Dataset Information

Immediate versus postponed single blastocyst transfer in modified natural cycle frozen embryo transfer (mNC-FET): a study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Today, it is widespread practice to postpone frozen embryo transfer (FET) in a modified natural cycle (mNC) for at least one menstrual cycle after oocyte retrieval and failed fresh embryo transfer or freeze-all. The rationale behind this practice is the concern that suboptimal ovarian, endometrial or endocrinological conditions following ovarian stimulation may have a negative impact on endometrial receptivity and implantation. However, two recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on retrospective data did not support this practice. As unnecessary delay in time to transfer and pregnancy should be avoided, the aim of this study is to investigate if immediate single blastocyst transfer in mNC-FET is non-inferior to standard postponed single blastocyst transfer in mNC-FET in terms of live birth rate.

Methods and analysis

Multicentre randomised controlled non-blinded trial including 464 normo-ovulatory women aged 18–40 years undergoing single blastocyst mNC-FET after a failed fresh or freeze-all cycle. Participants are randomised 1:1 to either FET in the first menstrual cycle following the stimulated cycle (immediate FET) or FET in the second or subsequent cycle following the stimulated cycle (postponed FET). The study is designed as a non-inferiority trial and primary analyses will be performed as intention to treat and per protocol.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval has been granted by the Scientific Ethical Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark (J-nr.: H-19086300). Data will be handled according to Danish law on personal data protection in accordance with the general data protection regulation. Participants will complete written consent forms regarding participation in the study and storage of blood samples in a biobank for future research. The study will be monitored by a Good Clinical Practice (GCP)-trained study nurse not otherwise involved in the study. The results of this study will be disseminated by publication in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Trial registration number

NCT04748874; Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Bergenheim S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8552140 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDespite the high number of frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles being conducted (190 000 cycles/year) in Europe, the timing of blastocyst transfer and the use of luteal phase progesterone support in modified natural cycle FET (mNC-FET) in assisted reproductive technologies are controversial. In mNC-FET, the timing of blastocyst warming and transfer is determined according to the time of implantation in a natural cycle, aiming to reach blastocyst endometrial synchronicity. However, the optimal day of blastocyst transfer following ovulation trigger is not determined. In addition, the value of luteal phase support to maintain the endometrium remains uncertain. Thus, there is a need to identify the optimal timing of blastocyst warming and transfer and the effect of luteal phase support in a randomised controlled trial design. The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to investigate if progesterone supplementation from the early luteal phase until gestational age 8 weeks is superior to no progesterone supplementation and to assess if blastocyst warming and transfer 6 days after ovulation trigger is superior to 7 days after ovulation trigger in mNC-FET with live birth rates as the primary outcome.Methods and analysisMulticentre, randomised, controlled, single-blinded trial including 604 normo-ovulatory women aged 18-41 years undergoing mNC-FET with a high-quality blastocyst originating from their first to third in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle. Participants are randomised (1:1:1:1) to either luteal phase progesterone or no luteal phase progesterone and to blastocyst warming and transfer on day 6 or 7 after human chorionic gonadotropin trigger. Only single blastocyst transfers will be performed.Ethics and disseminationThe study is approved by the Danish Committee on Health Research Ethics (H-18025839), the Danish Medicines Agency (2018061319) and the Danish Data Protection Agency (VD-2018-381). The results of the study will be publicly disseminated.Trial registration numberThe study is registered in EudraCT (2018-002207-34) and on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03795220); Pre-results.

Project description:PurposeThis study aims to test the hypothesis, in a single-center retrospective analysis, that live birth rates are significantly different when utilizing preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) compared to not utilizing PGS in frozen-thawed embryo transfers in our patients that use eggs from young, anonymous donors. The question therefore arises of whether PGS is an appropriate intervention for donor egg cycles.MethodsLive birth rates per cycle and live birth rates per embryo transferred after 398 frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles were examined from patients who elected to have PGS compared to those who did not. Blastocysts derived from donor eggs underwent trophectoderm biopsy and were tested for aneuploidy using array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) or next-generation sequencing (NGS), then vitrified for future use (test) or were vitrified untested (control). Embryos were subsequently warmed and transferred into a recipient or gestational carrier uterus. Data was analyzed separately for single embryo transfer (SET), double embryo transfer (DET), and for own recipient uterus and gestational carrier (GC) uterus recipients.ResultsRates of implantation of embryos leading to a live birth were significantly higher in the PGS groups transferring two embryos (DET) compared to the no PGS group (GC, 72 vs. 56 %; own uterus, 60 vs. 36 %). The live birth implantation rate in the own uterus group for SET was higher in the PGS group compared to the control (58 vs. 36 %), and this almost reached significance but the live birth implantation rate for the SET GC group remained the same for both tested and untested embryos. Live births per cycle were nominally higher in the PGS GC DET and own uterus SET and DET groups compared to the non-PGS embryo transfers. These differences almost reached significance. The live birth rate per cycle in the SET GC group was almost identical.ConclusionsSignificant differences were noted only for DET; however, benefits need to be balanced against risks associated with multiple pregnancies. Results observed for SET need to be confirmed on larger series and with randomized cohorts.

