Comparing pregnancy outcomes between natural cycles and artificial cycles following frozen‐thaw embryo transfers. (20th July 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pakes, Cassandra; Volovsky, Michelle; Rozen, Genia; Agresta, Franca; Gardner, David K.; Polyakov, Alex
• Is Part Of: Australian and New Zealand journal of obstetrics and gynaecology. Volume 60:Number 5(2020)
• Page Start: 804
• Page End: 809
• Publication Date: 2020-07-20
• Subjects: abortion spontaneous -- embryo transfer -- fertilisation in vitro -- live birth -- pregnancy outcomes; Obstetrics -- Periodicals; Gynecology -- Periodicals; 618.05
• DOI: 10.1111/ajo.13213
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0004-8666

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Frozen embryo transfer (FET) is increasing in prevalence. In contrast to the amount of research performed on the actual cryopreservation procedure, there are limited data with respect to optimal endometrial preparation in FET cycles. Increasingly artificial cycle (AC) preparation is being adopted over the natural cycle (NC) to facilitate greater access to FET. However, there remains a paucity of data comparing pregnancy outcomes between these two commonly used cycle types. Aims: To examine the efficacy of AC vs NC following FET, by comparing pregnancy outcomes including biochemical, clinical and live birth rates, along with miscarriage rates. Materials and Method: This is a large single‐centre retrospective analysis, examining a standardised data set from January 2015 to July 2018. It included 3030 cycles (NC = 2033, AC = 997). Main outcomes were biochemical pregnancy (beta‐human chorionic gonadotropin > 5 IU), ultrasound‐diagnosed clinical pregnancy, and live births. Using the χ 2 test, the above pregnancy outcomes were compared between AC and NC. A multivariate logistic regression, controlling for factors such as age, embryo quality, and day of blastocyst freeze was further utilised to assess for confounding variables. Results: No difference was observed between biochemical pregnancy rates (NC = 39.45% vs AC = 37.71%, P = 0.357); statistically significant differences were observed between clinical pregnancy (30.84% vs 26.08%, P = 0.007), and live birth rates (24.40% vs 18.86% P = 0.001). Multivariate analysis confirmed that NC produces superior pregnancy outcomes when controlling for confounding variables. Conclusion: This analysis demonstrates the non‐inferiority of NC thaw compared to AC, on continuing pregnancy rates. Taken together with patient acceptability and possibly increased obstetric risks with AC, these findings support the use of NC when medically possible.