Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2016 Oct;33(10):1287-1304.
doi: 10.1007/s10815-016-0787-0. Epub 2016 Aug 22.

Preparation of endometrium for frozen embryo replacement cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Hakan Yarali  1   2 , Mehtap Polat  3 , Sezcan Mumusoglu  4 , Irem Yarali  3 , Gurkan Bozdag  4
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Preparation of endometrium for frozen embryo replacement cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Hakan Yarali et al. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 Oct.

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the best protocol to prepare endometrium for frozen embryo replacement (FER) cycles.

Methods: This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. Following PubMed and OvidSP search, a total of 1166 studies published after 1990 were identified following removal of duplicates. Following exclusion of studies not matching our inclusion criteria, a total of 33 studies were analyzed. Primary outcome measure was live birth. The following protocols, including true natural cycle (tNC), modified natural cycle (mNC), artificial cycle (AC) with or without suppression, and mild ovarian stimulation (OS) with gonadotropin (Gn) or aromatase inhibitor (AI), were compared.

Results: No statistically significant difference for both clinical pregnancy and live birth was noted between tNC and mNC groups. When tNC and AC without suppression groups are compared, there was a statistically significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate in favor of tNC, whereas it failed to reach statistical significance for live birth. When tNC and AC with suppression groups are compared, there was a statistically significant difference in live birth rate favoring the latter. Similar pregnancy outcome was noted among mNC versus AC with or without suppression groups. Similarly, no difference in clinical pregnancy and live birth was noted when ACs with or without suppression groups are compared.

Conclusions: There is no consistent superiority of any endometrial preparation for FER. However, mNC has several advantages (being patient-friendly; yielding at least equivalent or better pregnancy rates when compared with tNC and AC with or without suppression; may not require LPS). Mild OS with Gn or AI may be promising.

Keywords: Assisted reproduction; Endometrial preparation; Frozen embryo replacement; Meta-analysis; Thawed embryo transfer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram depicting the study selection
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
True natural cycle (tNC) versus modified natural cycle (mNC): pooled results of all studies and subgroup analysis based on luteal phase support (LPS). Asterisk donates random effect
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
True natural cycle (tNC) versus artificial cycle (AC) without suppression: pooled results of all studies and subgroup analysis based on luteal phase support (LPS). Asterisk denotes fixed effect
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
True natural cycle (tNC) versus artificial cycle (AC) with suppression: pooled results of all studies and subgroup analysis based on luteal phase support (LPS)
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Modified natural cycle (mNC) versus artificial cycle (AC) without suppression: pooled results of all studies and subgroup analysis based on luteal phase support (LPS). Asterisk denotes fixed effect
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Modified natural cycle (mNC) versus artificial cycle (AC) with suppression: pooled results of all studies
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Artificial cycle (AC) with versus without suppression: pooled results of all studies
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
Natural cycle versus mild ovarian stimulation with gonadotropin (OS with Gn): pooled results of all studies and subgroup analysis based on type of NC. Asterisk donates random effect
Fig. 9
Fig. 9
Artificial cycle versus mild ovarian stimulation with gonadotropin (OS with Gn or AI): pooled results of all studies
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. D’Angelo A. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome prevention strategies: cryopreservation of all embryos. Semin Reprod Med. 2010;28(6):513–8. - PubMed
    1. Taylor TH, Patrick JL, Gitlin SA, Michael Wilson J, Crain JL, Griffin DK. Outcomes of blastocysts biopsied and vitrified once versus those cryopreserved twice for euploid blastocyst transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29(1):59–64. - PubMed
    1. Bourgain C, Devroey P. The endometrium in stimulated cycles for IVF. Hum Reprod Update. 2003;9(6):515–22. - PubMed
    1. European IVFMC, European Society of Human R. European IVFMC, European Society of Human R, Embryology. Kupka MS, D’Hooghe T, Ferraretti AP, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2011: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(2):233–48. - PubMed
    1. Kupka MS, Ferraretti AP, de Mouzon J, Erb K, D’Hooghe T, Castilla JA, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2010: results generated from European registers by ESHREdagger. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(10):2099–113. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources