Massachusetts General Hospital Fertility Center, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Department of Reproductive Medicine, Ren Ji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2024 Jun 24;15:1414481. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1414481. eCollection 2024.
To determine whether endometrial thickness (EMT) differs between i) clomiphene citrate (CC) and gonadotropin (Gn) utilizing patients as their own controls, and ii) patients who conceived with CC and those who did not. Furthermore, to investigate the association between late-follicular EMT and pregnancy outcomes, in CC and Gn cycles.
Retrospective study. Three sets of analyses were conducted separately for the purpose of this study. In analysis 1, we included all cycles from women who initially underwent CC/IUI (CC1, n=1252), followed by Gn/IUI (Gn1, n=1307), to compare EMT differences between CC/IUI and Gn/IUI, utilizing women as their own controls. In analysis 2, we included all CC/IUI cycles (CC2, n=686) from women who eventually conceived with CC during the same study period, to evaluate EMT differences between patients who conceived with CC (CC2) and those who did not (CC1). In analysis 3, pregnancy outcomes among different EMT quartiles were evaluated in CC/IUI and Gn/IUI cycles, separately, to investigate the potential association between EMT and pregnancy outcomes.
In analysis 1, when CC1 was compared to Gn1 cycles, EMT was noted to be significantly thinner [Median (IQR): 6.8 (5.5-8.0) vs. 8.3 (7.0-10.0) mm, p<0.001]. Within-patient, CC1 compared to Gn1 EMT was on average 1.7mm thinner. Generalized linear mixed models, adjusted for confounders, revealed similar results (coefficient: 1.69, 95% CI: 1.52-1.85, CC1 as ref.). In analysis 2, CC1 was compared to CC2 EMT, the former being thinner both before [Median (IQR): 6.8 (5.5-8.0) vs. 7.2 (6.0-8.9) mm, p<0.001] and after adjustment (coefficient: 0.59, 95%CI: 0.34-0.85, CC1 as ref.). In analysis 3, clinical pregnancy rates (CPRs) and ongoing pregnancy rates (OPRs) improved as EMT quartiles increased (Q1 to Q4) among CC cycles (p<0.001, p<0.001, respectively), while no such trend was observed among Gn cycles (p=0.94, p=0.68, respectively). Generalized estimating equations models, adjusted for confounders, suggested that EMT was positively associated with CPR and OPR in CC cycles, but not in Gn cycles.
Within-patient, CC generally resulted in thinner EMT compared to Gn. Thinner endometrium was associated with decreased OPR in CC cycles, while no such association was detected in Gn cycles.
确定在 i)克罗米酚(CC)和促性腺激素(Gn)治疗患者中,子宫内膜厚度(EMT)是否存在差异,以及 ii)接受 CC 治疗后妊娠的患者与未妊娠的患者之间是否存在差异。此外,还研究了 CC 和 Gn 周期中晚卵泡期 EMT 与妊娠结局之间的关系。
回顾性研究。为了进行本研究,我们分别进行了三组分析。在分析 1 中,我们纳入了所有最初接受 CC/IUI(CC1,n=1252)治疗,然后接受 Gn/IUI(Gn1,n=1307)的患者,以比较 CC/IUI 和 Gn/IUI 之间 EMT 的差异,使用患者自身作为对照。在分析 2 中,我们纳入了在同一研究期间最终通过 CC 妊娠的所有 CC/IUI 周期(CC2,n=686),以评估 CC 妊娠患者(CC2)与未妊娠患者(CC1)之间 EMT 的差异。在分析 3 中,我们分别在 CC/IUI 和 Gn/IUI 周期中评估了不同 EMT 四分位数的妊娠结局,以研究 EMT 与妊娠结局之间的潜在关系。
在分析 1 中,与 Gn1 周期相比,CC1 周期的 EMT 明显更薄[中位数(IQR):6.8(5.5-8.0)与 8.3(7.0-10.0)mm,p<0.001]。CC1 与 Gn1 相比,平均 EMT 薄 1.7mm。经过混杂因素调整的广义线性混合模型得出了类似的结果(系数:1.69,95%CI:1.52-1.85,CC1 作为参考)。在分析 2 中,CC1 与 CC2 的 EMT 进行了比较,结果显示,无论是在治疗前[中位数(IQR):6.8(5.5-8.0)与 7.2(6.0-8.9)mm,p<0.001]还是治疗后[系数:0.59,95%CI:0.34-0.85,CC1 作为参考],CC1 都更薄。在分析 3 中,随着 EMT 四分位数的增加(从 Q1 到 Q4),CC 周期的临床妊娠率(CPR)和持续妊娠率(OPR)均有所提高(p<0.001,p<0.001),而 Gn 周期则没有观察到这种趋势(p=0.94,p=0.68)。经过混杂因素调整的广义估计方程模型表明,在 CC 周期中,EMT 与 CPR 和 OPR 呈正相关,但在 Gn 周期中则没有这种关联。
在患者内部,CC 通常会导致 EMT 比 Gn 更薄。薄的子宫内膜与 CC 周期中的 OPR 降低有关,而 Gn 周期中则没有这种关联。