Natural cycle versus artificial cycle in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: A randomized prospective trial

• Published in: Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2018-03, Vol.15 (1), p.12-17
• Main Authors: Agha-Hosseini, Marzieh, Hashemi, Leila, Aleyasin, Ashraf, Ghasemi, Marzieh, Sarvi, Fatemeh, Shabani Nashtaei, Maryam, Khodarahmian, Mahshad
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Birth rate; Clinical Investigation; Cysts; Embryos; In vitro fertilization; Kadın Hastalıkları; Menstruation; Multiple births; Pregnancy; Sperm; Systematic review; Tıp; Ultrasonic imaging; Womens health
• ISSN: 2149-9322; 2149-9330
• DOI: 10.4274/tjod.47855

To investigate whether there was a difference in pregnancy outcomes between modified natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer (NC-FET) cycles and artificial cycles (AC)-FET in women who all had regular menstrual cycles. One hundred seventy patients who met the inclusion criteria and had at least two cryopreserved embryos were included in a prospective randomized controlled trial. Eighty-five patients were randomized based on Bernoulli distribution into the following two groups: 1) Modified NC-FET using human chorionic gonadotropin for ovulation induction and 2) AC-FET, in which endometrial timing was programmed with estrogen and progesterone. The main studied outcome measure was the clinical pregnancy rate per cycle. No significant differences were found between the two groups with regard to the chemical, clinical, and ongoing pregnancy rates (48.2% vs 45.9%, p>0.05; 38.9% vs 35.3%, p>0.05; and 37.6% vs 34.1%, p>0.05, respectively), as well as the live birth or miscarriage rates per cycle (35.3% vs 31.8%, p>0.05; and 1.2% vs 1.2%, p>0.05, respectively). These findings suggest that although both FET protocols are equally effective in terms of pregnancy outcomes in women with regular menstrual cycles, NC-FET is more favorable because it requires no medication, has no adverse events, and has a significant cost reduction.