The Effect of Atosiban on Patients With Difficult Embryo Transfers Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization–Embryo Transfer

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of atosiban on the outcomes of infertile women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) with difficult embryo transfers (ETs). This randomized double-blind study enrolled 204 infertile women with difficult ETs during IVF treatment between June 2014 and June 2018. According to a computer-generated randomization list, participants were randomized into placebo (n = 102) and atosiban (n = 102) groups. In atosiban group, atosiban with a total dose of 37.5 mg was administered. All of the patients underwent IVF-ET using cryopreserved embryos. The clinical pregnancy rate per cycle and implantation rate per transfer (45.1% and 26.5%) in atosiban group were significantly higher than those of placebo group (15.6% and 9.7%, respectively; P < .05). This study showed that administration of atosiban during ET was extraordinarily effective for patients with difficult transfers.

Comparison of frozen-thawed embryo transfer protocols in patients with previous cycle cancellation due to uterine peristalsis: a pilot study

“…In the late follicular and periovulatory phases, UP from cervix to fundus is needed for sperm transport. In luteal phase uterus becomes a relatively silent place for embryo implantation [27,37] But in ovarian stimulation cycles, both the catheterization of uterus during ET [38] and elevated estradiol levels can trigger excessive uterine contractions that can expel embryos from the uterus and decrease the pregnancy rates [15,26,39,40]. In the absence of uterine mechanical manipulation and uterine disorders like endometriosis, adenomyosis, leimyoma and polyp;…”

Approaches to Improve Endometrial Receptivity in Case of Repeated Implantation Failures

“…Based on the observation that embryo-transfer may trigger uterine contractions, which could be detrimental in embryonic apposition, the first case report of a successful pregnancy after atosiban was published in 2007 (Pierzynski et al, 2007). Since then four randomized controlled trials (Table 6) have been published (Moraloglu et al, 2010;Ng et al, 2014;He et al, 2016;Yuan et al, 2019), with the most powered reporting a non-significant effect on reproductive outcomes on the general population (Ng et al, 2014). A recent metaanalysis combining six studies (1,754 participants) shows a rather weak improvement in clinical pregnancy rates but no effect on live birth rates in the general population (Huang et al, 2017b).…”

Is oxytocin receptor antagonist administration around embryo transfer associated with IVF treatment success? A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Authors of two studies were contacted for clarification of outcomes (Bosch et al, 2019, Moraloglu et al, 2010, no response was received from Moraloglu et al, 2010 which is why the data on miscarriages from that study could not be included into the meta-analysis. Double-blinding was described by six studies (Bosch et al, 2019, Griesinger et al, 2021, Ng et al, 2014, Yuan et al, 2019 whereas two studies reported blinding of either staff (He et al, 2016) or patients (Moraloglu et al, 2010) and three studies did not provide information on blinding (Ahn et al, 2009, Hebisha et al, 2018, Song et al, 2013. A bias stemming from absence of allocation concealment was avoided by two studies using sealed envelopes (He et al, 2016, Ng et al, 2014 and by five studies by a web response system/electronic case report form (Bosch et al, 2019, Griesinger et al, 2021, Yuan et al, 2019.…”

“…Double-blinding was described by six studies (Bosch et al, 2019, Griesinger et al, 2021, Ng et al, 2014, Yuan et al, 2019 whereas two studies reported blinding of either staff (He et al, 2016) or patients (Moraloglu et al, 2010) and three studies did not provide information on blinding (Ahn et al, 2009, Hebisha et al, 2018, Song et al, 2013. A bias stemming from absence of allocation concealment was avoided by two studies using sealed envelopes (He et al, 2016, Ng et al, 2014 and by five studies by a web response system/electronic case report form (Bosch et al, 2019, Griesinger et al, 2021, Yuan et al, 2019. Four studies (Ahn et al, 2009, Hebisha et al, 2018, Moraloglu et al, 2010, Song et al, 2013 did not report the presence of allocation concealment.…”

“…A valid randomization was performed by using computer generated sequences (Bosch et al 2019, Griesinger et al, 2021, Ng et al, 2014, He et al, 2016, Yuan et al, 2019 or a quasi-randomization was performed according to weekday of patient entry (Moraloglu et al, 2010) or no information on the generation of a random allocation of patients was provided (Ahn et al, 2009, Hebisha et al, 2018, Song et al, 2013. Grading of studies is depicted in Table 2 and Figure 2.…”