Paying attention to the quality of embryos, the number of good embryos, AH and the reasons for freezing that are associated with clinical pregnancy after VET will assist the improvement of success rates.
(Abstracted from N Engl J Med 2018;378:126–136)
A previous randomized controlled trial involving women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) compared fresh-embryo transfer with elective freezing of all embryos followed by frozen-embryo transfer. The data showed that frozen-embryo transfer had a higher live-birth rate in these women compared with fresh-embryo transfer. Whether frozen-embryo transfer also increases live-birth rates among ovulatory women with infertility without PCOS is uncertain.
It is unknown whether seasonal variation influences the outcome of in vitro fertilization (IVF). Previous studies related to seasonal variation of IVF were all small sample size, and the results were conflicting. We performed a retrospective cohort study evaluating the relationship between seasonal variability and live birth rate in the year of 2014–2017. Patients were grouped into four seasons (Winter (December-February), Spring (March-May), Summer (June-August), and Autumn (September-November)) according to the day of oocyte pick-up (OPU). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate association between seasonal variation and live birth. Models were adjusted for covariates including temperature, sunshine hour, infertility type, infertility duration, infertility factor and BMI. In total 38,476 women were enrolled, of which 25,097 underwent fresh cycles, 13,379 were frozen embryo transfer. Live birth rates of fresh embryo transfer were 50.36%, 53.14%, 51.94% and 51.33% for spring, summer, autumn and winter, respectively. Clinical pregnancy rate between the calendar months varied between 55.1% and 63.4% in fresh embryo transfer (ET) and between 58.8% and 65.1% in frozen embryo transfer (FET) (P-values 0.073 and 0.220). In the unadjusted model and adjust model, seasonal variation was not associated with live birth. In conclusion, there was no significant difference of seasonal variations in the outcome of IVF with fresh embryo transfer and frozen embryo transfer.
Objective: To investigate ovarian sensitivity in subgroups of patients with a low prognosis, as defined by the POSEIDON criteria, undergoing in vitro fertilization treatment and measures to improve ovarian sensitivity in these patients. Design: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis. Setting: The study was conducted at an IVF clinic in a public hospital. Patients: A total of 32,128 fresh IVF cycles from January 2014 to October 2018 at a single IVF clinic were included in the analysis. Patients with a low prognosis were categorized into four groups based on the POSEIDON criteria. Interventions: None. Main Outcome Measure: The primary outcome measures were the follicular output rate (FORT) and the follicle-to-oocyte index (FOI). Results: The FORTs in the order from the highest to the lowest were 1.18 in group 3, 0.98 in group 4, 0.76 in group 1, and 0.68 in group 2. The trend in the FOI values was consistent with that in the FORTs. Among patients with poor ovarian sensitivity, 58.41% of patients with FORTs ≥ 0.30 in the second cycle underwent an adjustment to the ovarian stimulation (OS) protocol and 41.59% underwent an adjustment to the gonadotropin (Gn) starting dose. Among patients with normal ovarian sensitivity, 43.56% of those with FORTs ≥ 0.80 in the second cycle underwent an adjustment to the OS protocol and 56.44% underwent an adjustment to the Gn starting dose. Conclusion: Ovarian sensitivity was the highest in group 3 (young women with poor ovarian reserve), followed by groups 4 (women at advanced age with poor ovarian reserve) and 1 (young women with good ovarian reserve), and it was the lowest in group 2 (women at advanced age with good ovarian reserve). For patients with poor ovarian sensitivity, it is preferred to recommend an adjustment to the OS protocol, while for those with normal ovarian sensitivity, adjusting the Gn starting dose is preferred.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.