmed endometrial preparation. The objective of this study is to better understand practice patterns and provider attitudes regarding the use of NC-FETs in the United States (U.S.). Methods In this cross-sectional study, an anonymous 22-question survey was emailed to 441 U.S. Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) clinics to assess the utilization of NC endometrial preparation for FET, protocols used, restrictions to offering NC-FET, and providers’ perspectives on advantages and disadvantages of NC-FET. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze survey responses. Result(s) The survey response rate was 49% (216/441). Seventeen percent of responding clinics did not offer NC-FET. Of the clinics that did not offer NC-FET, 65% had only 1–2 physicians in their practice. Common reasons for not offering NC-FET included “lack of timing predictability for transfer” (81%) and “increased burden on staff/laboratory personnel on holidays and weekends” (54%). Of clinics offering NC-FET, 76% reported 
ISSN:1058-0468
1573-7330
DOI:10.1007/s10815-023-02751-w