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
. 2022 Jan-Mar;23(1):46-53.
doi: 10.18502/jri.v23i1.8452.

A Comparative Analysis of Outcomes Between Two Different Intramuscular Progesterone Preparations in Women Undergoing Frozen Embryo Transfer Cycles

Affiliations

A Comparative Analysis of Outcomes Between Two Different Intramuscular Progesterone Preparations in Women Undergoing Frozen Embryo Transfer Cycles

Srividya Seshadri et al. J Reprod Infertil. 2022 Jan-Mar.

Abstract

Background: The purpose of the current study was to assess if luteal support with intramuscular (IM) 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC) (Lentogest, IBSA, Italy) improves the pregnancy outcome in comparison to natural intramuscular progesterone (Prontogest, AMSA, Italy) when administered to recipients in a frozen embryo transfer cycle.

Methods: A retrospective comparative study was performed to evaluate outcomes between two different intramuscular regimens used for luteal support in frozen embryo transfer cycles in patients underwent autologous in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles (896 IVF cycles) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) who had a blastocyst transfer from February 2014 to March 2017 at the Centre for Reproductive and Genetic Health (CRGH) in London.

Results: The live birth rates were significantly lower for the IM natural progesterone group when compared to 17-OHPC group (41.8% vs. 50.9%, adjusted OR of 0.63 (0.31-0.91)). The miscarriage rates were significantly lower in the 17-OHPC group compared to the IM natural progesterone group (14.5% vs. 19.2%, OR of 1.5, 95% CI of 1.13-2.11). The gestational age at birth and birth weight were similar in both groups (p=0.297 and p=0.966, respectively).

Conclusion: It is known that both intramuscular and vaginal progesterone preparations are the standard of care for luteal phase support in women having frozen embryo transfer cycles. However, there is no clear scientific consensus regarding the optimal luteal support. In this study, it was revealed that live birth rates are significantly higher in women who received artificial progesterone compared to women who received natural progesterone in frozen embryo transfer cycles.

Keywords: Frozen embryo transfer cycles; Luteal support; Progesterone.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Trouson A, Moher L. Human pregnancy following cryopreservation, thawing and transfer of an eight-cell embryo. Nature. 1983;305(5936):707–9. - PubMed
    1. Loutradi KE, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Papanikolaou EG, Pados G, Bontis I, et al. Cryopreservation of human embryos by vitrifaication or slow freezing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(1):186–93. - PubMed
    1. Roque M, Lattes K, Serra S, Solà I, Geber S, Carreras R, et al. Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(1):156–62. - PubMed
    1. Li Z, Wang YA, Ledger W, Edgar DH, Sullivan EA. Clinical outcomes following cryopreservation of blastocysts by vitrification or slow freezing: a population-based cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(12):2794–801. - PubMed
    1. Özgür K, Berkkanoğlu M, Bulut H, Isikli A, Coetzee K. Higher clinical pregnancy rates from frozen-thawed blastocyst transfers compared to fresh blastocyst transfers: a retrospective matched-cohort study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(10):1483–90. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources