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
Comparative Study
. 2018 Nov;39(11):1102-1108.
doi: 10.15537/smj.2018.11.23299.

Natural cycle versus hormone replacement therapy cycle in frozen-thawed embryo transfer

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Natural cycle versus hormone replacement therapy cycle in frozen-thawed embryo transfer

Ziya Kalem et al. Saudi Med J. 2018 Nov.

Abstract

To compare implantation rates, clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates associated with natural and hormone replacement therapy (HRT) methods of endometrial preparation in frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles. Methods: The results of 108 natural cycles and 224 HRT cycles of FET transfers performed in a private in vitro fertilization (IVF) center between June 2013 and August 2015 were retrospectively compared with respect to implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and live birth rate. Results: A total of 144 embryos were transferred in 108 natural cycles and 357 embryos were transferred in 224 HRT cycles. No statistically significant differences were found in the implantation rate (p=0.796), clinical pregnancy rate per cycle (p=0.900), clinical pregnancy rate per transferred embryo (p=0.283), live birth rate per cycle (p=0.821), or live birth rate per transferred embryo (p=0.481) between the 2 groups. Conclusion: This study showed no difference between the implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate or live birth rate between the natural cycle group and HRT cycle group. These results may provide clinicians with more freedom to individualize patient treatment, particularly with respect to the selection of the endometrial preparation method, if these results are supported by large randomized controlled studies in the future.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Trounson A, Mohr L. Human pregnancy following cryopreservation, thawing and transfer of an eight-cell embryo. Nature. 1983;305:707–709. - PubMed
    1. Ferraretti AP, Goossens V, Kupka M, Bhattacharya S, de Mouzon J, Castilla JA, Partnerschaft S. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2009:results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Human Reprod. 2013;28:2318–2331. - PubMed
    1. Crawford S, Boulet SL, Kawwass JF, Jamieson DJ, Kissin DM. Cryopreserved oocyte versus fresh oocyte assisted reproductive technology cycles, United States, 2013. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:110–118. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ghobara T, Vanderkerchove P. Cycle regimens for frozen thawed embryo transfer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(1):CD003414. - PubMed
    1. Groenewoud ER, Cantineau AE, Kollen BJ, Macklon NS, Cohlen BJ. What is the optimal means of preparing the endometrium in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19:458–470. - PubMed

Publication types