Mendes Godinho Catarina, Soares Sérgio Reis, Nunes Sofia Gouveia, Martínez Juan M Mascarós, Santos-Ribeiro Samuel
Reproductive Medicine, IVI RMA Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.
IVI Foundation, Valencia, Spain.
Hum Reprod. 2024 May 2;39(5):1089-1097. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deae061.
How does a natural proliferative phase (NPP) strategy for frozen embryo transfer (FET) compare with the conventional artificial (AC) and natural (NC) endometrial preparation protocols in terms of live birth rates (LBR)?
This study supports the hypothesis that, just as for NC, NPP-FET may be a superior alternative to AC in terms of LBR.
Although FETs are increasing worldwide, the optimal FET protocol is still largely controversial. Despite recent evidence supporting a possibly higher efficacy and safety of NC FETs, their widespread use is limited by the difficulties encountered during cycle monitoring and scheduling.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In this single center retrospective cohort study, we describe the NPP-FET protocol, in which vaginal progesterone is initiated during the proliferative phase as soon as an endometrium with a thickness of at least 7 mm is identified and ovulation is ruled out, regardless of mean diameter of the dominant follicle.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: For comparison, we considered all blastocyst stage FET cycles preformed at a private infertility center between January 2010 and June 2022, subdivided according to the following subgroups of endometrial preparation: AC, NPP, and NC. We performed multivariable generalized estimating equations regression analysis to account for the following potential confounding variables: oocyte age at retrieval, oocyte source (autologous without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) versus autologous with PGT-A versus donated), number of oocytes retrieved/donated, embryo developmental stage (Day 5 versus Day 6), number of embryos transferred, quality of the best embryo transferred, and year of treatment. The main outcome measure was LBR. The secondary outcomes included hCG positive, clinical pregnancy and miscarriage rates, and the following perinatal outcomes: first trimester bleeding, second/third trimester bleeding, preterm rupture of membranes, gestational diabetes, gestational hypertensive disorders (GHD), and gestational age at delivery.
A total of 5791 FET cycles were included in this analysis (2226 AC, 349 NPP, and 3216 NC). The LBR for FET was lower in the AC subgroup when compared to the NPP and NC (38.4%, 49.1%, and 45.2%, respectively; P < 0.01 AC versus NPP and AC versus NC). The rates of miscarriage were also lower in the NPP and NC subgroups when compared to AC (19.7%, 25.0%, and 34.9%, respectively; P < 0.01 NPP versus AC and NC versus AC). Considering perinatal outcomes, NPP-FET and NC were associated with a significantly lower first trimester bleeding compared to AC (17.3%, 14.7%, and 37.6%, respectively; P < 0.01 NPP versus AC and NC versus AC). Additionally, NC was associated with a lower rate of GHD when compared with AC (8.6% versus 14.5%, P < 0.01), while the rate following NPP-FET was 9.4%.
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study is limited by its retrospective design. Moreover, there was also a low number of patients in the NPP subgroup, which may have led the study to be underpowered to detect clinically relevant differences between the subgroups.
Our study posits that the NPP-FET protocol may be an effective and safe alternative to both NC and AC, while still allowing for enhanced practicality in patient follow-up and FET scheduling. Further investigation on NPP-FET is warranted, with prospective studies including a larger and more homogeneous subsets of patients.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was supported by the IVI-RMA-Lisbon (2008-LIS-053-CG). The authors did not receive any funding for this study. The authors have no competing interests.
Not applicable.
在活产率(LBR)方面,冷冻胚胎移植(FET)的自然增殖期(NPP)策略与传统人工(AC)和自然(NC)子宫内膜准备方案相比如何?
本研究支持这一假设,即与NC一样,在LBR方面,NPP-FET可能是AC的更好替代方案。
尽管FET在全球范围内呈上升趋势,但最佳的FET方案仍存在很大争议。尽管最近有证据支持NC FET可能具有更高的疗效和安全性,但其广泛应用受到周期监测和安排中遇到的困难的限制。
研究设计、规模、持续时间:在这项单中心回顾性队列研究中,我们描述了NPP-FET方案,即在增殖期一旦确定子宫内膜厚度至少为7毫米且排除排卵,无论优势卵泡的平均直径如何,就开始阴道内使用黄体酮。
参与者/材料、环境、方法:为了进行比较,我们考虑了2010年1月至2022年6月在一家私立不孕不育中心进行的所有囊胚期FET周期,并根据以下子宫内膜准备亚组进行细分:AC、NPP和NC。我们进行了多变量广义估计方程回归分析,以考虑以下潜在混杂变量:取卵时的卵母细胞年龄、卵母细胞来源(非整倍体植入前基因检测(PGT-A)的自体卵母细胞与进行PGT-A的自体卵母细胞与捐赠卵母细胞)、取卵/捐赠的卵母细胞数量、胚胎发育阶段(第5天与第6天)、移植的胚胎数量、移植的最佳胚胎质量以及治疗年份。主要结局指标是LBR。次要结局包括hCG阳性、临床妊娠和流产率,以及以下围产期结局:孕早期出血、孕中/晚期出血、胎膜早破、妊娠期糖尿病、妊娠期高血压疾病(GHD)和分娩时的孕周。
本分析共纳入5,791个FET周期(2,226个AC、349个NPP和3,216个NC)。与NPP和NC相比,AC亚组的FET活产率较低(分别为38.4%、49.1%和45.2%;AC与NPP以及AC与NC相比,P<0.01)。与AC相比,NPP和NC亚组的流产率也较低(分别为19.7%、25.0%和34.9%;NPP与AC以及NC与AC相比,P<0.01)。考虑围产期结局,与AC相比,NPP-FET和NC的孕早期出血显著减少(分别为17.3%、14.7%和37.6%;NPP与AC以及NC与AC相比,P<0.01)。此外,与AC相比,NC的GHD发生率较低(8.6%对14.5%,P<0.01),而NPP-FET后的发生率为9.4%。
局限性、注意事项:本研究受其回顾性设计的限制。此外,NPP亚组的患者数量也较少,这可能导致该研究检测亚组间临床相关差异的能力不足。
我们的研究认为,NPP-FET方案可能是NC和AC的有效且安全的替代方案,同时在患者随访和FET安排方面仍具有更高的实用性。有必要对NPP-FET进行进一步研究,前瞻性研究应纳入更大且更同质的患者子集。
研究资金/利益冲突:本研究得到IVI-RMA-里斯本(2008-LIS-053-CG)的支持。作者未获得本研究的任何资金。作者没有利益冲突。
不适用。