Project description:BackgroundThe optimal time at which to perform a frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) following a failed in-vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) attempt remains elusive to most reproductive experts. Physicians often delay the introduction of FET due to concerns related to potential residual effects of ovarian hyperstimulation which may interfere with the regular menstrual cycle. Moreover, given that most of the published studies on the topic are retrospective and have inconsistent findings, it is crucial to develop evidence-based randomized control guides for clinical practice. Therefore, this well-designed randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to determine whether it is necessary to delay FET for at least one menstrual cycle after the failure of fresh embryo transfer.MethodsInfertile women eligible for IVF-ET were invited to participate in this multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority, parallel-group, unblinded, controlled trial at the academic fertility centers of four public hospitals in Chinese Mainland. Infertile women scheduled to receive their first FET cycle after a failed IVF-ET attempt were randomly assigned to either (a) the immediate FET group in which FET was performed in the first menstrual cycle following the failed IVF-ET cycle (n = 366) or (b) the delayed FET group in which FET was performed in the second or subsequent menstrual cycle following the failed IVF-ET cycle (n = 366). All FET cycles were performed during hormone replacement cycles for endometrial preparation. The primary outcome was the ongoing pregnancy, defined as a detectable fetal heart beat beyond twelve weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes were other pregnancy-related outcomes, maternal and neonatal complications. Analysis was performed by both intention-to-treat and per-protocol principles.ResultsA total of 646 FETs were completed. The frequency of moderate to severe depression and high stress level prior to FET in delayed FET group were significantly higher than that in immediate FET group (10.6% vs 6.1%, p = 0.039; 30.3% vs 22.4%, p = 0.022, respectively). Immediate FET resulted in a higher frequency of clinical pregnancy than did delayed FET (41.7% vs 34.1%), for a relative risk (RR) of 1.23 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.50; p = 0.045). Women who underwent immediate FET also had a lower frequency of biochemical pregnancy loss (11.7% vs. 30.6%), with a RR of 0.28 (95% CI 0.23-0.63, p < 0.001), and a higher frequency of embryo implantation (25.2% vs. 20.2%), with a RR of 1.25 (95% CI 1.01-1.53; p = 0.038). Although the ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates did not differ significantly between the immediate FET and delayed FET groups (37.1% vs 30.3%, RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.99-1.52, p = 0.067; 36.5% vs 30.0%, RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.98-1.52, p = 0.079, respectively), a multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders such as depression and stress levels revealed that the immediate FET group had a significantly higher ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates than the delayed FET group (odds ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.47-0.99, p = 0.041; odds ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.96, p = 0.031). The risks of maternal and neonatal complications were comparable between the two groups.ConclusionsIn women with a previous failed IVF-ET attempt, immediate FET resulted in higher ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates than delayed FET. These findings warrant caution in the indiscriminate application of a delayed FET strategy when apparent risk of high stress level is perceived.Trial registrationChiCTR2000033313 .

Project description:BackgroundTwo types of endometrial preparation protocols are used for frozen embryo transfers in current practice: hormone replacement and the natural cycle. Endometrial preparation in the natural cycle reportedly increases the chances of live birth and decreases early pregnancy loss compared with that in the hormone replacement cycle. However, the influence of endometrial preparation on maternal and neonatal health remains unclear.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate whether the differences between hormone replacement cycle and natural cycle influence perinatal outcomes and risk of congenital anomalies in frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer fetuses or births.Study designPerinatal outcomes and congenital abnormalities were compared between the natural and hormone replacement cycles. According to the timing of ovulation, frozen-thawed blastocyst transfers in the natural cycle were classified into 2 patterns: on day 4.5 (ovulation 4.5) or day 5 (ovulation 5.0) after ovulation. When the serum luteinizing hormone level was not increased on the day of the trigger, a single vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer was performed on day 7 after the trigger (ovulation 5.0). When the luteinizing hormone level was slightly increased on the day of trigger, single vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer was performed on day 6 after the trigger (ovulation 5.0). In total, 67,018 cycles (ovulation 4.5, 29,705 cycles; ovulation 5.0, 31,995 cycles; hormone replacement, 5318 cycles) of frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer between January 2008 and December 2017 at Kato Ladies Clinic were retrospectively analyzed. During the study period, embryo cryopreservation was performed using a vitrification method in all cycles.ResultsHormone replacement cycles were associated with a higher occurrence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio, 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-2.81) and placenta accreta (adjusted odds ratio, 4.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-10.44) compared with the natural cycle. The risks of cesarean delivery (adjusted odds ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.78-2.18), preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.93), and low birthweight (adjusted odds ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.73) were also higher for hormone replacement cycles. No significant difference in the risk of congenital anomalies was observed between the 2 cycles.ConclusionThe risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, placenta accreta, cesarean delivery, preterm delivery, and low birthweight was higher in hormone replacement cycles than in natural cycles, whereas the risk of congenital anomalies was similar between both cycles. Further follow-up is needed to investigate these risks and to explore alternative endometrial preparation methods.